However, despite the fact that freedom of expression depends on the free flow of information, there is a tendency for national and regional laws to intervene in the end-to-end architecture of the Internet, prevent the free flow of information and thus undermine the rights of every citizen to freedom of expression and privacy. Several Latin American governments and governments around the world, allegedly for the fight against piracy or the sake of security, have proposed legal texts that impose criminalization of legitimate expressions; liability of intermediaries; and disconnection of users on the pretext of violations to copyright or transmission of illegal information (such as pornography, drug trafficking, cyber attacks, etc.), or that simply establish arbitrary mechanisms to filter, block and remove content from the net and fail to provide an adequate protection of the rights to privacy and protection of personal data.

All these provisions are rather reprehensible, as they not only jeopardize the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression of citizens, but also pose a threat to some of the key elements of the network architecture, such as neutrality and openness. No wonder yesterday’s movements have reached such enormous popularity, with more than 10 thousand websites shutting down in protest against SOPA – the subject is alive and kicking. Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Mozilla, Wired, Reporters Without Borders, Greenpeace, IDEC and many others have joined the ranks of protesters. This context shows how utterly important it is to watch abusive Internet legislation worldwide. This is the intent of the book “Towards an Internet Free of Censorship”, published by CELE (Center for Research on Free Speech and Access to Knowledge), in which researchers Joana Varon Ferraz, Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Bruno Magrani and Walter Britto participate with the chapter entitled “Content Filtering in Latin America: Reasons and Impacts on Freedom of Expression”.

As the Internet in nature knows no bounds, establishing regulations influences the freedom of expression and access to knowledge of the other countries; therefore, it is important that developing countries also define standards to be evaluated and discussed globally. While developed countries have already established a legal framework for the Internet, the movement in Latin America is still recent. This context provides more room for reflection, both if we observe the criticisms against foreign regulations, or if we strive to evaluate and think of access and freedom-related issues for our specific regional scenario.

The book is available for download here.

Dois projetos de lei em tramitação no Congresso norte-americano têm provocado reações e críticas de grandes empresas de tecnologia (como Google e Facebook), além de setores da comunidade técnica, academia e sociedade civil.

Esses projetos, chamados SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) e PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act), se forem aprovados, instituirão ferramentas de controle de conteúdo na web que alteram de forma crucial o funcionamento da própria rede. Eles impõem medidas severas para impedir violações a direitos autorais, como alterações no sistema de nomes de domínio, filtragem em mecanismos de busca para que sites não sejam encontrados, além de instruções de bloqueio a operações financeiras, como doações feitas em apoio ao site supostamente infrator.

Legislações como as propostas nos EUA, mais do que uma questão interna de cada país, desafiam a própria arquitetura da rede como uma infra-estrutura aberta que incentiva a participação e a criação colaborativa.

O Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade, da Escola de Direito da Fundação Getulio Vargas/RJ, defende que a tutela dos direitos intelectuais não deve ser exercida em detrimento de outros direitos fundamentais, como a privacidade, a liberdade de expressão, e principalmente o acesso ao conhecimento e à informação. Mesmo com a recente declaração da Casa Branca contra o SOPA, e com todos os esforços na rede até agora, a ameaça ainda não cessou. E por isso o CTS se junta ao protesto internacional contra os referidos projetos de lei, retirando do ar os sites de seus projetos de pesquisa nessa quarta-feira, dia 18/01/2012.

Para saber mais sobre a discussão e declarar apoio ao movimento, há diversos caminhos:

Strike Against SOPA: cadastro de sites que apóiam o movimento e uma lista dos sites que participarão do blecaute.
#BlackOutSOPA: movimento nas redes sociais de demonstração de repúdio à SOPA.
Don’t Break the Internet: artigo publicado na Stanford Law Review analisando os perigos da nova legislação.
How PIPA and SOPA violate White House principles supporting Free Speach and Innovation: artigo da EFF tratando dos mecanismos de controle de conteúdo implementados pelos projetos.

Participam do protesto os seguintes sites administrados pelo CTS:

• A2K Brasil
• Creative Commons Brasil
• Cultura Livre
• CTS Game Studies
• Estrombo
• Observatório da Internet
• Open Business

Thumbnail: skatter tech

Open educational resources

Some sites with reason to be particularly concerned are international communities dedicated to “open educational resources” (OERs), which are created to be shared, built upon, and used in education. Sites like the Japan Opencourseware Consortium or Universia, which offer resources from more than 1,000 universities and represents over 10 million students, could fall into this category. In the past decade, these resources have become increasingly popular across the world, aided by the dropping cost of digital distribution and the availability of technologies and platforms for hosting and sharing. SOPA could reverse those changes by placing prohibitive liability burdens on sites that offer these resources and the platforms that enable them.

Educators working in the OER community have raised the alarm about the proposed legislation: Curriki, a site which collects curricula for K-12 education, has written about SOPA’s problems; Creative Commons, whose free copyright licenses are used widely in the OER community, has also voiced concerns with the bill; and a large group of educators submitted a letter to the House of Representatives explaining why the bill would “chill the creation of educational content.”

Libraries and librarians

They’re not alone. Libraries represent another educational group that could face fallout from SOPA. The Library Copyright Alliance, a group whose members include the American Library Association and two other major library organizations, has also written a letter to the House of Representatives [pdf]raising major issues with the bill.

Alarmingly, the librarians point to “three pending copyright infringement lawsuits against universities and their libraries relating to their use of digital technology,” reflecting “a growing tension between rights holders and libraries, and some rights holders’ increasingly belligerent enforcement mentality.” That same enforcement mentality, under SOPA, could lead to criminal prosecutions of libraries, even for activities that are a fair use and conducted without the intention of commercial gain.

Fair use for students and educators

When faced with these sorts of situations, administrators will likely enact policies to shield their universities from liability, even if those policies don’t take advantage of the fair use exceptions to copyright provided to educators. In spite of the law’s current explicit protection for “multiple copies for classroom use,” many universities currently pay blanket licensing fees to the non-profit company Copyright Clearance Center in an attempt to stave off potential liability. And it’s understandable why the universities pay: the Center is now partially financinga 2008 lawsuit filed by an academic publisher against Georgia State University, which did not pay for such a license.

Educators know that licensed copyright clearance can take weeks or months, and students know that it can drive the cost of photocopied collections of articles and book excerpts up to hundreds of dollars. But Georgia State University changed its copyright policy after the lawsuit was filed, and it’s hard to blame administrators who follow suit to avoid costly and time-consuming legal action. If current policies already favor copyright holders over the university community, what will they look like when bills like SOPA cast the copyright situation into even deeper uncertainty?

What can you do?

Others in the education community have problems with the bill, and with its similarly disastrous counterpart in the Senate, PROTECT IP. The United States Students Association, which represents 4.5 million students at more than 400 campuses across the country, has come out against the two bills [pdf], and a group of more than 100 law professors has sent a letter about each bill [pdf]  to Congress.

Students, librarians, professors, and others in the educational community, aware of the problems that SOPA would cause, are speaking up. And with Congress marking up SOPA this week, we need students, educators and librarians to speak out.

We’ve prepared an anti-SOPA action toolkit for people who want to take a stance against the blacklist bills. Some of action items apply directly to students:

1. Coordinate a teach-in or debate at your local college or community center. Invite local experts in copyright and free speech to come discuss the issue.
2. If you’re in high school, talk to your civics and media studies teachers about a class discussion on the implications of this bill. Point them to our free Teaching Copyrightmaterials.
3. If you’re in college, speak out through like-minded organizations working for digital freedom, such as Students for Free Culture or Electronic Frontier on Campus. If there isn’t a chapter at your school, start one. Then use that platform to coordinate with other students to speak out against this bill.
4. If you’re in college, set up a meeting with your college newspaper editorial board and explain the bill to them and why they should speak out about it. Work with them to write articles on the topics. Check out these examples from the University of Buffalo, University of Massachusetts, and University of Minnesota.  See more examples at the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Chorus of Opposition page.
5. Write a blog post about the blacklist bills.  Whether it’s a candid explanation of why you oppose the legislation, a discussion of the effect on human rights, or a call to filmmakersto protest the blacklist, there are plenty of things to say about this scary legislation. Help us get the word out by writing articles on your own blog, your school blog, or on blogs that take guest contributors.
6. Are you an artist? Showcase the dangers of censorship through art and music, and use your art as a way of reaching people who might otherwise not know about this issue. You can make stickers, posters or patches, create a YouTube video, or hold an open-mic night around censorship.

No matter who you are, call your Representative in Congress today and take our blacklist legislation action alert. And finally, please consider becoming a member of the EFF — we’ve got student rates.

Controversy over copyright reform in Brazil continues as two major newspapers publish opposing stories on a supposedly final version of the Ministry of Culture bill, leaked by a source within the federal government.

On November 26th, Rio de Janeiro’s O Globo printed a cautious but positive piece on the copyright reform bill, stressing that 85% of its previous version was kept in the final text. Contradicting most evaluations of Ana de Hollanda’s administration, O Globo’s story depicts Hollanda’s work on the bill as a harmonious continuation of the public consultation process supervised by former ministers Gilberto Gil and Juca Ferreira, instead of a rupture with the Ministry of Culture’s previous orientation.

Folha de São Paulo picked up the story a few days later, but provided a much less favorable view of the leaked text, focused on the 15% that Hollanda did alter. According to Folha, the changes in the text greatly benefit ECAD, the central collecting society that has a statutory monopoly on the collection and distribution of music-related royalties in Brazil.

Ana de Hollanda’s ties to ECAD were unveiled in a previous story by O Globo, and the minister has been openly vocal in criticising provisions of the reform bill that would reestablish state supervision of ECAD.

Greater checks on ECAD’s activites–currently the object of two parallel congressional investigations, as well as antitrust action by the Ministry of Justice–is one of the major points of contention in the reform bill. According to Folha de São Paulo, Ana de Hollanda’s version of the bill has kept much of it intact, but changed key provisions on collective management so that ECAD would remain under no form of external control.

There is still no confirmation if the leaked text is indeed the final one. As the day when the bill is finally submitted to Congress draws near, FGV’s Center for Technology and Society has published a book, directed at lawmakers, based on the two published versions of the bill, highlighting the most important changes and opportunities for more balanced copyright legislation. It can be dowloaded, in Portuguese, at http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/8789.

WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) has completed a two-week session with progress in two areas in which advocates are seeking international agreements on limitations and exceptions to copyright.

The Committee announced that it will consider input from library groups and delegations to the meeting – and accept further comments from members until February 29 – and produce a “Provisional Working Document” (SCCR/23/8) on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. A joint press release from seven associations representing libraries and archivists said they “welcome the significant progress made by WIPO Member states,” and noted that they currently “operate under a patchwork of provisions that differ from country to country that often do not meet the needs of libraries especially in the global, digital environment.”

It also adopted a “Working document on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons/persons with disabilities” (SCCR/23/7) which will serve as a draft text for further negotiations.

WIPO DOCUMENTS:

Working Document on an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Persons with Print Disabilities (SCCR/23/7)
Main Page for 23rd SCCR

While Thanksgiving is an American holiday, internet service providers and users in Europe had reason to give thanks yesterday. The highest court in the European Union overturned a ruling that would have forced a Belgian ISP to preemptively filter Internet traffic to prevent the unauthorized sharing of music files.

The European Court of Justice overturned a ruling by a Belgian court in a suit brought by the Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SABAM). SABAM filed it against Scarlet Extended over alleged illegal peer-to-peer filesharing by Scarlet’s customers. That 2007 ruling required Scarlet to filter traffic on its network, so that it could identify and block illegal peer to peer filesharing traffic. It was based on an interpretation of Belgian copyright laws that put the burden of enforcement on ISPs.

Scarlet had appealed, focusing on European data privacy laws, saying that the ruling would in effect force the company to monitor all Internet traffic passing through its network—which would, aside from being technically unfeasible, violate the privacy of its customers. The case has been closely watched by Internet companies in Europe, which were concerned that they could be faced with similar requirements.

In its ruling, The Court of Justice upheld the right of copyright holders to file injunctions against intermediaries over illegal file sharing. But it struck down the provisions of the Belgian court ruling that required filtering, finding that the filtering provisions violated European Union e-commerce laws, and infringed on the rights of Scarlet and its customers. The broad monitoring required to filter file-sharing would “infringe the fundamental rights of [Scarlet's] customers, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their right to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU,” the court panel wrote.

Nesta segunda, 28 de setembro de 2011, a Organização Mundial da Propriedade Intelectual (OMPI), na atual reunião do Comitê de Direitos Autorais e Conexos (SCCR/23) divulgou novo documento, intitulado Working Document on an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Persons with Print Disabilities, preparado com base nos comentários e propostas dos Estados Memebros, na reunião do dia 25 de novembro, ao documento elaborado pelo Secretariado, na última reunião do comitê (SCCR/22/16).

O texto pode ser acessado nos seguintes links:

http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Workingdocument_VIP.doc

http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Workingdocument_VIP.pdf

Thursday, Morning Session
24 November 2011

The first day of dedicated discussions on a Treaty for Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons got underway at 12:10 PM on Thursday, 24 November 2011. The Chair, Manuel Guerra Zamarro (Director General, Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor, INDAUTOR, Secretaría de Educación Pública, México D.F) opened discussion of his document, “Proposal on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities” as the basis of discussions.

Algeria speaking on behalf of the Development Agenda Group (Algeria, Brazil, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uruguay, and Yemen) stated that a legal instrument concluded at WIPO should enable countries to have national legislation on limitations and exceptions to facilitate access to protected works while providing cross border exchange in accessible formats.
The spokeswoman for the Development Agenda Group stressed that “copyright should not serve as an obstacle for disabled persons’ access to cultural works.”

Brazil underscored its view that an agreement on the content and the nature of an instrument to solve the problems of persons with reading disabilities in accessing protected works was within reach at SCCR 23. Brazil requested the Chair to reserve time during the SCCR for discussion on the nature of instrument, a point supported by Chile, Pakistan and South Africa.

South Africa exhorted the WIPO membership to raise its level of ambition to conclude an international, legally binding instrument at SCCR 23. Mexico reiterated its support for the Treaty proposal co-sponsored with Brazll, Ecuador and Paraguay, emphasizing the human rights dimension and supporting the Chair’s text (22/16) as a basis for negotiations.

The representative of Pakistan stated, “we need to have an internationally binding legal instrument and therefore during this session, while we are having the substantive discussion, at some point we need to have a discussion on the nature of the instrument so that we incorporate those changes in the text”.

Argentina reiterated its role as a co-sponsor of the TVI and noted that it considered of paramount importance that the Chair establish a time frame for discussion on the Treaty including sufficient consideration of the nature of the instrument.
Argentina noted that the negotiations on the TVI provided a test of the seriousness of WIPO member states’ commitments to the principles of the WIPO Development Agenda.

The United States of America stated that it was “open to whatever approach best moves forward our discussion”.

Wednesday, Morning Session
23 November 2011

The morning session of day 3 of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR23) has open with member states deciding on how to proceed with the discussion of the 10 themes raised during the deliberations on libraries and archives. The ten topics are 1) preservation, 2) the right of reproduction, 3) legal deposit, 4) library lending, 5) parallel importation, 6) cross-border uses, 7) orphan works and the retraction of orphan works, 8 ) liability of libraries and archives, 9) technological protection measures and 10) contracts. Yesterday’s session witnessed a rich discussion on preservation; country interventions will be posted shortly. Today is the final day devoted to the discussion of limitations for libraries and archives.

Now, the question facing WIPO is whether to continue a plenary discussion of all ten thematic clusters or break out into parallel working groups. Ultimately, the Chair and the Committee agreed that Member States would submit written comments on the ten thematic clusters by Friday. These comments would be published on Monday, 28 November 2011 with a further deadline of three months (February 2012) for written comments on the initial round of comments.

For a flavor of the real time discussions on the modalities for moving forth on text based work on libraries and archives please see the following interventions taken from the WIPO live-stream.

CHAIR (Manuel Guerra Zamarro, Mexico): What I would like for us to do is work on each of these ten topics in the plenary, in the plenary session. I would like for comments to be voiced on each and every one.

But in a parallel fashion, in parallel or perhaps simultaneously, at the same time, all countries should have the possibility, as well, to voice comments in writing, comments in writing on each of these topics.

So in this way, what I’m seeking to do is to keep open a two-track approach. So the possibility of oral expression of one’s opinion and then also to entertain the possibility of voicing one’s opinion or comments in writing, perhaps leaves more time to be more focused and go into more detail.

But at the same time, work in a two-track way so this could spur greater progress. This is the idea. So the two values here, being able to voice one’s opinion in an oral way and be made aware of the viewpoints of others, and also to submit opinions in writing. This could be done at the same time, in a simultaneous fashion. And so yesterday I believe that we dealt with item No. 1, preservation. We can move on today to reproduction and safeguards.

We could, of course, as I said, express our viewpoints. But also have comments submitted to the Secretariat in writing, as well. So perhaps an area of contracts, some people have a very well thought out position. But we’re not there yet. But that could be submitted to the Secretariat so the Secretariat can take note of this. That way, we could capture in writing all the comments because of course we want to follow the order 1 to 10 in voicing the comments orally.

So as I said, this is a list of ten items. This is not exhaustive. Perhaps another theme to be could be added to this list. And perhaps passing out this theme of ten or more themes.

And in this way we hear everyone’s views and we create a mechanism which means that today we can cover all these — which means that today we can cover all these ten topics. So if there are any questions or views or any other recommendations or options, please put them forward now. I give the floor to the European Union.

European Union: Thank you, chairman. Thank you for your proposal, which was very clear, which I think provides satisfaction to all delegations, at least I hope so.

I just had two additional questions to ask. The first: I do understand that we would continue today to discuss the items on this list. But what I wanted to ask whether we could go cluster by cluster because I don’t know whether you’re suggesting to work on one cluster then another or whether you want us to work on everything at once, which I think would undermine the clarity of our discussions.

And then my second question is you’ve mentioned the possibility of sending in written comments to Secretariat. Thank you for that suggestion.
As we understand it, these comments could take the form of both amendments to the texts that are already on the table or the form of comments. Or they could even take the form of new texts. My question is: What would be the deadline for sending in these written comments?
I presume that we would need a reasonable deadline. As you’ve said, we need time to look into it, should these topics and look each at proposed texts, so thank you for clarifying these t

Chair: Thank you, I’ll try to reply to those two questions.

We’re going to adopt a two-track approach here.

We’re going to do that simultaneously. We have three days on these items. Why three? Because that is our mandate. But we also have to produce a text as the delegations have said. So we’ll take a two-track approach to this.

First of all, the oral approach, if I could call it that. And here we would go cluster by cluster. Number 1 we have already done. We would go through the others up to 10. That’s what we will try to do. And this is why it’s very important for people’s statements to be concise and precise because the idea is to finish that today.

So turning to the subject of deadlines, the point raised by the delegate of the European Union, this is very important. We have to conclude this oral approach to the 10 topics today. That’s the deadline, today.

Now, regarding the second approach, that is submitting written comments, the written comments can be submitted in practically any order. There is no fixed order there. And they can be submitted at any time, as well. However, I would like to have all these comments in, at the latest, by the end of this week. So that the end of this we can would be the deadline for receiving written comments. And the purpose would be for all these written comments, the written comments to have been received at that time by the Secretariat. And then I would request the Secretariat that those written comments should be collated. In other words, all the comments on preservation would be grouped together and come out in one document. All the comments on reproduction and safeguarding would come out in one document under that heading. Then all the comments on legal deposit would be under that heading.

And by the end of this week, which is the deadline, the deadline for handing in these written comments would be Friday. It would be Friday so that then the Secretariat, over the weekend, could put together this document containing all the written comments set out in order, topic by topic. And then on Monday, we would have this document before us and see what everybody has suggested in writing.

So that would be the idea behind this exercise. So as to make progress and to produce documents. Delegations have said that what they want to do is have a text-based discussion. They don’t want to just throw out opinions in the air. So I think this would be a good exercise.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. I give the floor to South Africa.

South Africa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just want to provide apply to your suggested way forward. With regard to the last issue, documents, because we’re interested in the outcome of this few days, we would rather have one set of documents as you suggested because you would explain following the questions from the EU, would rather have one document constituting all classes rather than having several ones of them have.

And then on the issue of 10 comments, it is — from the discussions here rather than leaving a long period after the session. So we are willing to agree with the deadline of Friday on the comments so that we can have the document on Monday. So that would be our reply to the way forward. And we hope that would just work on the basis of what we agreed in terms of the hierarchy which was proposed by the European union. We are willing to go through all of them today, of course, sequential, so that we provide time to discuss each, all of them together but hierarchical. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you. Yes. What we are trying to achieve is just one text, a single text, but divided into 10 parts or 10 clusters. That is precisely the objective that we are seeking through this exercise.

Furthermore, what South Africa is requesting is that oral comments, too, should be considered by the Secretariat, not just the written comments. That is a Titanic work. I would like to pay tribute to the Secretariat for the enormous efforts they do make. And very often when we are up here on podium, we realize the magnitude of the work that the Secretariat does. Very often we leave here, we go home or we go to another meeting, but that is just the start of the work for the Secretariat. We have to realize that the Secretariat, when they’re up here on the podium is when they work the least. When we finish our meetings, that’s when their real work starts. So I would ask you to realize that, to bear that in mind.

And then to satisfy all your requests, let’s say that the oral comments will be taken into account, but I two request that you — I would request that you show consideration for the Secretariat because the number of oral comments are going to add up to a pile of documents this high on just one cluster. Note moment so let’s be considerate towards the Secretariat. And realize the magnitude of their work because they’ve always tried to deal with all our requests most attentively. South Africa, if you wish to clarify?

South Africa: Just to clarify, I am in agreement with you. But regarding comments, but you say the text, what I was referring to is because you have used written comments, I was referring to the comments made during this session rather than waiting for a month of an the session. So I’m talking about text that will be discussed here or proposed, that will be the one which will be in the written format submitted to the Secretariat. So that’s what I’m referring to. Not just general comments. We don’t want a document with general comments. We want a document with texttual suggestions. Thank you.

ALGERIA: Thank you, Chair. I go to speak on behalf of the DAG, which would like to react to the present work. DAK welcomes the substantive discussion on the first two days, on the preservation of library and archival material. The methodology being used that is organizing things in clusters is one we approve of. We encourage that to continue.

And I think we should follow the order of the Secretariat document. We welcome the constructive spirit prevailing. We hope that it will continue. We use this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for drafting the document, which highlights the different proposals. And they did that in a very short time, as well. And DAG hopes that we will continue to work on the basis of one document so that things are clearer and more visible. This is in line with the mandate of the 21st SCCR where it said that we should engage in text-based discussions we request that the format of the basic document be improved in the light of statements made by member states. DAG would like the Secretariat in the light of the discussions on the clusters to produce a document that will cover the three proposals.

This document should be structured by cluster. And the bottom of each page, there should be metastates comments on each of these clusters. That’s our proposal. Thank you.

European Union: Thank you, Chairman. I have listened to your request that we should facilitate the Secretariat’s task by submitting, if possible, our comments in writing. On the other hand, the deadline you’re suggesting, that is the end of the week, doesn’t appear to me either realistic or reasonable. Let me explain.

First of all, the texts on the table have been produced very recently, some of them as late as yesterday, so I’m sure you’ll understand that the time required to look through these texts and react to them will take longer than a few days. And when we have important subjects within this committee, we wouldn’t like delegates to concentrate on one particular subject to the detriment of other subjects on which we would like to see progress made, as well, in our view the comparative table drawn out by the Secretariat can, of course, be improved.

The IFLA text could be used, as well, the Algerian delegate has proposed improvements. But it is a changing document, one that can be improved. In other words, delegations should be given the necessary time to react to it and make their proposals on the text in writing, and this deadline should be at least several weeks long, thank you.

Pakistan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and a very good morning to all the colleagues. Mr. Chairman, we fully support your suggestions and the way forward. We believe that it is very important that we continue with the substantive discussions on all the 10 themes. We have already concluded the discussions on the first theme, or the first cluster, and we need to move forward on all the other ones.

In that regard, your two-stage approach would be something which would be beneficial in terms of saving time and moving ahead in a very sequential manner.

With regard to the comments made by the EU just now, I do believe that this is a process which is not going to end today or tomorrow, but we do also believe that we have a mandate given to us to bring out the text-based work.

In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I think we are not actually talking of two different things. We are all talking of the same thing.

What we can do is exactly as you have proposed. We move ahead with all the 10 themes. The floor is open for making comments. The comments, there’s a mild difference up here between the comments and the textual additions which are being made. So what has been a request from the Secretariat, I suppose, is that they incorporate those textual suggestions into the document that we have. And by Monday we also can have the written textual solutions incorporated into the document, not in a tabulated form but in a scroll-down form. And then, even after that, if there are written comments, we can see how we can accommodate those. But this is a process that is going to continue.

But we do believe that we need to make progress on this and not lose whatever is mentioned in this room. Thank you very much.

ANGOLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to support the position stated by the African continent of South Africa. And we would like also to thank you and also for the effort that has been done to release this document called “the list of common copy” described by the delegation.

And we have the view that it’s important to move to one document composed by the objective and principle proposed by the U.S. and the African proposal and this has to be proposed by the 10 cluster and later on we can add some comment by Friday.

Past this delay, we should only add some comment in the next session. Because this is the first reading. So I propose, Mr. Secretariat, if possible, to have one single document which reflects on the parameter, the original principle proposed by U.S. and on the 10 clusters, say the Africa proposal on this, and then you put in record, like we did in IGC, in each of the 10 clusters. And then with some comments that the members will present until Friday so that you realize that this document has to be the first release document.

And then we also open some period between now and the next CCL to also provide some written comment that we can add into the session during the second reading.

I think if we can do that very quickly, it can be very easy to follow then. Let us also move with the views of the people. Thank you.

Chile: Thank you, chairman. First of all, I would like to thank you most sincerely for your efforts to push this forward. As we said yesterday, we support progress being made on this through text-based work. And so we welcome your proposal. Reacting to a number of comments made by Angola, Pakistan and the European Union, I would say that we support a number of the things that were said.

We would like, if possible, to make progress today until Friday. And those delegations can submit their written comments, should do so and should submit them to the Secretariat so that they can be included in the document. I think that would mean important progress.

However, I think it’s also important that those delegations that are not in a position to submit their comments by Friday should have a possibility of doing so after this session over a period of, say, a couple of weeks or months, a reasonable period so that everyone has an opportunity to submit their comments and so that we can focus on and give time to other issues apart from — under the heading of exceptions and limitations. Thank you.

INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Indian delegation appreciates your pragmatic solution to follow to deal with this agenda item, alternate ways of dealing with this, oral comments and also the written comments.

We would suggest if the written comments suggested by the members with the deadline of Friday, if that content possible legal text also on each cluster, it will be more helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

USA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I’m speaking on behalf of group B. We welcome your approach to move forward with the discussion of the clusters. The one thing that we’re kind of hung up on and I think we agree with the European Union and our colleagues is the deadline of Friday. I think these ideas need to be flushed out more. We’re moving into the IP practicabilities tomorrow, and then broadcasting over the weekend. There’s not going to be a lot of time for delegations to really devote the necessary work. So I think we need to have a more reasonable deadline, whether it’s two weeks, four weeks, whatever the case may be to allow delegations to contribute.

And also, I mean, just the sooner we get to the substantive discussions on the clusters today, , I think the better because I think we need to resolve the deadline. Thank you.

European Union: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like the thank you for working so hard to arrive at a compromise, but I fear that this, perhaps, will not be enough for the European Union. We, as is the case with Chile, as well, we think that the time frame ought to be two months from the end of this session, a reasonable time frame, making it possible to provide a proper response in terms of substance.

Furthermore, we don’t think — we should avoid a double standard, that is to say there being a first deadline, Friday this, Friday so that a new text can be issued as of next Monday, and then leave another time frame, another deadline or cutoff date for those delegations who were not able to submit their document within that very short time frame, that is to say up until Friday. That’s very short. I don’t think that is the proper way forward. I think that we need to leave the time, provide enough time for all delegations to consult with one another, to think about these things.

I think it would be detrimental for our work, looking at this question of libraries and archives, also for the rest of our work that we have to carry out in this session to adopt an approach that would be rather hurried in this way.

South Africa: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is very important that we don’t belabor this. I think that you have resolved the issue. I think when Chile took the floor and sought a middle ground, that was the way forward, so that we provide opportunity for those who are in a position to do so, to submit by Friday. Then those who are not in a position to do so, we shall identify a suitable date for them to submit the comments. I think that’s the way forward. We’ve already agreed to that. So we don’t need to belabor this.

I did say that we are going to discuss this in the future work, so I don’t know why we’re discussing future work before we even get involved in the substance. Let’s go to the substance, Mr. Chairman. Because we’re in agreement in principle on the way forward.

So the middle ground that we have had from Chile, that’s what we’re saying. But we will discuss it further because we still have to consult in our groups about the way forward. But we agree with the principles of saying that there will be those who are in a position to do so, to submit by Friday. Those who are not in a position to do so, to submit whenever we identify the date, the suitable date. Thank you.

Pakistan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And my colleague from South Africa has already adequately mentioned what I wanted to say. But I think it is very important that we do not lose the work that we do during these three days. And not to lose it would be very important. And only we agree to have those incorporated in forms of written comments by Friday or have the document then on Monday.

And we are flexible with regard to the deadline. We do understand that the countries do need time with regard to consultations that they need to have internally. And we are flexible as to the time limit that we have to set for the subsequent comments that need to be given. I think that we can tackle when we come to the future work. And whatever U.S. mentioned has to be given due consideration at that stage. But at this point I think that we need to continue with the discussions on the thematic clusters as we had proposed, sir. Thank you.

Mexico: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In like manner to the proposal by Chile, two-month time period I think is good. But of course our work for these two days is going to be a very good time frame to flesh out this document and also to define the formats in which the comments can be made.

I think that both today, tomorrow, Friday, up to Monday will help us to actually define the way in which the comments will be made within that two-month reasonable time period. But because I think a lot could be added also already in the next few days ahead of us. Thank you very much, sir.

CHAIR: Seeking here to move toward a solution. And in that quest for a solution, I think that setting forth a time frame of Friday, from for the submission of written comments, could be a very equitable way forward. And then having a further time frame, not two months but three months, three months for the comments on those initial positions that will have been put forward by Friday and published on Monday, so this could give us perhaps a more structured way of proceeding with this theme.

Pending in Brazil’s House of Representatives is a proposed cybercrime law [pt] that could criminalize many ordinary online activities and that would mark an abrupt shift in Brazil’s progressive digital policy environment. The Committee on Science and Technology will vote on the bill on November 9, 2011.

Under the proposed law, PL 84/99, sponsored by Representative Eduardo Azeredo, courts could apply criminal penalties to activities like file sharing, peer-to-peer communications, and the fair use of copyrighted works. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and sites like YouTube and Flickr could become liable for unlawful content posted by their users. And ISPs, email service providers, and other Internet intermediaries would be obligated to collect and retain users’ personal data for extended periods of time. Scholars, civil society leaders, and advocates for digital rights have spoken out against the bill, arguing that the law would interfere with citizens’ rights to free expression and privacy and restrict the openness of the Brazilian Internet.

Researchers at the Centro do Tecnología e Sociedade [pt] (Center for Technology and Society) of the Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil’s premier social science research institution, have circulated ample analysis calling attention to problems in the bill. Mega Não [pt], a collective of digital rights activists and scholars who advocate for Internet openness and strong online privacy laws, worked with stakeholders to compose a 2008 petition [pt] illustrating the bill’s problems and urging legislators to vote against it. The petition emphasized the importance of balancing the nation’s security interests with fundamental rights and the broader trajectory of Brazil’s information society:

Não defendemos o plágio, a cópia indevida ou o roubo de obras. Defendemos…liberdade de troca, o crescimento da criatividade e a expansão do conhecimento no Brasil. […] [Esse projeto] Projetos como esses…colocam o país definitivamente para debaixo do tapete da história da sociedade da informação no século XXI.
We do not advocate plagiarism, improper copying, or theft of works. We defend…free exchange, the growth of creativity, and the expansion of knowledge in Brazil. […] Bills like this one…will take the history of [Brazil’s] information society in the 21st century and sweep it under the rug.

The petition received over 160,000 signatures and prompted legislators to hold a series of public hearings on the bill before allowing it to move forward in the legislative process. Speaking at the International Free Software Forum conference in Porto Alegre in 2009, former President Lula Ignacio da Silva said of the bill [pt],

Essa lei não visa corrigir abusos na internet. Ela quer é fazer censura. Precisamos é de um código civil para determinar as responsabilidades na internet, mas não proibir.
This law does not aim to curb [criminal activity] on the Internet. Its aim is to censor. What we need is a civil code to determine [legal] responsibilities on the Internet, not to prohibit [ordinary activity].

US-based advocates for Internet openness and privacy including the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have also raised concerns about the bill.

The proposed law would undercut many of the positive developments in Brazilian Internet policy that have taken place in recent years. Under Lula, Minister of Culture and singer-songwriter Gilberto Gil worked to increase Internet access and supported expansion of digitally-based educational and cultural programs for Brazilians. The International Free Software Forum, Creative Commons, the Peer-to-Peer Foundation, and other leading innovators partnered with the Ministry of Culture and held events in Brazil, making the country a global hub for Internet openness.

In tandem with these developments, lawmakers drafted a digital “bill of rights” or civil regulatory framework, known as the Marco Civil da Internet. The full text of the bill of law is available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Developed through numerous consultations (both online and offline) between lawmakers, scholars, and digital rights advocates, the Marco Civil da Internet represents a balance of the right to freedom of expression with the interests of privacy and security. The bill establishes a clear set of rights and responsibilities for users, sets strong net neutrality principles, and shields intermediaries from criminal liability for user-generated content. Congress has yet to vote on the legislation; the Azeredo Law currently sits higher on the Congressional agenda than the Marco Civil, but should members of Congress call for further deliberation concerning the PL 84/99, this could change.

Under the new administration of President Dilma Rouseff, who took office in January of 2011, Minister of Culture Ana de Hollanda has signaled that she will likely diverge from Gil’s policy agenda. She startled the digital rights community by removing the Creative Commons license from the Ministry’s website during her first days in office.

As part of its partnership with the Centro da Tecnologia y Sociedade (CTS), CDT has issued comments on PL 84/99, analyzing its provisions under international and regional human rights law and comparing PL 84/99 with the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, which Representative Azeredo has referred to as the “inspiration” for the bill. The key points of the CDT memorandum are as follows:

PL 84/99 would criminalize the violation of an “express access restriction” to a computer, network, or online service. The language used in the bill is so broad that it could criminalize violations of the “terms of service” of websites or other online services.

PL 84/99 would criminalize obtaining or transferring data from a system or network protected by an “express access restriction.” This could criminalize activities such as file sharing and transferring data from one device or system to another.

PL 84/99 could generate legal consequences for intermediaries—ISPs, hosts, or platforms for user-generated content—that facilitate, unknowingly and unintentionally, the “unauthorized” transfer of data or the dissemination of malicious code.

PL 84/99 would obligate intermediaries to retain user data for law enforcement purposes, a measure that would also interfere with the citizen’s right to privacy.

Over the past decade, Brazil has pioneered a digital policymaking approach that countries all over the world have looked to as a model for promoting innovation and openness online. CTS and CDT urge digital rights advocates in Brazil and throughout the Americas to oppose PL 84/99, and to support the efforts of Brazilian legislators and civil society leaders working to maintain Brazil’s vibrant information society.

Leia a notícia no Portal do SERPRO.

“É livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença”, diz a Constituição. Mas interpretações de propriedade intelectual bombardeiam sua função social e subvertem a lógica do direito autoral, criado para favorecer a criatividade, e não o lucro”

“We urge Government to ensure that in future, policy on intellectual property issues is constructed on the basis of evidence, rather than weight of lobbying”1 (Ian Hargreaves, Relatório sobre propriedade intelectual para o governo britânico, maio de 2011)

Cansado das declarações empoladas e de indignações capengas, resolvi apresentar alguns exemplos práticos de como funcionam as coisas na minha área, a universidade. A ideia básica é que simplificações ideológicas e discursos irritados estão frequentemente baseados, antes de em perversidade, em falta de informação.

