Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Court Orders Search Engines, ISPs To Block Pirate Sites

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-can't-get-there-from-here dept.

rtoz sends word that a French court has ordered Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft to remove 16 unauthorized video streaming sites from their search results. Many ISPs were also ordered to block access to the sites. According to TorrentFreak, "The court ruled that the film industry had clearly demonstrated that the sites in question are 'dedicated or virtually dedicated to the distribution of audiovisual works without the consent of their creators,' thus violating their copyrights. As a result the search services of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and local company Orange are now under orders to 'take all necessary measures to prevent the occurrence on their services of any results referring to any of the pages' on these sites. Several ISPs – Orange, Free, Bouygues Télécom, SFR, Numéricable and Darty Télécom were also ordered to 'implement all appropriate means including blocking' to prevent access to the infringing sites."

5 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Then 17 new ones appeared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... while the old ones continues to operate with bypasses even a 12 year old can figure out.

  2. Maybe if we had respectable copyright laws... by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe if we had respectable copyright laws instead of this Infinity+1 BS.

    But why bother when you can just purchase laws to suit your own monopoly.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:Maybe if we had respectable copyright laws... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree that the copyright term is too long (for that matter, copyright needs to go - distribution rights is what matters), this only has impact on the streaming sites insofar as a user actually saying "because of the ridiculous copyright term, I'm gonna watch this episode of Walking Dead that aired an hour ago."

      Otherwise, the copyright term could be 13 years, 5 years, 1 year or even 1 month.. and the streaming sites would still find themselves with practically the same audience; after all, what good is it to watch an episode 1 month later when everybody at the watercooler (or on your facebook or whatever) is already 3 or even 4 episodes further along?

      A complaint about the lack of appropriate coverage for a global audience would make more sense.

    2. Re:Maybe if we had respectable copyright laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is probably just me being a paranoid crank, but as the **IAA's of the world keep buying up bleeding heart idiots in governments world wide to promote perpetual copyright I have begun wondering about a few things.

      Several noteworthy turns of events have transpired since the "heyday" of internet piracy in the early 90s, back when the "commercial internet" was new. (I am well aware of the net's real age.) Take for instance: The creation of, destruction of, attempted rebirth of, and subsequent failure of Napster.

      It was initially created to facilitate the exchange of MP3 and other media files, citing the onerous copyright terms and costs associated with the monopolistic physical media models used by said "industry associations" at the time. In response, the *IAAs did something kinda clever, and galvanized a number of artists to publicly complain about Napster and filesharing in general. However, they also began knob gobbling senators and congressmen like they were paying homage to priapus of old, and before long we had the DMCA.

      During that time, Napster was forcibly closed down by legal and government pressures, lots of kids and grannies got really stiff legal fines and in some cases, jail time. Later, Napster "Rose from the ashes" so to speak, now claiming to be fully legit-- apparently trying to be what Amazon and iTunes are now, and failing miserably because they were created by and for those same *IAAs, and it was everything the public didnt like, essentially. Better offerings existed, and people ignored it. The consequence was that people once more voiced their public opposition by voting with thier wallets.

      Fast forward a few years, and now we have Netflix. It was a celebrity sensation almost as soon as the doors opened, offering an extensive selection of movies by mail and by internet streaming for a very affordable price point. It sold like fucking hotcakes. Seeing this, the *IAAs and other content producers (and distributors) wanted a slice of the pie, and began what for all the world looks like a concerted effort to sabotage Netflix, refusing to grant them distribution licenses, Pulling licenses that Netflix had already obtained (The STARS content of about 6 years ago, and other times as well, which incidentally coincided with the creation of HBO's own service, HBO Go, and of course, NBC's bologna which was shortly followed by Hulu and Hulu Plus.) Despite these efforts, Netflix's presence in the marketplace dropped the video piracy rates into the goddamn toilet, and to this day still shows growth in stock price and earnings, and continues to offer a beneficial market service.

      Netflix clearly demonstrated that the issue with piracy was 2-fold: Availability, and Affordability. Just like the pirates had said since the goddamn beginning.

      The response from the *IAAs? "Lifetime of the creator plus 70 years isnt enough! OMG! We need it to be LONGER, with STRONGER ENFORCEMENT PRESSURES!"

      Either the *IAAs and their cronies are blind idiots that cant follow the fucking market, (Plausible)-- Or they know full well that they are on the fast track to irrelevancy and are actively conspiring against the public good.

      I strongly suspect that it is the latter. I wonder if a case could be made for RICO like investigation of the *IAAs, if proof of such anticompetative collaboration can be unearthed?

      If so, I wonder what impact that would have on the copyright mess we are increasingly finding ourselves in.

  3. Misguided Authority Rules Again by Unknown1337 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another ridiculous case where the courts attempt to stop a leak by putting a bucket under it; instead of turning off the water. Whether you agree or not with the operation of the sites is not valid in this argument. The entertainment companies can't stop the real problem so they are targeting anyone who makes it easier to find. Perhaps we should think bigger. Sue the entire US government for supporting the Internet because it helps people find search engines which offer routes to illegal content. Or perhaps bigger yet, sue copper manufacturers or OS development companies for without them there would be no reasonable computer access... Just a farce as far as I'm concerned, they can't win the real battle so they'll sabotage anyone they can get their hands on... the media industry needs to grow up.