A Brazilian judge has demanded that the nation’s phone companies and ISPs cut off access to YouTube, because a clip of a Brazilian model (left) making love on the beach keeps popping up there against his orders.
The words "finger" and "dike" come to mind obviously, but the report also shows exactly why Google should not have bought YouTube in the first place.
Censors seek leverage. Google offers leverage. The Judge could easily extend his ban from YouTube alone to Google generally. So could any other judge who finds something on YouTube they don’t want to stay there there.
A quick note. The woman’s name is Daniela Cicarelli and I’m certain the video looks just like any other 20-something having sex on the beach. This obsession with watching celebrities do it is, to my mind, silly. But so it goes…now back to our story.
Little guys can go under, and their loss is not noticed. When Google
goes away, people notice. So from that standpoint it’s a policy good
that Google is so directly threatened by what its users are doing,
apparently without its knowledge or consent.
Seen from the point of
view of the Internet, the whole thing is silly. A year or so ago this
video would have been Torrented and there would be nothing the judge
could do — word of it could spread via e-mail, people would transfer
it PC to PC, and there would be no way to track, no one to punish. Those without a technical Clue might have to wind up paying some who did, but that’s about it.
And if that’s the difference between today and yesterday, then it’s
obvious progress has, in fact, taken a big step backward with the
Google-YouTube deal. The legal system has not yet grown to handle it.
And until it does big guys should stay away.
I don’t see how YouTube is the specific problem here. The very fact that you can use Google to search out this type of content makes it a potential target in any type of rule making having to do with the Internet. The truth is that Google is already intrinsic to many peoples’ Internet experience and the ability of the non-technically savy to distinguish it as a separate application is dubious.
I don’t see how YouTube is the specific problem here. The very fact that you can use Google to search out this type of content makes it a potential target in any type of rule making having to do with the Internet. The truth is that Google is already intrinsic to many peoples’ Internet experience and the ability of the non-technically savy to distinguish it as a separate application is dubious.