A geração de ideias é um processo colaborativo. Não por opção ideológica ou qualquer fundamentalismo, mas pela natureza das ideias. A internet não teria surgido sem as iniciativas dos pesquisadores militares do Darpa, mas se materializou como sistema planetário por meio do www criado pelo britânico Tim Berners-Lee, que não o teria feito se não fosse o processo colaborativo da Organização Europeia para a Pesquisa Nuclear (Cern), onde tinha de fazer conversar pesquisadores de diversos países e gerar sinergia entre as próprias pesquisas. Mas isso não surgiria sem que brilhantes físicos inventassem o transistor e o microprocessador, fruto de pesquisas universitárias e empresariais. Os satélites que permitem que as ideias fluam em torno do planeta resultam de investimentos públicos russos e norte-americanos em pesquisas e infraestruturas espaciais.

O dilema do autor

Em maio de 2011, um artigo meu foi publicado na revista Latin American Perspectives, da Califórnia. Sou obrigado a publicar, pois sem isso o programa da PUC-SP, onde sou professor, não terá os pontos necessários ao seu credenciamento. Publicar um artigo normalmente significa disponibilizar uma pesquisa para que outros dela possam aproveitar e para assegurar justamente o processo colaborativo em que uns aprendem com os outros e colocam a ciência sempre alguns passos mais à frente. Em termos acadêmicos, a revista mencionada é classificada como “internacional A” pelo Qualis, e isso soma muitos pontos no currículo. A universidade funciona assim: quem não publica se trumbica, para resgatar o Chacrinha. A versão do mesmo ditado em Harvard apareceu na forma de um pequeno cartaz que puseram embaixo de um crucifixo na parede: “Foi um grande mestre, mas não publicou nada”. Com razão foi crucificado. Publicar é preciso.

Mas alguém vai ler? No século XXI, os atos de publicar e disponibilizar se dissociaram. Não são mais o mesmo processo. Quando comunicaram que o artigo foi publicado, fiquei contente, e solicitei cópia. Enviaram o link da Sage Publications, empresa com fins lucrativos que me informa que posso ver o artigo que escrevi, com as minhas ideias − artigo, aliás, sobre a nova geração de intelectuais no Brasil −, pagando US$ 25. A soma permite acessar meu artigo durante 24 horas. Mas posso ver no dia seguinte pagando outra vez e também posso dizer aos amigos que leiam meu artigo, pagando a mesma quantia. A Sage monopoliza cerca de quinhentas revistas científicas, segundo declaração em seu site. Eu, como autor, fico no dilema: tenho de publicar nessas revistas, para a minha sobrevivência formal. Mas então ninguém lê. E se disponibilizo o texto on-line, entro na ilegalidade. Ninguém me pagou por esse artigo. A Sage é generosa nas ameaças sobre o que acontece se eu disseminar o artigo que eles publicaram.2

Minha solução foi abrir espaço no meu blog e colocar o artigo em formato manuscrito, sem menção de que foi publicado na Latin American Perspectives. Muitas pessoas acessam meu site. Não vou impor aos colegas um pedágio de US$ 25, eles que já não têm muita propensão a perder tempo com os meus textos. Tenho um duplo exercício: publicar no papel para ter pontos e publicar on-line (o que curiosamente não dá pontos) para ser lido.

Tenho de reconhecer que recebi igualmente um mimo da Sage, na forma de um e-mail: “Thank you for choosing to publish your paper in Latin American Perspectives. SAGE aims to be the natural home for authors, editors and societies”.3 O pessoal científico da Latin American Perspectives, gente que pesquisa e publica e se debruça essencialmente sobre conteúdos, não tem nada a ver com isso. Ronald Chilcote ficou espantado ao saber que tenho de pagar para ler o meu artigo. Uma empresa comercial terceirizada se apresenta de maneira simpática como “o lar de autores”, e o direito autoral consiste no autor ter o direito de ler seu artigo pagando à editora, que, aliás, não lhe pagou nada, tampouco criou coisa alguma. De onde vem esse poder? Eles sabem que tenho de publicar nas revistas referenciadas. É um pedágio sem via lateral, o que lhes permite me enviar o seguinte aviso: “The SAGE-created PDF of the published contribution may not be posted at any time”.4 Em si, é até divertido o “Sage-created PDF”, como se colocar o artigo em PDF fosse o ato da criação, e não a trabalheira que tive ao fazer o artigo, ou a construção da bagagem intelectual que tenho e que motivou o convite para escrevê-lo.

A Sage não é exceção. George Monbiot, no Guardian, apresenta a situação geral: “Ler um único artigo publicado por um dos periódicos da Elsevier vai lhe custar US$ 31,50. A Springer cobra 34,95 euros. Wiley-Blackwell, US$ 42. Leia dez artigos e pagará dez vezes. E eles detêm o copyright perpétuo. Você quer ler uma carta impressa em 1981? São US$ 31,50… Os retornos são astronômicos: no último ano fiscal, por exemplo, o lucro operacional da Elsevier foi de 36% sobre cobranças de 2 bilhões de libras. Resulta um açambarcamento do mercado. Elsevier, Springer e Wiley, que compraram muitos de seus competidores, agora controlam 42% das publicações”. Há saída para os autores? “Os grandes tomaram controle dos periódicos com o maior impacto acadêmico, nos quais é essencial pesquisadores publicarem para tentar obter financiamentos e fazer avançar sua carreira… O que estamos vendo é um puro capitalismo rentista: monopolizam um recurso público e então cobram taxas exorbitantes. Outra forma de chamar isso é parasitismo econômico”, escreve Monbiot.5

Outro importante estudo, de Glenn McGuigan e Robert Russell, constata que “o poder de negociação das faculdades e dos professores como fornecedores de propriedade intelectual é fraco. A indústria é altamente concentrada nas mãos de três editores com fins lucrativos que controlam a distribuição de muitos periódicos, inclusive os maiores e de maior prestígio. Esses fatores contribuem para um ambiente de negócios em que os editores comerciais podem aumentar os preços por falta de fontes alternativas de distribuição de conteúdo intelectual em mãos de periódicos acadêmicos”. Os autores defendem o acesso aberto à produção científica.6

Dinheiro ou criatividade

É importante aqui considerar a dimensão legal: a propriedade intelectual é temporária. Em termos jurídicos, não é um direito natural. A bicicleta é minha, posso desmontar ou guardar na garagem até enferrujar. Aliás, até isso não me parece muito correto. Se é para deixar enferrujar, melhor dar para um moleque se divirtir com ela. Mas, no caso da ideia, a própria legalidade é diferente. É por isso que copyrights e patentes valem por tempo determinado: foram criados não para defender o direito de propriedade do autor, sob forma de copyrights, ou para assegurar um pecúlio para herdeiros, mas para assegurar ao autor uma vantagem temporária que o estimule a produzir mais ideias. Quando paguei a bicicleta, é minha e ponto. A ideia que pus no papel faz parte de uma construção social. Não é porque eu a tive que ela me é temporariamente reservada (causa), mas sim porque a propriedade temporária deve estimular a criatividade (objetivo). Isso é totalmente coerente com o fato de a propriedade, conforme está na nossa Constituição, ter de preencher uma função social. O travamento do acesso à produção científica, no caso, prejudica o objetivo, que é o estímulo à criatividade.

O primeiro-ministro da Inglaterra, David Cameron, encarregou em novembro de 2010 uma comissão dirigida por Ian Hargreaves de responder a uma questão simples, que depois de ampla pesquisa foi respondida com clareza: “Poderia ser verdade que leis desenhadas há mais de três séculos com o propósito expresso de criar incentivos econômicos para a inovação por meio da proteção dos direitos dos criadores estejam hoje obstruindo a inovação e o crescimento econômico? A resposta curta é: sim”.7

Como se dá essa obstrução? O exemplo da Sage, acima, é um mecanismo. No triângulo criador-intermediário-usuário, quem manda é o intermediário, não quem cria, tampouco quem lê ou estuda, que é afinal o objeto de todo o nosso esforço. Manda quem fornece o suporte material, e este é cada vez menos necessário. E tal como Ian Hargreaves, Joseph Stiglitz e o primeiro-ministro da Grã-Bretanha, muita gente começa a se perguntar qual é o sentido desse sistema.

Segundo exemplo. O MIT, principal centro de pesquisa dos Estados Unidos, há alguns anos decidiu virar a mesa: criou o OCW (Open Course Ware), que libera para o público, gratuitamente, o acesso à produção científica de todos os seus professores e pesquisadores. Estes podem se recusar, mas na ausência de instruções específicas, o padrão é que tudo apareça on-line no site . Qualquer um pode acessar gratuita e instantaneamente cerca de 2 mil cursos. Em poucos anos, o MIT teve mais de 50 milhões de textos e vídeos científicos baixados, uma contribuição impressionante para a riqueza científico-tecnológica do planeta. O que, afinal, é o objetivo.

