<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;argentina&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:44:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Argentine Judge Says Community Rights To Access Works Can Outweigh Creator's Moral Rights</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/07593622724/argentine-judge-says-community-rights-to-access-works-can-outweigh-creators-moral-rights.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/07593622724/argentine-judge-says-community-rights-to-access-works-can-outweigh-creators-moral-rights.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
Even though they don't figure much in the US legal landscape, moral (non-economic) rights such as the right of attribution are an important aspect of copyright law in many other countries.  Intellectual Property Watch has a fascinating account of a case from Argentina, where <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/11/community-right-to-access-unpublished-works-trumps-moral-rights-of-heir-argentine-court-says/">a judge decided that an individual's moral rights could be overridden by the rights of the community</a>.
</p>
<p>
The tale is rather complicated, so you'll need to read the original article to follow all the twists and turns, but it concerns the works of Roberto Fontanarrosa, a cartoonist and writer who died in 2007.  His widow signed a contract with a publishing house to bring out a posthumous collection of his unpublished short stories, but Fontanarrosa's son by a previous marriage objected on the grounds that his father's moral rights were being harmed:

<i><blockquote>he argued he was not sure his father was actually the author of the work subject to the publishing agreement and his motivation was to avoid damaging his father's reputation by allowing the print of a work of an unknown author under his name.</blockquote></i>

The judge was therefore asked to decide whether the publication should go ahead or not.

<i><blockquote>In the end, the judge in charge of the Court of First Instance, Fabi&aacute;n Bellizia, decided the contract signed between the publisher and the widower was valid, thus authorising the publication of the work. Moreover, he deemed the moral rights argued by the son of the author were abusive. The judge stated that the tension between author's copyright and community interest and explicitly favoured the latter over the former.</blockquote></i>

As the Intellectual Property Watch post notes, this is perhaps the first time that an Argentine court has limited the exercise of moral rights of an author by taking into account the interest of the community in gaining access to unpublished works. Moreover, the judge arrived at that remarkable decision that in some circumstances moral rights could be "abusive", not by reference to Argentina's Copyright Act, as might be expected, but to international treaties:

<i><blockquote>the American Convention on Human Rights, also known as the Pact of San Jos&eacute; de Costa Rica, Art. 21, subsection 1 (the law can subordinate individual rights to social interests, i.e., the so-called doctrine of the social function of property), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966), Art. 15, subsection 1 (right of every person to take part in the cultural life).</blockquote></i>

That judgement is not yet definitive, since the Argentinian Appellate Court now needs to consider the case.  But it would set a remarkable precedent for considering the impact of copyright in a wider social contract, and weighing the rights of the creator against those of the community:

<i><blockquote>It seems this decision is a reaction against the perceived misbalance between incentive and access trade-off in contemporary copyright law. In any case, the ruling opens the door to many challenging interpretations. If the rights of the heir, as successor of the author, can be deemed abusive in a court of law, could the moral rights of a living author be considered abusive as well?</blockquote></i>

Now there's a thought.
</p>
<p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a>
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/07593622724/argentine-judge-says-community-rights-to-access-works-can-outweigh-creators-moral-rights.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/07593622724/argentine-judge-says-community-rights-to-access-works-can-outweigh-creators-moral-rights.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/07593622724/argentine-judge-says-community-rights-to-access-works-can-outweigh-creators-moral-rights.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>now-that-would-be-interesting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130416/07593622724</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Oct 2012 03:32:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lacking Fair Use Rights, Argentina Tries To Increase Access To Copyright Works, With Mixed Results</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121005/03173120618/lacking-fair-use-rights-argentina-tries-to-increase-access-to-copyright-works-with-mixed-results.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121005/03173120618/lacking-fair-use-rights-argentina-tries-to-increase-access-to-copyright-works-with-mixed-results.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>If you think copyright is bad in regions like the US or Europe, this post from Intellectual Property Watch points out that <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/09/20/two-key-laws-for-the-public-domain-fare-differently-in-argentine-congress/">things could be much worse</a>:

<i><blockquote>In Argentina, there&#8217;s no such thing as a "fair use" judicial doctrine. Moreover, Argentina is one of those few countries in the world where Domaine Public Payant is still in force -- which means to use or reuse works that have already fallen into the public domain one has to pay a "tax" that goes to a black hole known as then National Art&#8217;s Fund (Fondo Nacional de las Artes).</blockquote></i>

Understandably, then, people are trying to fix this, with varying success.  For example, Argentina's Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation (MINCYT) is hoping to move publicly-funded research centers and universities to an open access model:

<i><blockquote>The bill mandates publicly-funded research projects, papers, theses, etc. to be deposited in the to-be-created Digital Repositories within 6 months of creation or publication (in a private journal) and research data within 5 years of recollection. The Digital Repositories will be managed by the MINCYT and it will guarantee open, free and universal access to users from a single website.</blockquote></i>

That's almost certain to happen: the Chamber of Deputies has approved the bill, and only the Argentine Senate needs to do the same.  But another bill has been less fortunate, even though its aims are extremely modest: 

<i><blockquote>[to] allow public libraries, museums and archives to loan, copy and communicate to the public (within the premises) their lawfully acquired works freely and without requiring permission from the copyright owner, in accordance with and limited to their public interest goals.</blockquote></i>

Sadly, this looks less likely to come to fruition thanks to opposition from collecting societies, who seem to think they have a right to payments even from libraries trying to do their job by helping the public gain access to information.  Argentina's archaic copyright system may be very different, but its collecting societies are clearly no different from those in other countries.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121005/03173120618/lacking-fair-use-rights-argentina-tries-to-increase-access-to-copyright-works-with-mixed-results.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121005/03173120618/lacking-fair-use-rights-argentina-tries-to-increase-access-to-copyright-works-with-mixed-results.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121005/03173120618/lacking-fair-use-rights-argentina-tries-to-increase-access-to-copyright-works-with-mixed-results.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-win-some,-you-lose-some</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121005/03173120618</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Add Argentina To The List Of Countries Looking To Censor The Internet (For The Children, Of Course)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/03340619807/add-argentina-to-list-countries-looking-to-censor-internet-children-course.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/03340619807/add-argentina-to-list-countries-looking-to-censor-internet-children-course.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've noted that both Russia and China recently pushed for even more <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/07000519673/russia-china-both-want-to-protect-children-both-want-to-do-it-increasing-censorship.shtml">internet censorship</a>, and both did so while claiming that it was really to "protect the children."  Of course, lots of other countries are following suit.  For example, Argentina is now considering a bill that appears to <a href="http://www.partidopirata.com.ar/5449/en-el-nombre-del-nino-otra-vez-la-historia-de-cuidar-a-los-chicos-para-censurar" target="_blank">created a blacklist of websites that ISPs must block</a>.  Once again, this is done "for the children," as the list is supposed to include sites dealing with child porn.  The problem, of course, is that such lists rarely seem to stick to just child porn -- and with little oversight, the over-blocking and over-filtering of legitimate content becomes way too easy.  In the meantime, we're still at a loss as to how censorship is a better solution than <i>actually going after those responsible</i> if they're posting illegal content.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/03340619807/add-argentina-to-list-countries-looking-to-censor-internet-children-course.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/03340619807/add-argentina-to-list-countries-looking-to-censor-internet-children-course.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/03340619807/add-argentina-to-list-countries-looking-to-censor-internet-children-course.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>growing-list</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120724/03340619807</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:31:13 PST</pubDate>
<title>Argentina Building Huge Biometric Database For Use With Police's Face Recognition Technology</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120115/06142717410/argentina-building-huge-biometric-database-use-with-polices-face-recognition-technology.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120115/06142717410/argentina-building-huge-biometric-database-use-with-polices-face-recognition-technology.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>One of the more unfortunate consequences of Moore's Law is that technologies that erode privacy are becoming cheaper every year &#8211; and hence more attractive to governments eager to spy on their own populace.  The latest to heed the siren call of mass surveillance is Argentina.  
</p><p>
At the end of last year, the Argentinian President ordered the creation of a new, centralized, nationwide biometric ID database for law enforcement purposes, known as SIBIOS.  A decree from the beginning of this year allows 14 million digitized fingerprints, gathered as part of Argentina's national ID system, to be added to SIBIOS.  It's actually even worse than that, as this post from the EFF about <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/biometrics-argentina-mass-surveillance-state-policy">the scope of the police database explains</a>:

<i><blockquote>the SIBIOS will be fully "integrated" with existing ID card databases, which, aside from biometric identifiers, include an individuals&#8217; digital image, civil status, blood type, and key background information collected since her birth and across the various life stages.</blockquote></i>

Add in the fact that the Argentinian police force already has face recognition technology that it is being encouraged to use to link unidentified faces obtained through <a href="http://camaras.buenosaires.gob.ar/">surveillance cameras</a> with identified images from the SIBIOS system, and the results are potentially disturbing:

<i><blockquote>Given the prevalence of street cameras and how easy it has become to identify one unnamed face amidst thousands, individuals who care about their privacy and anonymity will have a very difficult time protecting their identity from biometrics databases in the imminent future. There are extreme unforeseen risks in a world where an individual&#8217;s photo, taken from a street camera or a social network, can be linked to their national ID card.</blockquote></i>

That's worrying given Argentina's political history, as the activist Beatriz Busaniche of Fundacion Via Libre points out in the EFF piece:


<i><blockquote>Privacy is particularly crucial for our country since throughout our long history of social and political movements, calls for action have often taken to the streets. It is of higher importance for activists to remain anonymous in their demonstrations, especially when they are at odds with the government itself. In this way, SIBIOS not only challenges their privacy and data protection rights, but also poses serious threats to their civil and political rights.</blockquote></i>

