Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Blocked in Brazil

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the down-with-love dept.

The Internet 387

keeboo writes "The popular video sharing site YouTube is now blocked in Brazil due to a local court decision last Thursday. The site was ordered to block the uploaded sex videos of Brazilian media starlet Daniela Cicarelli and, although it complied, many users kept re-uploading it to the site. After the failure of YouTube to keep the video off of the site, the domain was blocked nationwide at a DNS level. Predictably, many Brazilians are annoyed and I've started to receive even SPAMs protesting on this blocking. From the article: 'The case now goes automatically to a three-member panel of judges who will decide whether to make the order permanent and whether to fine YouTube as much as US$119,000 (euro91,000) for each day the video was viewable, said Rubens Decousseau Tilkian.'"

cancel ×

387 comments

Of course! (4, Funny)

Jason Straight (58248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494260)

Of course they are all angry it's blocked! They want to see the damn video!

Work around? (5, Insightful)

swimin (828756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494262)

If it was really on blocked at the DNS level, wouldn't running your own DNS server work? If youtube IP blocks were blocked, then obviously something more complicated would be needed. What about a proxy?

Re:Work around? (2, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494450)

http://www.opendns.com/

Silly politicians, thinking they can block by hostname and keep the server inaccessable...

Only effective way to do it is by IP, and then you have to be sure to watch for IP changes.

Re:Work around? (5, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494660)

After all, the Intarnet was designed to route pr0n around a nuclear war--it has special tubes for that!

Re:Work around? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494708)

You can just use your own cache, you don't need to use something like opendns. Unless all of the isp's are using transparent DNS proxies this will work just fine.

Re:Work around? (5, Informative)

andreum (131900) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494688)

No, it was not a DNS block. Brasil Telecom (serving south, center-west and part of the north) blocked it, probably using route or packet filters against youtube IP addresses.

There was a judge that ordered the video down and the remedy was decided by a justice from a state supreme court. Only it seems that the justice thought that he was ordering only the video down, because it seems he was told that carriers would just have to implement filters, which they are capable of doing (they are). According to an interview he gave, he thinks that those filters would only block that video.

I wrote about that in my crappy vox blog here [vox.com] .

Re:Work around? (3, Informative)

odasnac (570543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494724)

at the moment, getting to the site is irrelevant; it seems youtube doesn't want to search on 'cicarelli': http://youtube.com/results?search_query=cicarelli& search=Search [youtube.com]

uh, i was checking for research purposes.

Re:Work around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494776)

*All* searches are blocked at youtube at this time--

What's more frightening (2, Insightful)

gerf (532474) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494768)

Is that they so easily did this. There had to have been someone, somewhere, or something with a plan already in place to block specific Internet traffic from Brazil. It's not China fer Chrissakes!

The inevietable obligatory question. (3, Interesting)

DragonPup (302885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494270)

Working link? :p

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (2, Informative)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494282)

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494440)

Heavens, it appears that my wee-wee has been stricken with rigamortis

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (2, Insightful)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494448)

Bah, it doesn't even have anything explicit (other than a very blurry image of a couple making out in skimpy clothes).

And almost all of it seems to have taken place at public places (i.e. beaches, parties etc.)

Isn't there a law (at least in the US) which states that you can't dispute against something that's been videotaped or photographed in a public place?

I mean, if you are going to do things out in public and a video of it appeared somewhere, is it necessarily wrong?

If you're that particular, get a damn room. Gee.

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (3, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494618)

I think the problem revolves around the quickness of the sex. I dunno if it was just editing or if it was realy over that fast but it probably embarassed her and her boy/guy about how quick it was over with.

I think it was the editing. That or she is missing out on something.

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (4, Informative)

oddsends (867975) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494646)

Keytimes:
2:26
4:07

It was pretty obvious what was going on in the water. (that's probably why they went in the water)

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494786)

Sure, I mean it was pretty suggestive - but you don't really see anything (well, other than what probably is the guy's wanker).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing explicit being shown, and so why go through all the trouble, especially when it's all being done out in public?

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (4, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494662)

Bah, it doesn't even have anything explicit (other than a very blurry image of a couple making out in skimpy clothes).

And almost all of it seems to have taken place at public places (i.e. beaches, parties etc.)

I believe that wearing skimpy clothing to the beach is considered very scandalous in Brazil.

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494470)

Is that all?