É interessante pensar o seguinte: quando sabem que seus trabalhos estão sendo seguidos e aproveitados em milhões de lugares, gratuitamente, professores e pesquisadores se sentem mais ou menos estimulados? Cobrar acesso pelas suas ideias seria mais estimulante? O fato fantástico de eu poder escrever em um computador, que da minha mesa acessa qualquer informação em meios magnéticos, em qualquer parte do planeta, é resultado de um amplo processo de construção social colaborativa, em que os avanços de uns permitem os avanços de outros. Na minha visão, temos de reduzir drasticamente os empolamentos ideológicos e pensar no que melhor funciona.

Terceiro exemplo. Nas três universidades de linha de frente em São Paulo − a USP, a PUC-SP e a FGV-SP −, mas seguramente também em outras instituições, há salas de fotocópia com inúmeros escaninhos de pastas de professores. Os alunos, obedientemente, mesmo nas pós-graduações, vão procurar as pastas e levam fragmentos de livros (limite de um capítulo) fotocopiados. Um capítulo isolado, para uma pessoa que está estudando e, portanto, na fase inicial de conhecimentos específicos, é mais ou menos um óvni. E o professor não tem opção, já que xerocar o livro inteiro é crime. Colocamos nesta página a foto da forma de acesso ao material científico de uma pós-graduação de linha de frente no país, no século XXI.

Numerosas universidades de primeira linha nos Estados Unidos já se inspiram no exemplo do MIT. Para os fundamentalistas da propriedade intelectual, seria interessante mencionar um comentário de Bill Gates, que cobra bem, mas entende perfeitamente para onde sopram os ventos: “‘Education cannot escape the transformative power of the internet’, says Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. ‘Within five years students will be able to study degree courses for free online’”.8 Entre nós, predomina a pré-história científica. O Creative Commons só agora começa a ser difundido. A geração de espaços colaborativos de interação científica está no limbo.9

O prazer da ideia

Eu, que não sou nenhum MIT, criei modestamente o meu blog (http://dowbor.org) e disponibilizo os meus textos on-line. Resultam muitos leitores, e muitos convites. Os meus livros continuam vendendo. Os convites por vezes me remuneram. E realmente, quando uma ideia instigante de um colega me puxa para uma pesquisa inovadora, a motivação é outra. Não é porque haveria uma cenoura no fim do processo de criação que as pessoas criam, mas pelo prazer intenso de sentir uma ideia se cristalizar na cabeça. Ao caminhar de maneira teimosa atrás de uma ideia ainda confusa na minha mente, preciso consultar, folhear e descartar ou anotar dezenas de estudos de outros pesquisadores, até que chega a excitação tão bem descrita por Rubem Alves com o conceito pouco científico de “tesão” e que Madalena Freire chama de maneira mais recatada de “paixão de conhecer o mundo”.

O potencial da ciência on-line, do open course,é que eu posso acessar quase instantaneamente o que se produziu em diversas instituições e sob diversos enfoques científicos sobre o tema que estou pesquisando, o que me permite chegar ao cerne do processo: uma articulação inovadora de conhecimentos científicos anteriormente acumulados. Esse aumento fantástico do potencial criativo que o acesso permite é que importa, e não o fato de ser gratuito. E a seleção dos bons artigos se faz naturalmente: quando me chega uma ótima análise, obviamente repasso para colegas. É um processo de seleção que decorre da própria utilidade científica da criação e permite inclusive que circulem artigos que são bons, mas de autores pouco conhecidos, que não teriam acesso aos circuitos nobres da publicação tradicional. Agora, se eu for pagar US$ 25 a cada vez que tenho de folhear um artigo para ver se contém uma inovação que contribui para a minha pesquisa, ninguém progride. Quanto ao xerox, francamente, temos de ter pena do clima, das árvores e dos alunos. E (por que não?) até dos professores.

Urge que as nossas universidades se inspirem no MIT e em outras grandes universidades que estão desintermediando a ciência, favorecendo um processo colaborativo e ágil entre os pesquisadores do país e até mesmo no plano internacional. É uma imensa oportunidade que se abre para um salto no progresso científico. O atraso, nessa área, custa caro.

Ladislau Dowbor é doutor em Ciências Econômicas pela Escola Central de Planejamento e Estatística de Varsóvia, Polônia, e professor titular da PUC-SP. É autor de A reprodução social e Democracia economômica – um passeio pelas teorias (contato http://dowbor.org).

1 “Instamos o governo que assegure que no futuro, as políticas relativas a questões de propriedade intelectual sejam construídas sobre a base de fatos, e não do peso dos lobbies.”

2 Você pode ler meu abstract de graça (!) em http://bit.ly/g3TtXO.

3 “Obrigado por publicar seu artigo na Latin American Perspectives. O objetivo da Sage é ser o lar natural de autores, editores e sociedades.”

4 “O PDF criado pela Sage da contribuição publicada não poderá ser postado em nenhum momento.”

5 George Monbiot, “How did academic publishers acquire these feudal powers?”, The Guardian, 30 ago. 2011. Disponível em http://dowbor.org/ar/the%20guardian.doc.

6 Glenn S. McGuigan e Robert D. Russell, “The business of academic publishing”. Disponível em http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html.

7 Ian Hargreaves, Digital opportunity: a review of intellectual property and growth – An independent report, maio 2011, p.1. Disponível em www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-finalreport.pdf.

8 “‘A educação não pode escapar do poder transformador da internet’, diz o chairman da Microsoft Bill Gates. ‘Dentro de cinco anos os estudantes poderão cursar faculdades gratuitamente on-line’”. New Scientist, 14 ago. 2010, p.23 (techcrunch.com, 6 ago.). Note-se que em junho de 2011 o Ministério de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia da Coreia do Sul anunciou a disponibilização on-line de todos os livros-texto, para todo o sistema educacional, até 2015. Disponível em http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/06/30/2011063001176.html.

9 Sobre a dinâmica nas universidades brasileiras, ver o grupo de pesquisa GPOPAI da USP-Leste (www.gpopai.usp.br/blogs/); o Creative Commons não é a casa da mãe joana: pode-se reproduzir e divulgar o texto, mas não usá-lo para fins comerciais nem deformá-lo ou truncá-lo e deixar de citar a fonte. O autor é lido e está protegido.
Palavras chave: direito autoral, creative commons, propriedade, criatividade, lucro, pesquisa, universidade, pesquisas acadêmicas

Years of deadlock in the Doha Round of trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) has prompted some to question the institution’s effectiveness, and even, its relevance. But for others, the stalemate seems to be favourable for new ideas and new ways to think about global trade.

During the 19-21 September WTO Public Forum 2011, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and IQsensato, both not-for-profit organisations, held a joint panel session on a proposal to the WTO entitled, “An Agreement on the Supply of Knowledge as a Global Public Good.” The 21 September session provided a space to debate the feasibility of adding the supply of public goods involving knowledge as a new category in negotiated binding commitments in international trade.

James Love, director of KEI, presented the idea. “The agreement,” he explained, “combines voluntary offers with binding commitments by governments to increase the supply of heterogeneous public goods. It would be analogous to existing WTO commitments to reducing tariffs, subsidies, or liberalising services.”

Limited access

The idea of “public goods” has been around for a while. A KEI 2008 paper on the proposal, John Kenneth Galbraith’s 1958 book, The Affluent Society, which created a stir about society’s over-supply of private goods versus a growing under-supply of public goods. The KEI paper also cites the contribution to the debate made by Joseph Stiglitz, who identified five global public good categories: international economic stability, international security (political stability), the international environment, international humanitarian assistance, and knowledge.

It’s this last category that KEI would like to see put up for negotiation. According to its 2008 paper, “In recent decades, an influential and controversial enclosure movement has vastly expanded the boundaries of what knowledge can be ‘owned,’ lengthened the legal terms of protection and enhanced the legal rights granted to owners of the collection of legal
rights referred to as “intellectual property.”

Proposal advocates argue that in the wake of such knowledge protection, the global community faces an under-supply of public goods, including knowledge. Shandana Gulzar Khan, of the permanent mission of Pakistan to the WTO, seconds this sentiment. “I feel that an acute restriction of access to public goods and services is indeed a reality for the majority of the world’s population.”

Love argued that the WTO is the right international institutional to contribute to the solution. He cited a description of the WTO found on its website: “Above all, it’s a negotiating forum…Essentially, the WTO is a place where member governments go, to try to sort out the trade problems they face with each other…. Although negotiated and signed by governments, the goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business, while allowing governments to meet social and environmental objectives.”

Defining Good

When it comes to defining what qualifies as a global public good, Love mentioned how the International Task Force on Global Public Goods describes them as goods that “address issues that are deemed to be important to the international community; and that cannot, or will not, be adequately addressed by individual countries acting alone.” The list of such priorities is long and far-reaching.

Examples of potential ask/offers includes collaborative funding of inducement prizes to reward open source innovation in areas of climate change, sustainable agriculture and medicine; agreement to fund biomedical research in areas of great importance, such as new antibiotics, avian influenza, and the development of an AIDS vaccine; funding of projects to improve functionality and usability of free software; and new open public domain tools for distance education.