Nor is that concern purely an Argentinian issue.  In a world where Occupy movements are increasingly taking to the streets, the use of the latest technology to identify protesters automatically, and to link them to detailed files held on government databases, is likely to affect ever-more people around the globe.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120115/06142717410/argentina-building-huge-biometric-database-use-with-polices-face-recognition-technology.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120115/06142717410/argentina-building-huge-biometric-database-use-with-polices-face-recognition-technology.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120115/06142717410/argentina-building-huge-biometric-database-use-with-polices-face-recognition-technology.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-can-run-but-you-can't-hide</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120115/06142717410</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:12:28 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Argentine ISPs Block Over A Million Blogs In Response To Court Order To Block Two</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/04355515613/argentine-isps-block-over-million-blogs-response-to-court-order-to-block-two.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/04355515613/argentine-isps-block-over-million-blogs-response-to-court-order-to-block-two.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ And people wonder why we worry about plans to censor websites.  Every time it happens, the censorship ends up being much broader than planned.  The latest example comes from Argentina, where a court order to block two specific sites -- leakymails.com and leakymails.blogspot.com -- actually resulted in <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/argentina-isps-ip-overblocking" target="_blank">over a million blogs being blocked</a>.  That's because some ISPs, in order to cut off the blogspot site, simply blocked the IP address 216.239.32.2, which is used across Blogger's blogspot offering.  As the EFF notes:
<blockquote><i>
IP blocking is a blunt method of filtering content that can erase from view large swaths of innocuous sites by virtue of the fact that they are hosted on the same IP address as the site that was intended to be censored.  One such example of overblocking by IP address can be found in <a href="http://opennet.net/research/profiles/india">India</a>, where the IP blocking of a Hindu Unity website (blocked by an order from Mumbai police) resulted in the blocking of several other, unrelated sites.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/04355515613/argentine-isps-block-over-million-blogs-response-to-court-order-to-block-two.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/04355515613/argentine-isps-block-over-million-blogs-response-to-court-order-to-block-two.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/04355515613/argentine-isps-block-over-million-blogs-response-to-court-order-to-block-two.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>internet-censorship-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110822/04355515613</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:23:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Summit Entertainment Commences Criminal Legal Action Against Twilight Fan Who Shared Images From Movie</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/04333815361/summit-entertainment-commences-criminal-legal-action-against-twilight-fan-who-shared-images-movie.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/04333815361/summit-entertainment-commences-criminal-legal-action-against-twilight-fan-who-shared-images-movie.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were somewhat stunned a few months back when notoriously overly-litigious movie studio Summit Entertainment absolutely freaked out and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/02504313986/summit-entertainment-sues-fans-who-tweeted-images-upcoming-twilight-flick.shtml">went legal</a> against some fans of the <i>Twilight</i> movies by filing John Doe lawsuits against people for <i>tweeting</i> some photos from the next film in the saga.  Remember: these are <i>photos</i>.  And the reason they're getting passed around is because these people are <i>fans</i>.  Nothing in these photos takes away from the marketability of the movie itself.  If anything they do the exact opposite.
<br /><br />
Summit Entertainment simply doesn't know when to give up.  It apparently went out and spent money to hire Kroll Inc., a famed corporate investigations company who is <i>not cheap</i>, to track someone down to Argentina, and discover that they had shared the images... and then <a href="http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/summit-sues-over-hacked-twilight-saga-images-29639" target="_blank">commenced legal action against the person in both the US and Argentina</a>, including <i>criminal charges</i> in Argentina (thanks to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=dandontrj">DandonTRJ</a> for sending this in).
<br /><br />
Remember, this is a <i>fan</i> who was sharing <i>photos</i> of a film that would only serve to get people more interested in the film.  Step on up, Summit Entertainment, because you just won the award for the absolute worst entity at treating fans right.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/04333815361/summit-entertainment-commences-criminal-legal-action-against-twilight-fan-who-shared-images-movie.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/04333815361/summit-entertainment-commences-criminal-legal-action-against-twilight-fan-who-shared-images-movie.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/04333815361/summit-entertainment-commences-criminal-legal-action-against-twilight-fan-who-shared-images-movie.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>photos!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110802/04333815361</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 15:37:25 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Argentina Orders Google To Censor Suggested Searches</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/09563314341/argentina-orders-google-to-censor-suggested-searches.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/09563314341/argentina-orders-google-to-censor-suggested-searches.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While Google <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110506/16423014189/google-wins-lawsuit-france-over-censoring-autocomplete-file-sharing-terms-still-does-it-anyway.shtml">won</a> a similar lawsuit in France, down in Argentina, a court has <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/05/18/argentina.google/" target="_blank">ordered Google to censor the "suggested search" feature</a> on searches that lead to certain sites that have been deemed offensive.  It has also ordered Google to remove those sites from its index.  Honestly, if it was going to order Google to remove the sites from the index anyway, I wonder why the suggested search was even an issue.  Once they're out of the index, the suggested search issue becomes meaningless.
