Slashdot Mirror


French Court Orders Search Engines, ISPs To Block Pirate Sites

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."

22 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.

    1. Re:Then 17 new ones appeared... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      Actually, we're talking about France. It's unlikely that the streaming services will adapt just to suit the French market, unless they're French streaming sites. More likely, people will stop watching the streaming services and move to consuming via Youtube (which yes, is still a streaming service) or TPB. Ordering Google to block Youtube isn't going to go over so well.

  2. So French by fred911 · · Score: 2

    The ruling is akin to a newspaper publishing locations of any illegal activity. Such as on Main and 5th people are selling their bodies or drugs. So stupid.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:So French by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "So French"

      We do have to look at this news through the 'french' lens...their courts and legal system are Kafkaesque (ha!)

      will the block go into effect immediately or is this conditional upon appeal to a higher court before it goes into effect?

      it's dumb of course, as another poster said they'll just use different URL's or imbed the players in other sites...

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    2. Re:So French by robmv · · Score: 2

      In the countries that accept those copyright laws

  3. 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 serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

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

      And an unwillingness to actually take money in exchange for giving a good product. I.e. a file, unecumbered which you can play anywhere like music is now.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. 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.

  4. 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.

    1. Re:Misguided Authority Rules Again by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 2

      It needs to transform itself. I only go to a cinema to watch blockbusters (yeah I'm getting old) and 3D stuff. Otherwise I am happy waiting for a decent DVD rip to download. Why download it if it's on DVD? Because of the stupid ass release zones crap. By the time it's released in my zone I I have watched it already. Why go buy it? Why they are still adhering to that antiquated model I don't know. Just so you know, I would go buy it instead of downloading it. I have a nice collection of my favourite movies. If they released a movie say about 1 month after release worldwide they would make a ton of money. If you haven't gone to watch a movie after it's been on circuit for 1 month then your aren't going to watch it on the big screen.

      Video stores are dying. The next death will be the cinema's. Sure you will have some due to the more social aspect of meeting up with friends to watch a movie, but with big ass 3D tv screens and surround sound systems why not watch at home? (yeah I'm getting old).

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    2. Re:Misguided Authority Rules Again by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Before Gutenberg it was very hard to in principle prevent a monk to "pirate" a book for you. Same goes for after Gutenberg and hiring a printing press to make "pirate" copies for you. I'm not so sure if it changed with the first Xerox machine or not. Let's face it, for most of human history preventing most of the people most of the time has been good enough. Computers kind of blew the lid on that, if you were following other conventions they'd be Weapons of Mass Infringement. It's rather hard to accept the whack-a-mole won't work when it's worked so well in the 500+ last years. I don't expect things to change much until the pre-Internet generation is dead.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  5. Re:All I can say to this is... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wanted the list of the sites...

  6. I have a crazy idea! by wertigon · · Score: 2

    So, we all know that these sites basicly ammounts to free advertising for their counterparts, right?

    The industry believes (publicly atleast) that less piracy means more sales.

    Numerous studies however have shown that less piracy means less sales.

    So, by pirating we're actually supporting these bastards hell-bent on suing the crap out of us, the consumers.

    Therefore, here is my idea; let's stop pirating. Let's stop enjoying mainstream media. Let's stop reccomending it, talking about it - unless it's free to download, of course. Then see how long Hollywood can keep it up.

    Let's give them the nightmare they deserve, shall we?

    --
    systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
  7. Re:"Blocked by region" page by penix1 · · Score: 2

    An even better way was stated above. Remove the links as ordered and while they are at it remove any and all links to the complainant's sites. Turn them into the black hole of the Internet.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  8. This is the future. Boot. Face. Police state net. by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It will come to every ISP on the planet. The curtain is falling. To monitor sexual thought, "national security", enforcement of eternally granted imaginary property, blasphemy, badthink, The Children, and any other damned thing they can think of, we are going for full metal police state. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a prison and they are sounding the bell for final lockup. Tech solutions will be temporary at best because they will be declared illegal, or compromised, as soon as they pop up.

    -toldyaso

  9. Actually, it is quite sensible order by janoc · · Score: 5, Informative

    In fact, the order is not as bad as some of the similar ones from the past. The original article is here (in French):
    http://www.pcinpact.com/news/84642-la-justice-ordonne-blocage-galaxie-allostreaming.htm

    The court ruled that the ISPs and search engines have 15 days to block the sites listed in the article and the order is in force for 12 months afterwards.

    However, here is the kicker: the court ruled that the right holders are to pay the bill for the implementation of the blocks, the ISPs are not being asked to do it on their own dime. So carpet bombing the courts with poorly researched URLs to block could get really expensive ...

    1. Re:Actually, it is quite sensible order by sixsixtysix · · Score: 2

      they should charge 50% of the supposed losses

      --
      ...
  10. Re:No by ihtoit · · Score: 2

    Reefer Madness was 1936. Jussayin'. :)

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  11. Oh, no, what will people do... by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

    ... when they have to type in "thepiratebay.org" by hand into the address bar?

  12. Streaming sites will always have visitors by tlambert · · Score: 2

    I don't think it's so much about Facebook = the global water cooler" (what a terrible analogy! I'm sure Facebook corporate loves it...).

    Some people are simply not going to pay to access your content, and you can shut down every channel possible (you can't, it's an impossible to achieve goal from a technology standpoint), and doing that is not going to convert these people into your customers. This is a "look at all the money we COULD be making IF ONLY these people were willing to pay for our product, which we are SURE they WOULD, if the only way to see the next episode of our reality TV series was to pay us for it!" argument. It's an invalid argument.

  13. In Related News... by cffrost · · Score: 2

    PARIS — In a bizarre victory for the French imaginary property industry, a French court has ruled that the deck chairs on the RMS Titanic are to be rearranged, effective immediately. In an effort to comply with the court's order, French and US authorities are negotiating the extradition of director/enthusiast James Cameron and his personal submarine — capable of both reaching the Titanic and rearranging her deckchairs via robotic claw — to the icy North Atlantic, where the ill-fated symbol of man's hubris sunk nearly one US-copyright-term-length ago.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan