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+

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Will Brazil's 'Anti-ACTA' Marco Civil Be Subverted By Copyright Lobbyists At The Last Moment?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
20 Comments
Anonymoussays:

It’s truly extraordinary how once again tech 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 creators not just watered down but actively subverted in this way.

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.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re:

“It’s truly extraordinary how once again tech industries seem to think they are uniquely entitled to trample on basic rights.”

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.

Rottweilersays:

Re: Re:

And by reading your “blargha flargha” I just proved you are a JACKASS.

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.

Richardsays:

Re: Re:

By only needing to change a couple words, I just proved how you’re nothing but a lobbyist;

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?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That can actually be debated. Are environmental protection agencies lobbyists (to some extend yes). Are human rights advocates lobbyists (they have lobbying efforts going, so yes).

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 “expos?” 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.

Richardsays:

Re: Re:

It’s truly extraordinary how once again tech 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 creators not just watered down but actively subverted in this way.

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.

Anonymoussays:

Third party liability is just a convenient means of destroying the Internet as a general communications medium. Both the MAFIAA and many politicians see the Internet as making them redundant. The MAFIAA because the artists do not need their services, and the politicians because it allow people to self organize, rather than being organized by politicians.

Ninjasays:

It’s a pity. But I expect this specific part to be vetoed. Dilma Rousseff (the President) did incredibly right with the Forestry Code (she basically clashed the big land owners and vetoed it since most of it had been poisoned and basically provided amnesty for the ones destroying the forests and green light for further destruction).

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 😉

The Real Michaelsays:

If we think of the internet as a piece of land and website/data as property, these laws are the equivalent of giving the government and copyright industries free reign to invade anyone’s property and perform hostile takeover, seizure and censorship. Thereafter, all the internet would consist of is advertisements, shopping malls and gov-approved media. IOW, the internet would become the sole property of the elites.

Anonymoussays:

what is truly annoying about this is that if there were people ‘camped outside the Ministry and the Congress for a few weeks, pressuring the vote on the Bill to be postponed until they get what they want’, the entertainment industries would have created a shit storm until those people were arrested. funny how the industries can do what they like, apparently with the blessing of the law, but no one else can!

John Fendersonsays:

Nonsensical demand

how, exactly, is an ISP supposed to remove content? Maybe I’m nitpicking, but I don’t see that this is even possible for them to do.

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow