Forum Moderators: not2easy
Following on from the ruling against YouTube in the case brought against them by Daniela Cicarelli, the BBC has published an informative article exploring the difficulties inherent in seeking to stop distribution of video content online.
Few people would regard judges as high-priests of hi-tech but they do seem to have recognised... the near impossibility of trying to stop illicitly taken photos or video circulating online.The latest ruling, following legal action begun by lawyers acting only for Mr Malzoni, demands that YouTube find ways of permanently stopping the video being uploaded.
Included in this ruling were fixed line phone firms some of whom are now reported to be blocking all access to YouTube. However, the clip is known to be on many other websites, available on file-sharing networks and is being passed around via e-mail.
The broader ban was brought about in case YouTube failed to find a way to stop users uploading the clip.
Further, the article goes on to state:
A trio of Brazilian judges are reviewing the judgement to decide whether to make it permanent and whether to fine the video-sharing site... the claim for damages hinges on whether the Brazilian court has jurisdiction in the US where YouTube's servers are located.In similar cases in the UK, British courts have said they have jurisdiction anywhere in the world.
The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act absolves all net companies from the need to police content as it is uploaded.
That last part seems interesting and offers ramifications, although that's relative to my limited understanding: if the Brazilian judges uphold the ruling, will this override the protection afforded by the DMCA?
From the BBC [news.bbc.co.uk]
Syzygy