<br /><br />
Either way, this definitely seems to be a growing global trend of placing the liability and blame for content that people don't like on the intermediaries.  Even if we can all agree that the content is offensive and ignorant (and, hopefully, we can), is this really the most sensible response?  Personally, I've always found that attempts to censor such content only empower those who already believe in it, because they feel like they're revealing such an important "secret," since others feel the need to shut it down.  I tend to think that the best way to respond to bad or offensive speech is with more speech, in order to educate the ignorant. 
<br /><br />
Either way, putting the responsibility on Google seems silly.  Google is just indexing the content.  It's not responsible for it.  When we seek to put censorship ability on the intermediaries, it feels like we're not dealing with the actual issues.  Rather than responding to ignorant speech with more speech, it's trying (and almost certainly failing) to sweep the ignorant and offensive speech under the rug.  I greatly prefer a world in which we deal with realities (such as the fact that there are ignorant people out there), rather than hiding them and pretending such people don't exist.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/09563314341/argentina-orders-google-to-censor-suggested-searches.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/09563314341/argentina-orders-google-to-censor-suggested-searches.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110519/09563314341/argentina-orders-google-to-censor-suggested-searches.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-algorithmic...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110519/09563314341</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Argentinian Appeals Court Realizes It's Ridiculous To Blame Google/Yahoo For Search Results People Don't Like</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/01233510698.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/01233510698.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about a court ruling in Argentina that found <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0237435749.shtml">Google and Yahoo liable</a> for defamation claims, after a celebrity was upset that searches on her name had results that pointed to pornographic websites.  There had actually been a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0215062808.shtml">similar decision</a> in Argentina the year before as well.  It seems silly to blame search engines if people don't like the search results on their name, but that's what happened.  Thankfully, however, in an appeal to the first case we linked to above, involving Virginia Da Cunha, the court found that the sites <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/technology/internet/20google.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss" target="_blank">could only be held liable if they were made aware of the "illegal content,"</a> and then failed to remove it.  In other words, the court is effectively using a notice-and-takedown safeharbor setup.  There are still problems with that, but it's a hell of a lot better than automatically fining Google and Yahoo even if those companies had no idea about the fact someone was upset with the search results.  Still, it's not great.  As another article notes, without an official safe harbor, the only effective way to win cases like this is to <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/no-safe-harbors-in-argentina/?src=twt&twt=nytimesbits" target="_blank">have the money to go to court</a>.  Even Google and Yahoo are still fighting a bunch of similar lawsuits and will have to keep going through the process, until there's a real safe harbor in place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/01233510698.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/01233510698.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/01233510698.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>welcome-to-the-interwebz</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100820/01233510698</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>European Top Court Tells Monsanto It Can't Abuse Patent Law To Stop Import Of Argentinian Soymeal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/03403910100.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/03403910100.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Seed giant Monsanto is a case study in how abusing patent laws can create serious <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml">anti-competitive results</a>.  Monsanto, of course, patented various genetically modified seeds, and then aggressively used patent laws around the world to make it so that it was effectively impossible to do much without having to pay Monsanto.  The US Supreme Court made things even worse a few years back by saying that Monsanto's patents were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/094515.shtml">infringed</a> upon when farmers hung onto seeds from this year's crop to plant next year (a very common practice in farming).  Last week, the US Supreme Court again helped out Monsanto by <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/supreme-court-rules-ways-gm-seed-ban/story?id=11016300" target="_blank">ruling (mostly) in its favor</a> in another case concerning Monsanto seeds.
<br /><br />
However, the company is starting to see a lot more problems with its aggressive stance around the world.  This week, the European Court of Justice <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-06/monsanto-loses-eu-bid-to-halt-argentinean-soy-imports.html" target="_blank">smacked down Monsanto</a> over its attempt to bar the import of Argentinian soymeal.  Apparently Monsanto had failed to get a patent on its famous Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina (which now dominate the market), and dealt with it by blocking the import of such soybeans to other countries.  Argentinian producers figured that if they couldn't sell soybeans directly, they could process it into soymeal and sell that.  Monsanto claimed that because the soymeal came from soybeans that would be patented in Europe, the soymeal was also infringing.  The court disagreed. 