So where's the money shot?

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494508)

Now you did it! They'll block Google too!

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (5, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494624)

This one is much better:
More fun to watch [google.com]

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494652)

Indeed!

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (2, Funny)

kalpaha (667921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494686)

I thought whoever filmed the first video was a creepy stalker. Well, the new video [google.com] takes creepiness to a whole new level. What are those things in the movie anyway?

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494758)

Aedes aegypti [qld.gov.au] ? I think they were talking about Dengue Fever in it.

Re:The inevietable obligatory question. (1)

Zebai (979227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494654)

I can't help but imagine that the very existence of this court order will in fact, make the video more popular than ever. These people don't seem to learn if you don't bring attention to something in this manner it usually will quietly fade and after a month, maybe 6 months, while it will still be available for the searching, it will be mostly forgotten.

Brazil who??? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494276)

Where is this place? Do they even exist? What do they export? Brazilians?

Re:Brazil who??? (1, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494446)

What do they export?

Nigger Toes [typepad.com]

Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494278)

If I were Google/YouTube I would respond: "F*** Brazil. The rest of the world will advance without you."

Is this really You-tubes fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494286)

No, the way that I see it is that they have attempted to remove the vidio, but failed due to some users reposting the vidio posibly under a differnt title. I don't know that there is any easy way to stop this type of problem.

For the next time... (3, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494296)

Try not make love in front of masses of people on a public beach.

Not so sure... (4, Funny)

srgvie (1047920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494298)

I'm not sure about this post.Im accessing youtube right now.

Re:Not so sure... (1)

PoloniumSandwich (1035998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494326)

And you're in Brazil? It's surprising how much "star power" there apparently is there.

Re:Not so sure... (3, Informative)

srgvie (1047920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494360)

Yes, I'm in Brazil and I can access youtube normally.

Re:Not so sure... (3, Funny)

keeboo (724305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494478)

Yes, I'm in Brazil and I can access youtube normally.

No problem, no need to worry.
Please provide me your IP and I'll gladly forward it to the authorities so they can fix that.

Re:Not so sure... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494602)

Sure! It's 127.0.0.1!

Re:Not so sure... (2, Insightful)

rednaxel (532554) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494692)

I'm in Brazil too, it works fine. But I'm making another backup of the video, just in case.

I can access it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494420)

I can get to youtube.com no problem, but fortunately I have javascript and extensions disabled so I don't have to watch any of the videos.

Maybe Brazil accidentally blocked utube.com instead. Poor poor utube.com.

Re:Not so sure... (3, Interesting)

michelcultivo (524114) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494444)

I'm from Brazil and it's working ver fine (my IP is 201.92.3.130).

Re:Not so sure... (1)

aka.Daniel'Z (586849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494650)

It's not working here (RS). Which ISP do you use?

Re:Not so sure... (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494656)

Now if you could provide your DNS IP, there's a chance you'll do a great favor to all of us.

Re:Not so sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494702)

200.204.0.10 is working fine

Re:Not so sure... (1)

michelcultivo (524114) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494750)

I'm using root servers to browser the web, but I've done tests with the biggest ISPs here in Brazil and all DNS are resolving www.youtube.com fine.
This is a list of brazilian's ISP DNS servers: http://www.abusar.org/dns.html [abusar.org]

Funny (1, Insightful)

Quzak (1047922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494312)

I find it damn funny that a foreign country seems to think that it has power over a US company. Seems to be happening alot lately too. Welcome all to topsy-turvey world! p.s. The video has be preserved for posterity and their refusal to accept this only makes people like me want to rub their noses in it.

Re:Funny (4, Insightful)

Jason Straight (58248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494340)

Why not? Look at the example we set when we allow charges to be pressed in NY against Russian companies, RIAA vs AllofMP3.

Re:Funny (1)

Quzak (1047922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494406)

I know, and its really stupid. Power and position in one government/society does not transfer to an equal place in another government/society.

Party ABC in Country 1 should not be allowed to sue Party XYZ in Country 2. It makes enforcement tricky and causes diplomatic nightmares.

Re:Funny (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494500)

It makes enforcement tricky and causes diplomatic nightmares.

And lots of money changes hands. Another windfall for lawyers and bureaucrats.

Re:Funny (1)

Quzak (1047922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494518)

Ok lets say Governmental/Economic/Diplomatic/Legal nightmares.

