Brazil's Copyright Reform Draft Bill: The Good, The Bad And The Confused
from the hankering-for-the-old-days dept
As this timeline indicates, Brazil’s attempts to draw up a copyright reform bill have been dragging on for five years now. That in itself wouldn’t matter too much ? the process of updating major laws is by its very nature a complex and slow process; but during those five years there has been a change of administration, and with it, apparently, some major shifts in policy.
Where former President Lula and his Minister for Culture, the musician Gilberto Gil, embraced Creative Commons licensing, Ana de Hollanda, the new minister appointed by Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s successor, ordered the CC license to be removed from the Ministry of Culture’s website. That and other hints seemed to signal a major retreat from Brazil’s position as a leader in recasting copyright for the modern world.
The intentions of the new Brazilian government have become a little clearer with the leak of the third version of the draft bill. What emerges from this thorough analysis of the document by Pedro Paranaguá is that it’s a mixed bag.
On the plus side, Paranaguá identifies things like first-sale rights; the ability to put works into the public domain; compulsory licenses for orphan works; and a good range of exceptions and limitations to copyright:
i) space-shifting and interoperability
ii) reproduction, translation, adaptation, distribution, communication, and making available exclusively for persons with impairment
iii) private copying
iv) incidental use (background use, mashups, and so on)
v) citation for criticism and study
vi) certain uses for rehabilitation or therapy purposes
vii) musical public performances within religious activities
viii) public performance within film-society associations
ix) reproduction, translation and distribution for educational purposes
x) reproduction for conservation and archival purposes
xi) communication and making available within libraries
xii) public display of broadcasts and public performance of sound recordings by liberal professionals and micro-companies
However, balanced against what appear forward-thinking ideas on fair use are some retrogressive ones:
1. Internet service provider (ISP) liability : notice and take-down (with counter-notice)
2. works not protected : technical standards “per se” (such as the US’ BlueBook)
3. copyright duration : life of the author plus seventy years ? i.e., twenty years beyond the required by the WTO, and according to Brazil?s Central Bank, the country pays virtually 100 times more copyright royalties to the US than it receives from the US.
There’s also evidence of a confused and confusing approach to DRM and circumvention. One part of the draft bill states that copyright holders will be liable if they prevent or hamper exceptions and limitations to copyright, but another clause says that this doesn’t apply if DRM is essential for the commercialization or for the licensing of works in the digital format (which lawyers will probably argue is always the case where piracy is present.)
Although that would seem to mean that people would be permitted to circumvent DRM in order to access works in the public domain, or to enjoy the exceptions and limitations to copyright, it’s quite likely that most non-technical members of the public (a) won’t know how to do that and (b) wouldn’t do it even if they did from a mistaken belief that the presence of DRM is an indication that it would be illegal (as is the case for uses outside the exceptions and limitations.)
Another regrettable aspect is that the ideas proposed in Brazil’s “Marco Civil” ? the innovative civil rights-based framework for the Internet discussed in Techdirt a few weeks back ? have not been adopted in the draft Bill:
The Ministry of Culture further rejects the approach taken under the called ?Marco Civil da Internet? or civil rights framework for the internet, which is a bill presented to the Brazilian Congress that has been built collaboratively with society, and that states the principles underlying the Internet in the country. Under the ?Marco Civil? provisions, content may be taken down if, and only after, a court order is granted.
Although the leaked draft certainly contains some good things, the exceptions and limitations are likely to lose much of their impact because of the complicated rules governing circumvention of DRM, which reduces the public benefit of the legislation considerably. Let’s hope that further revisions rectify that, and maybe bring the proposed copyright law closer in spirit to the pioneering work of the previous Brazilian administration.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Comments on “Brazil's Copyright Reform Draft Bill: The Good, The Bad And The Confused”
Even with these limitations
I’d still like to have these reforms in the UK.
“the country pays virtually 100 times more copyright royalties to the US than it receives from the US.”
Umm, duh! When was the last time you saw a Brazilian movie playing in the US? Doesn’t happen. Why be surprised?
Re: Re:
But Brazilian movies are also played all voer the world. Your point is not as sharp as it seems.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but in scale… how many American songs are played in Brazil, compared to Brazilian songs played on the radio in the US? Microsoft software sold in Brazil versus whatever they are making (I can’t even name any)?
Think past the end of your nose.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the one who missed the point of why the fact was mentioned in the first place.
Re: Re:
movies aren’t the only thing in the world.
Re: Re:
http://www.imdb.com/list/vJxBEGOSdIk/
City of God (2002) and Elite Squad: The Enemy Within (2010) are 2 🙂
Re: Re: Re:
Don’t forget…
The Repo Men was a remake of a Brazilian movie.
The reason why most foreign products don’t sell well here is because the major media outlets do not actively promote them. While a Brazilian musician such as Caetano Veloso may have some traction here with Brazilian-Americans and music afficionados, he’s still too far removed from the mainstream to have significant impact. It’s no secret that it’s notoriously difficult for foreign entertainment to garner significant market penetration here. When something does, it’s a one-off — a fluke success. In contrast, other nations have become extremely westernized and thus actively promote American goods and products. They’re naturally receptive to our culture and entertainment.
Re: Re:
You mean like Girl with a Dragon Tattoo?
I’d like to see some of those copyright exceptions in the US, especially the conservation/archival exception.
Many of 1 – 12 are already embraced to various extents within Fair Use and limitations contained in Chapter 1 to Title 17.
Some that are not embraced wholesale is because they are open-ended invitations that are ripe for abuse. For example, persons with disabilities have been acknowledged as a legitimate goal, but the issue has always come down to “what is a qualifying disability?” One need only think for a moment about “disabled” parking stickers to realize the concern.
Private copying has appeal, but it likewise is ripe for abuse. Current US law generally supports things such as ripping a legitimately purchased article for use on other equipment owned by the purchaser (cell phone, iPad and other tablets, computers, personal music players, etc.). Problem here is there appears, from the language used in the about list, that purchaser X would potentially be able to “share” his copy via any number or means with many, many others (perhaps even P2P). Religious activities may run afoul of the Second Amendment. Educational copying gives a free rein that is not exactly warmly embraced by the creators of works intended specifically for sale to educational institutions. There is an accommodation in US law, but it incorporates certain limitations. The scope of 12 does not jump out at me.
The point I am making is that virtually of of the 12 items have been extensively debated in the US, but at always the devil is in the details.
Re: Re:
Some that are not embraced wholesale is because they are open-ended invitations that are ripe for abuse. For example, persons with disabilities have been acknowledged as a legitimate goal, but the issue has always come down to “what is a qualifying disability?” One need only think for a moment about “disabled” parking stickers to realize the concern.
So in your mind “preventing abuse” is more important than the rights of the disabled.
You need to change your mindset to a more humane one.
Re: Re: Re:
By your logic, one with arthritic knees, 20/20 vision, and perfect hearing would be disabled. PTSD? Disabled. Etc.
It is easy to use a word and conjure up persons who have problems with vision, hearing, and perhaps other medical conditions that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to partake of reading books (yes, it is book publishers who have expressed concerns). Unfortunately, what is generally recognized as a disability is far, far, far broader than the issue at hand, and the vast majority who fall within the classification have absolutely no problem partaking of reading ordinary books.
Next time you might want to consider the scope of a term before launching into personal criticism.