<br /><br />
That the court disagreed wasn't a huge surprise.  The court had more or less made that clear a few months ago.  Because of that, Monsanto tried to duck an important ruling against it by <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-01/monsanto-withdraws-argentine-soybean-import-complaint-update1-.html" target="_blank">settling the dispute</a> and withdrawing the original patent complaint.  The European Court seemed to decide it wasn't going to let Monsanto off that easily.  Even with the complaint withdrawn, the Court still went ahead with the judgment, making the point clear.
<br /><br />
Separately, some governments are now kicking off <a href="http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/21677" target="_blank">investigations into Monsanto's advertising statements</a> about the very same Roundup Ready soybeans.  Combine all of that and Monsanto also <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65T2VJ20100630" target="_blank">reported dreadful earnings</a>, with a 45% profit drop.
<br /><br />
Once again, we're seeing what happens when you live off of artificial monopolies.  They can make you rich in the short term, but they're no trick to building sustainable businesses.  What the government gives in the form of monopoly rights, it can also take away.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/03403910100.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/03403910100.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/03403910100.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>live-by-the-patent...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100707/03403910100</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Argentinian Politician's Proposal For New Anti-Plagiarism Law Plagiarizes Wikipedia</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100514/0133339425.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100514/0133339425.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Britxardo alerts us to an amazingly ironic story coming out of Argentina.  It seems that an elected politician there, Ger&oacute;nimo Vargas Aignasse, has introduced some new legislation <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&#038;prev=_t&#038;hl=en&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;layout=1&#038;eotf=1&#038;u=http://www1.hcdn.gov.ar/proyxml/expediente.asp%3Ffundamentos%3Dsi%26numexp%3D3006-D-2010&#038;sl=auto&#038;tl=en" target="_blank">against plagiarism</a> (Google translation of the <a href="http://www1.hcdn.gov.ar/proyxml/expediente.asp?fundamentos=si&#038;numexp=3006-D-2010" target="_blank">original</a>).  It seems odd enough that he would be outlawing plagiarism (here in the US plagiarism is socially shunned, and could cost you your job, but isn't against the law unless it also reaches the point of copyright infringement, which is different), and it's made even worse by the fact that it looks like he's confusing plagiarism with copyright infringement -- noting in the explanation of the bill that "plagiarism" is harming the recording industry.
<br /><br />
But that's not the ironic part.
<br /><br />
As unbelievable as it may seem, it appears that the text Vargas Aignasse used to explain the bill <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&#038;prev=_t&#038;hl=en&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;layout=1&#038;eotf=1&#038;u=http://josebenegas.posterous.com/diputado-copia-y-pega-de-wikipedia&#038;sl=auto&#038;tl=en" target="_blank">was plagiarized straight from Wikipedia</a> (Google translation of the <a href="http://josebenegas.posterous.com/diputado-copia-y-pega-de-wikipedia" target="_blank">original</a>).  Seriously.  And not just a little bit.  The first three paragraphs of the <a href="http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagio" target="_blank">Spanish Wikipedia page on plagiarism</a> are <i>identical</i> to three paragraphs in the explanation of <a href="http://www1.hcdn.gov.ar/proyxml/expediente.asp?fundamentos=si&#038;numexp=3006-D-2010" target="_blank">the bill</a>.
<br /><br />
Just to make sure someone didn't do the opposite and take the text of the introduction and make it the Wikipedia page, I looked, and as I'm typing this, the Wikipedia page hasn't been updated since April -- and it looks like the bulk of that page has actually been in place for quite some time.  The bill was introduced on May 6th.
<br /><br />
It's difficult to think of anything more ironic than introducing a bill that calls for "imprisonment from three to eight years" for plagiarism... that plagiarizes the explanation for that bill.  It's out and out plagiarism too.  The three paragraphs look to be copied completely, and no effort is made to identify the source.  It's also a bit weird that the text from Wikipedia -- which is basically just a definition of plagiarism -- is being used as the explanation of the bill.  Nowhere does it describe why it's a problem or why it requires stringent jailtime.  But, perhaps that's something Vargas Aignasse can ponder while serving three to eight years in prison for violating the law he just introduced... with the law he just introduced.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100514/0133339425.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100514/0133339425.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100514/0133339425.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>where's-the-anti-irony-law</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100514/0133339425</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 09:54:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Facebook Ordered To Stop Helping Kids Skip Class In Argentina</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1114109393.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1114109393.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When I was in high school, it was customary every year or so for there to be some sort of injustice that the students were upset about concerning the administration of the school.  If it escalated enough, the kids would decide to stage some sort of protest -- which at least once involved skipping out on school for the day.  Obviously, often enough, such efforts are really just a way for kids to have an excuse to skip out on classes for a day, but this sort of thing seemed pretty common even back when I was in high school.  However, now, with things like Facebook... suddenly it's <i>Facebook's fault</i> that the same thing is happening?