Re:Funny (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494586)

What are you talking about? It creates an ebb and flow of capital. Everybody skims a little and that's how profits are made. I'll grant that nothing useful comes of it. But the manufacturers of luxury goods are doing quite nicely because of it. Money is like the ocean. It must circulate or it becaomes stagnant and everything within it dies.

Re:Funny (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494538)

This is a different thing. In your case we have one company suing another because the violating company sells copyrighted material online. Whether you agree with this or not, what is important is that both the US and Russia have copyright laws and a treaty saying that they will both enforce those laws.

In this case, with the sex on the beach, we have Brazil telling a foreign company that they can't post videos online when there is no treaty governing this material between Brazil and the US (nor can there be because of the very broad interpretation of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution). If the US agreed to a treaty with Brazil that you couldn't post videos of celebrities having sex on a beach (and it was somehow found constitutional) then this case would be internationally valid. The only thing that this case is showing is that Brazil feels that it has the right to benefit from foreign companies and at the same time unilaterally censor them. While Brazil certainly has the sovereign right to enforce its own laws, I certainly hope that IT companies will think twice before investing in Brazil in the future.

Re:Funny (4, Informative)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494370)

I find it damn funny that a foreign country seems to think that it has power over a US company.
I find it damn funny that a US company seems to think it has power over a foreign country.Examples: Take your pick from EA, Microsoft, **AA, and any of the other US entities that have tried suing The Pirate Bay.

Re:Funny (2, Informative)

Quzak (1047922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494498)

Exactly, the door swings both ways. Parties in CountryA shouldnt beable to sue Parties in CountryB. Since we are not in a One World Government, it would only cause diplomatic problems and anamosity for all parties involved both directly and indirectly.

Re:Funny (4, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494640)

Considering Google has offices in brazil, I doubt the requests were even imposed across country boundries. The demand was probbly placed on the brazilian offices and let go at that. In that case, google (youtube) would be just as bound anywere it had offices because the brazil entity would/could be screwed.

Agreed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494388)

People are so weird. While I am aware of the social and economic problems that sexual promiscuity can cause (disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc.), the fact remains that most of the living creatures on the planet have sex, including most humans. We are built for it and driven to it. It's just a simple fact of life. I really honestly don't understand why we think it is so horrible to capture it on film. If you don't like watching, then don't watch.

If the video was filmed without her (and his) consent, then I will say too bad. If you are in public, people can see you. If you don't want to be filmed, get a room.

Re:Agreed (1, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494610)

the fact remains that most of the living creatures on the planet have sex, including most humans. We are built for it and driven to it.

      You're new here, aren't you?

hmm.. not exactly (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494412)

I find it damn funny that a foreign country seems to think that it has power over a US company.

I'm not sure of which part of the news you're referring to.
If you mean the fines, that's really weird indeed. Unless YouTube has a branch in Brazil (though I've never heard about such thing).

Regarding the dns.br blocking, that's perfectly within Brazilian juristiction.

Re:hmm.. not exactly (1)

Quzak (1047922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494452)

Sure, if they want to block the DNS yea they are within their rights to do so. At the sametime it shows that they are engaging in censorship (which tends to upset people that are being kept from what they want - not that most governments care).

As for the fines, all I have to say is "yea right". Just try to enforce it (Easy if they have a Brazil branch but they do not), although im sure YouTube/Google would pay up just to play nice.

Personally I would flip Brazil the finger and laugh. An the ironic part is, nobody would know if Brazil didnt put up a fuss and this precious video would have faded into obscurity instead of being a spotlight item.
GG Brazil, GG

Not really power (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494488)

If you look at all the crap that the french and other countries have done, is not so much to really block them, but to fine them. They are all looking to hit the deep pockets of Google.
  All in all, I seriously doubt that even one judge thinks that Google has done wrong on any of these cases.

Re:Funny (3, Informative)

DeKO (671377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494524)

Some interesting points:

I'm accessing youtube from Brazil right now. The judge's decision was not clear as to wheter only the video be censored for Brazil, or the whole site be blocked. Cicarelli's lawyer seems to think that the whole site should be blocked from all the 8 backbones that serve internet connectivity to Brazil. Nobody else seems to interpret the judge's decision that way. This issue will be clarified monday.