Some experts cautioned that deriving a universal definition of what constitutes global public goods is a tall task. Panel speaker Antony Taubman, director of the Intellectual Property Division at the WTO, cautioned that public goods do not bring with them an idea of prioritization. “One of the underlying challenges, of course, is how to multi-lateralise the concept of public goods…. What might be considered a high priority public good from one country’s perspective would possibly be even rejected by another country.”

Taubman mentioned hormones for beef or genetically modified crops as current examples of controversial public goods. “Would one country’s contribution of a new drought resistant genetically modified crop really be considered a valuable public good by countries that regarded that as an inappropriate technology?”

Another panellist, José Estanislau do Amaral from the permanent mission of Brazil to the WTO and other economic organisations in Geneva, suggested ways to take the proposal forward.

“There seems to be a double objective in the proposal,” he said. “One is to support the creation of certain public goods and the other one is to increase access to those goods. Both of course are interlinked and they are mutually reinforcing. But they are objectives in themselves…. I am inclined, at this stage, to suggest that there might be benefits in those two
objectives being pursued separately. Access to existing knowledge must not be required to wait for the supply of new knowledge.”

The Brazilian official suggested that KEI construct a structured draft treaty of the proposal so there could be a more advanced debate on the idea. Love said that a draft agreement should be ready by the end of February 2012.

On October 2, the Anticounterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States.  The signing statement issued at the ceremony called the agreement “a significant achievement in the fight against the infringement of intellectual property rights, in particular the proliferation of counterfeiting and piracy on a global scale, providing a mechanism for the parties to work together in a more collaborative manner to achieve the common goal of effective IPR enforcement.”

The U.S. Trade Representative released a “fact sheet” answering certain criticisms of the agreement from civil society.  Regarding ACTA’s compatibility with US law:

Significantly, the ACTA is consistent with existing U.S. law, and does not require any change to U.S. law for its implementation in the United States. In particular, the ACTA is consistent with U.S. copyright, patent, and trademark laws. For example, the application of injunctive relief as provided for in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 USC §512j) and other provisions of U.S. law is consistent with and implements the obligations of the ACTA. References in Article 27.4 of the ACTA to expeditious disclosure of information do not oblige the United States to take additional action to compel such disclosure. Disclosure requirements currently apply in the United States only with respect to copyrights (under certain provisions of the DMCA) and not to trademarks. Similarly, U.S. law regarding damages in patent disputes fully implements the relevant provisions of the ACTA. In some cases, the ACTA provides that a party may decide whether or not to implement certain provisions, or provides that a party may, in implementing certain provisions, limit the scope of its implementation to particular categories of intellectual property. For example, the ACTA specifies that a party may exclude patents and protection of undisclosed information from the obligations in Chapter II, Section 2 (Civil Enforcement). The United States will ensure that its approach to implementing these and all other ACTA obligations is fully consistent with U.S. law.

Regarding the need (or lack thereof) of Congressional approval:

As noted, the ACTA is consistent with existing U.S. law and does not require the enactment of implementing legislation. The United States may therefore enter into and carry out the requirements of the Agreement under existing legal authority, just as it has done with other trade agreements. Such agreements include both broad trade pacts like the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and agreements specifically addressing trade-related intellectual property rights, including those concluded with Ecuador, Hungary, Jamaica, and Latvia.

USTR Documents

• Joint Signing Statement
• USTR “Fact Sheet” – ACTA: Meeting US Objectives
• USTR Press Release – Partners Sign Groundbreaking Anticounterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Civil Society Responses to USTR Fact Sheet

• KEI Comment on US Signing of ACTA, relating to conflicts between US law and ACTA
• Sean Flynn’s Comment, relating to USTR’s assertion that ACTA is a sole executive agreement

It is the result of an initiative from the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, in partnership with the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), to develop a collaborative online/offline consultation process in which all the actors from Brazilian society could identify together the rights and responsibilities that should guide the use of the Internet in Brazil. The process, which resulted in a Bill of Law, is an example of the importance and the great potential of multistakeholder involvement on policy-making.

The online consultation was divided into two periods, each of them spanning roughly 45 days. The first period of the consultation involved a debate about general principles, which then served as reference for the writing of the text of draft Bill. These principles were divided into three groups: (1) individual and collective rights (privacy, freedom of speech, and access rights), (2) principles related to intermediaries (net neutrality and civil liability), and (3) governmental directives (openness, infrastructure, and capacity building). The draft text for the Bill, reflecting the comments received on its first phase, was then put under consultation for the second period.

Contributions were received through a website hosted by Cultura Digital, an online platform developed by the Ministry of Culture, with the goal to encourage the emergence of online communities for the discussion of public policies for the digital environment. During both periods of the consultation, users were allowed to comment on the consultation texts, paragraph by paragraph, directly in the website. Nonetheless, blog posts, tweets, articles published in mainstream media, and institutional and individual contributions sent by email (and then made available to the public at the website) were also taken into consideration.

Predictably, debates that involved the balance between conflicting rights and interests, freedom of speech, anonymity, privacy and access rights were the topics of heated and often rich debates during both stages of the consultation process. Over 2,000 contributions, from individual users, governmental and non-governmental entities were received.

NGOs, universities, internet service providers (collectively though associations, as well as individually), business companies, law firms, law enforcement agencies, individuals, Brazilian Embassies from all over the world, and many other participants have joined the online public hearing. The participation of several stakeholder groups has promoted the diversity of opinions and the availability of high quality information and expert advise, which have helped the government to draft a balanced bill. The openness and transparency of the process, entirely conducted online, in the public eye, has improved the legitimacy of the bill. Marco Civil was introduced in Congress with the political weight and the legitimacy that the Bill would be expected to have after a complex multistakeholder discussion.

The final text of the draft  bill contains 25 articles divided into 5 chapters, concerning: (1) Preliminary Provisions; (2) User Rights and Guarantees; (3) Provision of Connection Services and Internet Services; (4) The Role of Public Authorities; (5) Final Provisions. The bill begins by advancing users’ rights and some general principles for the regulation of the Internet, before dealing with the issues of the preservation of connection logs, secondary liability for ISPs, and net neutrality, and then wraps with directives aimed at the public sector.

If approved by the National Congress as it stands, the Marco Civil would be a Federal Law, applicable to public and private entities, as well as to individuals. Its provisions would be enforceable and one could resort to courts as a mean to have such principles complied in further national Internet regulation processes.

The Marco Civil is presently being discussed at the National Congress as Bill of Law nr. 2126/2011.

In her speech during the opening of United Nation’s (UN) Special Summit on Chronic Diseases, brazilian president Dilma Roussef upheld patent-breaking for select drugs. The summit happened at the UN’s headquarters, in New York, last Monday the 19th. Once more, she has spoken favourably about breaking patents for those drugs necessary for treating non-communicable chronic diseases, like diabetes and hypertension, and gratuitous access to medicaments for low-income populations to treat these diseases.
In her speech, Dilma stated that these diseases are responsible for 72% of non-violent deaths amongst people below 70 years old and also drew attention to brazilian programs in the field. “Prevention and granting access to these medicaments should walk side-by-side”, said the president.
Dilma is in New York to participate in the UN’s General Assembly. On Wednesday, 21st, the president will make the opening speech of the Assembly, in which she will support the recognition of the Palestinian State. It’s the first time a woman opens a UN session.

Janaína E. P. Faria

Em maio de 2010, o Brasil e a Índia ingressaram oficialmente com pedido de consultas no âmbito do Mecanismo de Solução de Controvérsias da Organização Mundial de Comércio (OMC) questionando a legalidade das apreensões de medicamentos genéricos em trânsito executadas em portos europeus. Entre 2008 e 2009, ao menos 18 carregamentos de medicamentos de origem indiana e chinesa em rota para países da América Latina, África e Oceania foram interceptados e, em alguns casos, destruídos por autoridades aduaneiras de países europeus. Os carregamentos continham medicamentos utilizados para o tratamento de HIV/AIDS, esquizofrenia, Alzheimer, colesterol, hipertensão, entre outros.

O caso da apreensão em dezembro de 2008 de 570 kg de Losartan Potassium, princípio ativo utilizado para a produção de medicamentos anti-hipertensivos, motivou o Brasil a recorrer à OMC. O fármaco havia sido produzido legalmente na Índia e estava a caminho do Brasil. Apesar de não ser protegido por patente em ambos os países, a carga foi confiscada na Holanda, país onde a transnacional Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), em conjunto com a Du Pont, detém sua patente.

Os oficiais de aduana executaram a detenção da carga com base na aplicação do Regulamento CE 1383/2003 da União Europeia (UE) – relativo a medidas de fronteira contra bens suspeitos de infração de certos Direitos de Propriedade Intelectual (DPIs). O embaixador brasileiro na OMC, Roberto Azevedo, comentou a decisão de ingressar com pedido de consulta na OMC contra a UE e a Holanda declarando que “O Regulamento (CE 1383/2003) em si é ilegal”. O então ministro de Comércio da Índia, Anand Sharma, declarou que “as ações tomadas não foram somente Trips-plus, mas ‘Trips-ilegais”.