<br><br>
Reader Osno alerts us to the news of a legal battle down in Argentina where a judge has <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.minutouno.com.ar/minutouno/nota/129106-Juez-prohibe-a-Facebook-publicar-grupos-que-promuevan-rateadas/&sl=auto&tl=en" target="_blank">ordered Facebook to block any group advocating student protests</a> that involved skipping classes (that link is a Google translation of <a href="http://www.minutouno.com.ar/minutouno/nota/129106-Juez-prohibe-a-Facebook-publicar-grupos-que-promuevan-rateadas/" target="_blank">the original article</a>).
<br><br>
Apparently, the back story, is that a large group of students in Mendoza, Argentina had organized a day to skip out on school via Facebook.  The media in Argentina played up the story, and it resulted in other students around the country planning similar "skip school" days.  Rather than recognize that <i>this is what kids do</i>, the whole thing has gone to court, with a judge claiming that this is somehow Facebook's fault, and it must start blocking any such groups.  According to the translation:
<blockquote><i>
"We did a little research on the basis of the allegations and found that the company was in breach of certain laws, as is of danger to health or integrity of its users...."
</i></blockquote>
That seems like a pretty severe twisting of laws concerning requirements to protect the health of users.  According to Osno, politicians are backing the judge, warning of what other groups Facebook might be used to create next -- such as the "great smokeout to smoke dope."  Apparently, these folks are unaware that the same thing has happened for ages, using pretty much any communication method available -- whether it was email, telephone, paper or (*gasp*) talking in person.  Blaming the communications medium isn't going to change any of that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1114109393.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1114109393.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1114109393.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>logic-failure</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100512/1114109393</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:27:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>And Here We Go Again: Argentina Extends Copyright</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/1756577455.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/1756577455.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's nearly impossible to keep track of the recording industry's efforts to extend copyright around the globe, using its usual "leapfrog" means of claiming that copyright lengths need to be "harmonized," and thus ratcheted up and up and up on a rotating basis.  Apparently, while everyone was focused on places like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/1134104637.shtml">Europe</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1840217016.shtml">Japan</a>, the industry has successfully been able to <a href="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i35216ec6c2433321c54b63d4cc30bb31" target="_blank">get Argentina to extend the length of copyright</a> on performances from 50 years to 70 years.  Amusingly, all those quoted in favor of it, make bizarre claims that <i>retroactively</i> extending copyrights on content already created 50 years ago will somehow promote the creation of new music.
<br /><br />
And, of course, as this news comes out, it's worth pointing out that a commenter last week <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091217/1233387410.shtml#c221">reminded us</a> of economist Rufus Pollock's paper from June of this year, which tried to <a href="http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf" target="_blank">calculate the optimal length of copyright</a> and found that it is likely in the 10 to 15 year range.  So why are governments moving progressively further away from that rate based on nothing other than demands from the record labels who know that lengthier copyrights are nothing more than a monopoly rent for them?  What's truly amazing is that pretty much the entire history of the copyright debate has been based on claims without any evidence that "more" must be "better."  But these days, we have plenty of evidence that shows that's not true.  So why do politicians keep extending copyright?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/1756577455.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/1756577455.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/1756577455.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cry-for-creativity,-Argentina</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091221/1756577455</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Google, Yahoo Fined In Argentina Because Searches On Band Name Leads To Porn Sites</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0237435749.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0237435749.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader Osno points us to the latest in misplaced liability rulings... this time in Argentina.  Apparently <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&#038;prev=_t&#038;hl=en&#038;ie=UTF-8&#038;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clarin.com%2Fdiario%2F2009%2F07%2F30%2Fum%2Fm-01968755.htm&#038;sl=es&#038;tl=en&#038;history_state0=" target="_new">both Google and Yahoo have been fined</a> (Google translation) approximately $15,000 (US) after a lawsuit from a member of a popular reality show band accused both search engines of leading people to pornographic websites when people searched on her name.  This reminds me of a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090217/0239063794.shtml">similar lawsuit</a> in the US, that is still ongoing and seems unlikely to get very far.  It's difficult to see how a search engine can be responsible for what others put up on a porn site, or the fact that a search on someone's name leads people to a porn site.  But... apparently that's what the judge in Argentina decided.  There's a separate jurisdiction issue here as well, since neither Google nor Yahoo have operations in Argentina.  Either way, it's expected that the companies will appeal, and hopefully the higher level courts will recognize that this shouldn't be a search engine's liability.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0237435749.