Renato Malzoni Filho is from a very rich and influent family (go figure). They are in fact fighting against any common sense, everybody in the media is saying how absurd is to try to block a whole site in the whole country. It could backfire. In fact, it already did; everyone in Brazil is downloading said video from other sources just because it was on the news.

The video is pretty boring, there are much more hardcore stuffs on brazilian dramas.

Re:Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494552)

Lol! Like Oil Companies and gas prices? Funny! Yeah!

Re:Funny (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494574)

The video has be preserved for posterity and their refusal to accept this only makes people like me want to rub their noses in it.

which ia precisely why it is becoming more difficult to find refuge in some foreign jurisdiction. arrogance wins you no friends. you want to maintain a presence in Brazil, you respect Brazilian law and customs.

Re:Funny (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494696)

I find it damn funny that a foreign country seems to think that it has power over a US company. Seems to be happening alot lately too. Welcome all to topsy-turvey world! p.s. The video has be preserved for posterity and their refusal to accept this only makes people like me want to rub their noses in it.

You mean just like the US thinks it has power over Russian companies? I'm sure you consider many of the actions silly, but on a general basis how the heck else are they going to enforce laws? Just ignore that the Internet is there, and that everyone is using foreign servers to undermine the law and the courts? They certainly get burned on the stake if they want to enforce them abroad. So they can either cut off access at the border, which is exactly what they have done, or they can just throw up their hands and say "it's anarchy, the law isn't worth the paper it's written on". If youtube is serving something that is illegal in Brazil, then it certainly is legitimate to block access to that site. Once you start doing business in brazil (ad revenue is business), then you're going to have to deal with local law no matter where you're incorporated.

Re:Funny (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494712)

What makes you think they feel they have power over a US company?

THey have power over their own ISPs and infrastructure, and can block what they want within their own legal framework, no "authority" over US companies required.

I won't mention how hypocritical your post sounds given the propensity of the US government to do *exactly* this.

Re:Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494730)

wow what a dork you must me. no wonder you have 9 Elevens ...

Re:Funny (1)

Konster (252488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494752)

AllofMp3 thinks this is funny, too.

YouTube (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494322)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:YouTube (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494374)

Judging by the number of times this has been posted, Stephen King has died thousands of times over the past 6 or 7 years... Stop already, will you?

Re:YouTube (0, Offtopic)

Chimera512 (910750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494438)

what? I've never read his work but I hadn't heard this and I can't dig up an actual new item on this...are ACs on /. really that far ahead of the curve? can anyone confirm this?

Re:YouTube (1)

Thalagyrt (851883) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494484)

Heh, replied to the AC one just a few minutes before you did. This has been posted on slashdot and many other places hundreds of times in the past 6 or 7 years... When the man actually passes away, I'm sure it will make headlines. But for now, it hasn't and it won't because he hasn't passed away.

Incorrect Article Link? (1)

rabryan21 (1024373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494328)

The linked article mentions nothing about Youtube being blocked in Brazil. It only states that Youtube has removed the video numerous times.

It is not blocked! (2, Interesting)

jorlando (145683) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494344)

It is a problem with people accessing through Brasil Telecom's network (one of the brazilian telcos). Since their DNS aren't recursive I couldn't check if this a DNS problem or a network problem.

Daniela Cicarelli eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494356)

Who is she? I guess I'll have to do a search...

DNS Cache (1)

mistralol (987952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494358)


Intresting i wonder how they managed to block all local DNS cache's on the internet in brazil and more importantly how they are actually going to enforce this block.

If the internet works as advertised (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494382)

Won't the Brazilians be able to route around their malfunctioning DNS servers?

Re:If the internet works as advertised (1)

aka.Daniel'Z (586849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494434)

I'm trying to, but I don't remember any DNS server outside of Brazil - it's been years since I had a use for one...

Can anyone suggest a DNS server or IP address for www.youtube.com?

Re:If the internet works as advertised (3, Informative)

jrockway (229604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494472)

www.youtube.com has address 208.65.153.251
www.youtube.com has address 208.65.153.253
www.youtube.com has address 208.65.153.241
www.youtube.com has address 208.65.153.242
www.youtube.com has address 208.65.153.245

Re:If the internet works as advertised (1)

aka.Daniel'Z (586849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494526)

Thanks!

