Hm, BBC said Youtube was forced to remove it, but it is still there. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6233693.stm "The court told YouTube to find a way to permanently block the intimate video from being uploaded on its servers. Inaction could result in a daily fine of $119,000 (£61,300), the couple's lawyer said. YouTube has not commented." Here is the funny part: ""The internet is democratic and has to be defended, but this struggle is to have some level of control to avoid the violations of people's fundamental rights, like privacy and intimacy," Mr Tilkian told AP." Now if you fuck in the ocean in public view, do you still have privacy???
The video is still there. A very good lesson why one should never get married unless she has more money than you have. Otherwise if it floats, flies or fornicates, rent it.
BS: What does marriage have to do with either this video or this story? To the judge apparently still living in the stone age: the video is readily available at 1) Google Video and undoubtedly countless other websites, 2) p2p, 3) bittorrent and 4) usenet. It has probably been downloaded more times since its "release" on Sep. 18, 2006 than there are people in Brazil. The genie is out of the bottle... So, in the real world we live in today, what conceivable difference does it make whether or not YouTube also has a copy on any given day?
weren't you the same guy complaining about a trading board veering off into politics. you asked for banning free speech because it might offend some good customers? yet you post public sex acts where the participants have sought a court order to have them removed? i will give you this... you got some nerve.
http://www.porkolt.com/other/daniel...onaldo/daniela-cicarellis-beach-sex-6166.html Yah, in less than 3 seconds I found the whole video... not on YouTube. That is a great point about people demanding privacy rights for their public sex. LOL