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0237435749.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0237435749.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>liability-screwup</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090803/0237435749</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Want To Know How Not To Encourage Innovation?  Double Taxes On Technology</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2316335073.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2316335073.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, VentureBeat wrote about how politicians in Argentina, including the country's president, were pushing a plan to <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2009/05/27/argentine-president-gambles-on-tech-taxes-faces-tough-crowd/" target="_new">nearly double taxes on all tech products not made in the province of Tierra del Fuego</a>.  As the article notes, it's not clear why Tierra del Fuego gets this special benefit, but the whole idea is one that will massively harm innovation and economic growth in the country.  Raising most taxes, in general, when the economy is sour is generally a bad idea (there are some exceptions), but doing it on the very tools that increase productivity and economic growth in every other industry?  Not only do you harm the tech industry, but you harm pretty much every other industry that uses technology to innovate and increase productivity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2316335073.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2316335073.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/2316335073.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>welcome-to-argentina</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090531/2316335073</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 00:56:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apparently, Providing Derrida's Works For Free 'Harms The Diffusion Of His Thoughts'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090518/0034074917.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090518/0034074917.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ JJ points us to an interesting case down in Argentina, where a philosophy professor is being charged <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/05/12/argentina-copyright-case-brings-access-to-education-into-the-spotlight/" target="_new">with criminal copyright infringement</a> for being so bold as to create a series of websites with Spanish translations of the works of famous philosophers, after it proved difficult to impossible to find those works for purchase in Argentina.  From the article, it certainly sounds as though Argentina has no educational exception for fair use.  As troubling as the story is, the most bizarre statement comes from the copyright holder of the works of Jacques Derrida:
<blockquote><i>
Horacio Potel has posted, over the course of several years, without authorisation, and free of charge, full versions of several of Jacques Derrida's works, which is harmful to the diffusion of his (Derrida)'s thought.
</i></blockquote>
Ok.  I can understanding the (incorrect and misleading) argument that posting such works should be seen as infringing, but I can't fathom an explanation that giving away the works of a philosopher online for free could possibly "be harmful to the diffusion of his thought."  It would seem that the opposite would be true.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090518/0034074917.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090518/0034074917.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090518/0034074917.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-really-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090518/0034074917</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Argentinian Celebrities Succeed In Forcing Search Engines To Block Search Results On Their Name</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0215062808.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0215062808.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Proving, once again, that common sense isn't so common, News.com is reporting on a series of orders handed down by judges in Argentina that have <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10094597-38.html?part=rss&#038;tag=feed&#038;subj=News-PoliticsandLaw" target="_new">forced Google and Yahoo to completely block searches on certain Argentinian celebrities</a>.  Apparently, some Argentinian models who were upset that their pictures were showing up on some porn sites, sued both Yahoo and Google.  For anyone who understands just about anything about how the internet works, it would be easy to recognize that this lawsuit was grossly mistargeted.  Yahoo and Google have nothing to do with the content on the various websites they point to, but apparently Argentinian models and judges do not seem to recognize this.
<br /><br />
So, the judges issued an injunction, demanding that Google and Yahoo block references to the models.  This "win" caused other Argentinian celebrities who were upset with content online about them to seek out the same lawyer, who filed similar lawsuits over and over again.  Each time, the court has issued an injunction, forcing Google and Yahoo to block results on those individuals.  In some cases, they've tried to block specific results, but in at least one case, Yahoo has blocked <i>all</i> results on a <a href="http://ar.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGk5hZIxpJhhUAzDOr9Qt.?p=Diego+Maradona&#038;fr=yfp&#038;ei=UTF-8&#038;rd=r3">search</a> for Argentinian soccer star Diego Maradona.  The blocks only impact the Argentinian sites, but it still seems fairly ridiculous.
<br /><br />
Google is appealing the injunctions, saying that this really seems like something of a shakedown.  The company is also trying to explain to the Argentinian government why it should put in place safe harbor laws that protect service providers from being liable for the content created by others.  Of course, even without such laws in place, <i>common sense</i> should prevail.  Apparently, though, common sense remains less common than commonly believed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0215062808.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0215062808.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081112/0215062808.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>internet-stupidity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081112/0215062808</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>