The result:

C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc>ping www.youtube.com

Pinging www.youtube.com [208.65.153.251] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 208.65.153.251:
        Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc>telnet www.youtube.com 80
Connecting To www.youtube.com...Could not open connection to the host, on port 8
0: Connect failed

C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc>telnet 208.65.153.251 80
Connecting To 208.65.153.251...Could not open connection to the host, on port 80
: Connect failed

Dammit!

Re:If the internet works as advertised (3, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494530)

For Windows users, the quick and dirty way to make use of these would be to add one to your C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file. It's plain text so open it in Notepad or something. There's some documentation included in it. Changes take effect immediately once you save the file.

Re:If the internet works as advertised (2, Informative)

aka.Daniel'Z (586849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494588)

Thats what I did, but it didn't work, as you can see in my other post (sibling to yours). I can't even ping or telnet (port 80) to one of the IPs. Seems the traffic is blocked.

Re:If the internet works as advertised (4, Informative)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494578)

4.2.2.2 is a good, easy-to-remember DNS server.

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.youtube.com
Addresses: 208.65.153.245, 208.65.153.251, 208.65.153.253, 208.65.153.241
                    208.65.153.242

Re:If the internet works as advertised (1)

aka.Daniel'Z (586849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494626)

Thanks for the DNS address. I removed the IP from the hosts file and changed my connection's DNS server, but it won't work anyway. The traffic seems to be blocked by Brasil Telecom. I wonder if anyone with a GVT connection (other telco here) can reach the server...

Use a proxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494704)

Www.proxy.org has a nice list.

You'll need to find one that doesn't block javascript.

First person to find one that works pleas post here.

Only 119,000 a day? (4, Funny)

canyon289 (848746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494408)

In international news, The Brazilian goverment has just recieved 10 shares of Google.

Intranet Brazil (2, Insightful)

michelcultivo (524114) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494422)

And the project "Intranet Brazil" starts.

TFA doesn't mention DNS? (1)

newsdee (629448) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494486)

I don't think I've seen DNS mentioned on TFA. Did a quick search and got nothing.
The article says that Youtube took down the video...

Publicity stunt? (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494494)

Brazilian media starlet Daniela Cicarelli

If she's merely a starlet, isn't it probable that this is all just a publicity stunt to help thrust herself into full-blown stardom?

Re:Publicity stunt? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494632)

If she's merely a starlet, isn't it probable that this is all just a publicity stunt to help thrust herself into full-blown stardom?

      I think it's the guy who was doing the thrusting into the starlet. And why not?!?

Re:Publicity stunt? (1)

GeorgeS069 (956679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494706)

hehehehe....he said Thrust and Blown

As a brazillian (luckily ouside the country) (3, Insightful)

cadu (876004) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494496)

I can't stop reiterating how the brazillian government and laws work in such a way they're always focused
on proving that law works (specially if it involves a personality or something that could have a world impact, like a sex video of
a famous brazillian star (that everyone has already viewed anyway)) while the semi-analphabet President keeps getting re-elected,
while the parliament keeps voting (under winning majority, of course) their own promotions and their own extended vacations, while people are struggling to get jobs or grounded at their homes while criminals lurk freely in the city at anytime....

"Brasil", *please* change for the good of your people, everytime you guys go investigate the flamed nail of a governor's wife a person dies or gets murdered

thank you for showing again that our country (even with loads of raw materials, opportunity from external companies, massive workforce) is still not ready for raising the bar. thank you :(

Re:As a brazillian (luckily ouside the country) (2, Insightful)

keeboo (724305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494634)

I think the real problem is that the court decided that it wasn't right to display that video, which was recorded in a public place.
I mean, c'mon, it's not like someone broke into her house to record some private sex.

The following actions were technically correct, but were made over a bad decision.

An exercise in herding cats (4, Insightful)

NorbrookC (674063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494516)

Is an apt metaphor for this. My goodness, a well-known (sort of) "celebrity" gets videotaped having sex and somehow the video makes itself public! Shocked, shocked I am, that this would happen! You'd think that with so many of these incidents in the past that they might become just a bit cautious. Really, how hard is it to follow the simple ideas of:

a) Don't videotape yourself having sex.

b) If you do, invest in a safe. A very good one.

c) Don't have sex in public. No, really, people have cellphones now to shoot footage of interesting things like that, besides the ever-popular video cameras.

d) If you break up with someone, and you've taped yourselves having sex, get the tapes before walking out!

