Will Brazil's 'Anti-ACTA' Marco Civil Be Subverted By Copyright Lobbyists At The Last Moment?
from the snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory dept
Just over a year ago Techdirt wrote about Brazil's Marco Civil -- essentially a civil-rights based framework for the Internet. At the time, we dubbed it an "anti-ACTA", since it seemed to protect many of the things that ACTA sought to attack. It all seemed a little too good to be true, and the post concluded by questioning whether it would survive in its present form.
Most of it has, remarkably, but a recent addition to one clause basically guts protection for ISPs and other online intermediaries. The EFF has a good explanation of the situation:
A concerning last-minute change has chipped away at the Bill's safe harbor provisions regarding copyright infringement. Article 15 of Marco Civil originally provided that ISPs are not responsible for infringing content by Third Parties unless they disobey a specific judicial order to take down said content. However, following a visit by the Minister of Culture to the legislator serving as rapporteur of Marco Civil, the rapporteur introduced a new paragraph into Article 15, saying that the article would not apply in cases of "copyright and neighborhood rights".
If passed, this exception would inevitably exert a chilling effect on all Internet activity, as Brazilian ISPs and Web sites removed content perceived to be even vaguely risky. It will come as no surprise to discover who is behind the move:
As expected, this change is an unenlightened consequence of the content industry lobby. Guilherme Varella, lawyer for the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense [IDEC], commented on the changes in this recent law article. He stated that this is the result of a clumsy intervention by the Ministry of Culture following constant pressure by the entertainment industry lobby, especially the Brazilian Association of Reprographic Rights (ABDR), the Brazilian Association of Phonographic Producers (ABPD) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Varella reports that the entertainment lobby has been camped outside the Ministry and the Congress for the past few weeks, pressuring the vote on the Bill to be postponed until they get what they want.
It's truly extraordinary how once again the copyright industries seem to think they are uniquely entitled to trample on basic rights. And it's particularly sad to see such a worthwhile effort to frame a basic level of protection for online users not just watered down but actively subverted in this way, precisely when it seemed on the point of coming to fruition.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, anti-acta, brazil, copyright, lobbyists, marco civil
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What did you expect from MAFFIA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
By only needing to change a couple words, I just proved how you're nothing but a lobbyist; Your "cause" is no different than any other person attempting to selfishly benefit off the work of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Citation needed. What basic rights? No, demanding to be paid in the way you wish for something you opted to release to the public is not as basic a right as the ones you seek to destroy.
"And it's particularly sad to see such a worthwhile effort to frame a basic level of protection for creators not just watered down but actively subverted in this way."
A shame you think that your right to profit trumps free speech, first sale doctrine and the right to use the things you've bought in the way you wish. It's a damn shame that you seek to destroy these rights for your own personal gain, even as others here point out that this actually results in you getting *less* money.
"By only needing to change a couple words, I just proved how you're nothing but a lobbyist"
You've proved, yet again, that you're delusional and will stoop to no depths to defend your corporate gods and smear anyone who disagrees. You've only "proven" that your own pathetic mind is incapable of understanding reality, yet again.
"Your "cause" is no different than any other person attempting to selfishly benefit off the work of others."
Liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First of all, Mike didn't write the article, if you had bothered to read the article instead of quote mining it, you could have comprehended the content of the article instead of making vapid comments.
Second, the article shows how the MAFIAA is desperate to keep their arcaic business model from dying by lobbying for laws/treaties/agreements which evidently trumps over basic rights.
It's not that Mike or anybody else here (including me) are seeking to benefit from what simpletons like you want to present as "trumping over creator's rights", the MPAA/RIAA are NOT creators, they are CORPORATE PIMPS, they dont create a shit, artists do it, not the MAFIAA.
And the last thing, calling Mike a lobbyst (despite the fact he didnt write the article to begin with) is completely asinine and it does not prove in any case your point unless you can DEMONSTRATE that by merely sharing a file a person can get a tangible benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry - you didn't - a lobbyist is defined as :
"a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest;"
When you argue for the general PUBLIC interest you are not a lobbyist.
See the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is the general public? In this context Mike is giving his opinion on IPR as he so often have done throughout the years. He is not actively representing a commercial interest, except his own companies, but that doesn't make it for the general public. I cannot name a lobbyist who wouldn't claim to represent the publics interests.
Mike is running an "exposé" on abuse of IPR in general terms and that is it. His work is not defined by being for anyone or anything in particular. It is defined as being against something, just like the anti-war, anti-nuclear and anti-abortion movements. In practical terms anything a politician in any way can get exposed to and with an opinion from the auther can be termed as lobbying.
Btw. so is the guy who wrote the comment, he just doesn't want to do it in public, just like me. On the other hand, I refrain from ad hominem as far as possible while this guy doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Think kind of mirroring is a typical tactic of those who have no real arguments to put forward. I note how often it has been used by dictatorial regimes on their last legs. The antics of "comical Ali" spring to mind - as do those of the Gadhaffi family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9ysyZF-DZFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I expect that this won't make through. We already have enough problems with Google and other internet based companies being blamed for something completely out of their control even though the lower court decisions were overturned by the higher levels. So yes, this would pose quite massive problems here.
In any case, my personal message to Chris Dodd and minions:
FUCK YOU, LEAVE MY COUNTRY ALONE. Expect heavy backlash if you trample with our right to share ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonsensical demand
They could stop providing internet service to and block access to servers entirely, but that's not removing content. That's blocking servers, an entirely different thing that both increases collateral damage and is easier for the server's owners to work around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]