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."

4 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.

  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.