Because once it's out, it's out. Court orders, forcing various sites to remove it just don't work. All it does is add to the publicity. I'd be willing to bet that within a week (if that) you'll see the video all over the binary groups, P2P networks, bittorrent, and various pr0n sites. Blocking one site is simply an attempt to bail out the Titanic with a bucket - nice try, but it won't work.

Hah (0, Redundant)

CiXeL (56313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494528)

Freedom of Speech Bitches
Suck it Brazil

The hormones made me do it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494544)

"The site was ordered to block the uploaded sex videos of Brazilian media starlet Daniela Cicarelli and, although it complied, many users kept re-uploading it to the site. After the failure of YouTube to keep the video off of the site, the domain was blocked nationwide at a DNS level. Predictably, many Brazilians are annoyed and I've started to receive even SPAMs protesting on this blocking."

In other words "many users" uploaded a video (wonder if they asked permission first?) to a publically traded companie's site. Said company voluntarily tried to take it down, and the "many 'annoyed' users" said we don't care about you or her, we want sex. Brazil (remember NOT the US) enforced the right to control their borders. Said publically traded company is no longer in the picture because they did what they could, but have no control over Brazil or their "many users."

Seems like this should be on the Brazillian slashdot.

Is it even possible for YouTube to comply? (2, Insightful)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494568)

They can blacklist her name and all the various permutations that crop up, employ measures similar to the copyright enforcement they're still working on by attempting to automatically recognize the particular video, and on and on. People will still find ways to put it right back. It's going to be an endless cat and mouse game. Can anyone else think of a way to realistically keep the video off YouTube without moderating the whole shooting match?

The real problem is that their are thousands, if not millions of people whose attention is fixated on this video and they'll keep trying to distribute it. The only way this is going to go away is when people lose interest . . . which isn't going to happen any time soon now that there's constant media coverage because she was foolish enough to file suit. Daniela's best bet is to get over herself and take advantage of the fact she's now a world-wide household name. Paris Hilton wasn't nearly as famous until her sex tapes and look at how much she's been raking in ever since. Welcome to celebrity, Daniela--your privacy is now forfeit.

Is it even possible to have privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494718)

"Welcome to celebrity, Daniela--your privacy is now forfeit."

Maybe the more important issue here isn't Brazillian censorship, but should celebrities (that includes royalty) expect privacy to begin with?

Weak Video (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494584)

I don't see what the issue with the video is, I was waiting for a shark to eat them to spice it up a bit.

Of course we're angry (4, Interesting)

T'r'i'g'g'e'r'H'a'p' (1047926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494608)

Here in Brasil we've got the crappiest Tv on the face of earth. For example there is a Mexican show called "Chaves" that is on air for more then a decade. And one of the latest most watched TV shows is Woody Woodpecker. This video is on the net for months and nothing was done. Maybe it is the tv channels trying to ban all the alternatives. And by the way, I can still watch YouTube.

They haven't grasped the concept of "Internet"... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17494700)

Information spreads. Mirrors [xtremes.net] are available.

AP can't say "kiss and have sex"? (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494714)

From the article: wildly popular video showing Cicarelli and Brazilian banker Renato Malzoni making out along a beach near the Spanish city of Cadiz.

Uh, if you look at the video [google.com] (thanks to fellow slashdotters), they do a lot more than "make out".

Talk about PC bullshit...the video clearly shows them having sex in the water. Or is the AP full of very, very naive reporters? Or do Brazilians have a very loose definition of the term "make out"? :-)

Brazilian Media says the blacklist is not true (4, Informative)

origamy (807009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494726)

According to the Brazilian media, the local courts have only asked Youtube to remove the video. There is no DNS blacklist or anything like that.

Read yourself (in Portuguese) at Folha de Sao Paulo [uol.com.br] or, use Google Translator [google.com] to translate it.

"The version of that all the YouTube would have of being removed of air arrived to be propagated by some Brazilian sites and international agencies in the thursday, but it was contradicted by the Court of Justice. Justice only determined that the YouTube hinders the propagation it video with Daniela Cicarelli."

Solution: (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17494760)

Pull the video from your cache
Burn it to DVD and copy x times
Pass out free copies of the video on the street and offer them for free in every public place you possibly can.

If you don't have access to dvds or don't want to pay for them, them simply print up fliers with a URL where the video can be downloaded and they can burn it and pass it out themselves.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...