A declaração do ministro indiano faz referência ao Acordo sobre os Aspectos dos Direitos de Propriedade Intelectual relacionados ao Comércio (Trips, acrônimo em inglês), o qual regula no âmbito da OMC as regras relativas aos DPIs e Comércio. Além do Acordo Trips, o Brasil e a Índia alegam que as medidas europeias de aduana violam um princípio fundamental do comércio internacional: a liberdade de trânsito de mercadorias pelas rotas mais convenientes (Artigo V do GATT). Duas rodadas de consultas conjuntas do Brasil e da Índia com a UE foram realizadas junto à OMC, em julho e setembro de 2010 (casos DS408 – Índia/DS409 – Brasil). Concluída a fase de consultas, a UE se comprometeu a tomar medidas necessárias para evitar futuras apreensões injustificadas e para proteger o comércio legítimo.

Em junho deste ano, a Comissão Europeia apresentou a proposta de um novo regulamento, que substituiria o Regulamento CE 1383/2003. A proposta foi enviada para o Conselho Europeu e o Parlamento Europeu para comentários e aprovação. Medidas ainda mais agressivas foram incorporadas ao novo regulamento, que expande o escopo de DPIs coberto pelo anterior. O procedimento simplificado para destruição de bens suspeitos de violação de DPIs (sem que haja necessidade de determinar se um DPI infringe ou não a lei nacional) se tornará compulsório para todos os membros da UE, caso o novo Regulamento entre em vigor. Além disso, marcas similares foram incluídas no escopo de violação de direitos de marca, o que pode provocar mais detenções equivocadas de medicamentos, haja visto que tanto os medicamentos de referência como os genéricos e similares geralmente se baseiam na Denominação Comum Internacional (DCI), isto é, no nome da substância farmacológica, para comercializarem seus produtos.

O caso da apreensão em maio de 2009 na Alemanha de 3 milhões de pílulas de Amoxicilina em rota para República de Vanuatu sob alegação de infração do direito de marca ‘Amoxil’ da transnacional farmacêutica GlaxoSmithKline é emblemático. A Amoxicilina é a DCI de um antibiótico básico, livre de patentes e marcas registradas.

Com o novo Regulamento, a UE não cumpre sua promessa, selada ao fim das rodadas de consultas junto à OMC, de atender às demandas da Índia e do Brasil, visto que um medicamento em trânsito ainda poderia ser apreendido, adjudicado como uma violação, e então destruído, mesmo se produzido legalmente no país de origem e destinado para uso legal no país final de importação. Assim, tanto a Índia como o Brasil poderiam iniciar um painel de disputa na OMC contra a UE, já que não foram contemplados com as medidas tomadas pela UE.

A Índia, entretanto, aceitou em julho deste ano um termo de entendimento proposto pela UE em que se compromete em não iniciar um painel de disputa na OMC em troca da adoção pela UE de um guia para seus oficiais de aduana, alertando-os para não apreenderem medicamentos em trânsito a não ser que tenham evidências de que os produtos entrarão no mercado europeu, infringindo assim direitos patentários na UE. Com o termo de entendimento, a Índia suspende temporariamente o caso aberto na OMC (DS408), que será retirado oficialmente quando a UE modificar efetivamente seu Regulamento. A postura da Índia é um retrocesso, já que abre mão não apenas de uma alteração formal imediata na legislação europeia que impeça retenções infundadas de medicamentos genéricos, mas também ao direito de reparações aos danos das apreensões previamente realizadas.

Até o momento, o Brasil não se manifestou sobre seus próximos passos junto à OMC. Vale lembrar que a produção de genéricos tem sido atacada de diversas formas, sendo as apreensões uma das mais novas estratégias que acarreta graves prejuízos de curto prazo. Acionar a OMC foi condizente com o posicionamento internacional do Brasil no tema do acesso a medicamentos e com o compromisso de prover assistência farmacêutica para população, garantida pela Constituição Federal. Além disso, a produção nacional de medicamentos se baseia fundamentalmente na transformação de princípios ativos importados em formas farmacêuticas acabadas. Ao dificultar a importação desses produtos, o Regulamento europeu afeta a cadeia produtiva farmacêutica brasileira.

O Brasil tem, portanto, credibilidade e motivos de sobra para seguir enfrentando esse regulamento “ilegal”. Nesse sentido, um recuo como o da Índia traria impactos muito negativos para a utilização de medicamentos genéricos como um modo de atender necessidades de saúde pública.

Janaína E. P. Faria é economista, mestranda em Política Científica e Tecnológica/Unicamp e membro do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Propriedade Intelectual (GTPI/Rebrip).

With the U.S. round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) underway in Chicago, intellectual property and information policy experts from around the world have released a Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest that challenges the dominant direction of the negotiations on intellectual property in U.S. trade agreements.

The Declaration was created through a consultative process with over 180 experts from 35 countries in six continents at the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, August 25-27 at American University Washington College of Law.

Citing an “unprecedented expansion of the concentrated legal authority exercised by intellectual property rights holders” through recent trade agreements, the experts call for new efforts to “re-articulate the public interest dimension in intellectual property law and policy.”

The Declaration’s recommendations are guided by two overarching points.

First, “International intellectual property policy affects a broad range of interests within society, not just those of rights holders.” The Declaration thus concludes that “intellectual property policy making should be conducted through mechanisms of transparency and openness that encourage broad public participation.” In direct opposition to the procedures being followed for the TPPA, where negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors over text never released to the public, the Declaration calls for intellectual property agreements to be made only “within the existing forums responsible for intellectual property policy, where both developed and developing countries have full representation, and where the texts of and forums for considering proposals are open.” And in a challenge to the U.S. position that it will enter the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement without congressional approval, the Declaration calls for all international intellectual property agreements to “be subject to democratic checks and balances, including domestic legislative approval.”

The Declaration’s second major theme is that “markets alone cannot be relied upon to achieve a just allocation of information goods — that is, one that promotes the full range of human values at stake in intellectual property systems.” A full range of policies to promote public interest values must include, it explains in detail,

• the use of other legal doctrines, like human rights and consumer protection laws, to cabin intellectual property rights expansion,
• promotion of open access, open educational resources, open government and related open information policies;
• strengthening limitations and exceptions that are needed to promote creativity, innovation and other socially beneficial uses of information and its products
• setting public interest priorities in patent reform, including a more diverse structure of incentives for innovation;
• supporting cultural creativity through experimentation with new systems to reward and empower authors with, instead of in opposition to, new technologies for information diffusion;
• checking excesses in intellectual property enforcement with more safeguards, procedural fairness and proportionality in enforcement in our courts, at borders and on the internet;
• implementing development agendas, which take account of the economic, social and cultural development interests of all countries, throughout international intellectual property policy making; and
• requiring evidence, “rather than faith or ideology,” to be the core of all policy-making.

The Declaration is now open for signature.

The Global Congress was co-organized by American University Washington College of Law’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, Fundação Getulio Vargas’s Center for Technology and Society (Brazil), the American Assembly at Columbia University and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (Geneva), with sponsorships from the International Development Research Centre, Google Inc., Open Society Foundation, the Institute for Global and International Studies at George Washington University, Seattle University School of Law, and the Institute for Information Law.

In this cable dated February 2010, Chargé d’Affaires Mark Pekala, –on the basis of industry submissions– recommends against the inclusion of France on the 2010 Special 301 Watch List. According to the cable, “France has, in fact, improved the pharmaceutical R & D environment” and the cable author Mark Pekala sees no evidence of lack of IPR protection or market access. In addition, France has also been “at the forefront of copyright protection and anti-counterfeiting on the Internet,” with the first graduated response enforcement mechanism in Europe and a public-private sector charter against online counterfeits.

Below I highlight how Sarkozy’s France is doing everything and more to please the pharmaceutical lobby and the copyright industry.

It starts with “PhRMA concerns” that the French government “is employing different strategies to limit the cost of its reimbursable drug program, including aggressive use of generics and campaigns to reduce consumption.” To make matters worst (for PhRMA), it is not that simple to get a drug on the reimbursable list. First it is necessary to “approach France’s “Transparency Committee,” made up of epidemiologists, pharmacologists, medical doctors and other experts.” The Committee assigns “an “innovation” rating from ASMR I to ASMR V (I representing a “major therapeutic advance,” V “no treatment benefit”) based on clinical criteria.” Price negotiations can only start once the rating has been set. The complicated process is well described in paragraph 3 of the cable.

However, the picture is not all grim since: “the structure of pharmaceutical sales in France has changed in recent years to favor more expensive products.” The French patients and doctors apparently “prefer innovative and expensive drugs, even when less expensive ones are as effective,” therefore the possibility of “higher prices for innovative specialties makes France an attractive location for the early commercialization of innovative therapies.”

It gets better. According to the cable, and noted favorably in PhRMA’s Special 301 submission, President Sarkozy is also personally involved in helping PhRma prevent parallel imports: “President Sarkozy personally re-convened the relatively inactive Strategic Council for Health Industries (ref B) that brought together himself, five government ministers, and 15 CEOs of major U.S. and other foreign pharmaceutical and medical device companies to discuss how the health sector can become an engine of economic recovery in France. During the meeting, the GOF announced it will begin to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge two prices for drugs: one fixed price for drugs reimbursed by government health services and an unregulated price for non-reimbursable drugs and/or exports. This pricing strategy would prevent parallel imports that undercut market strategy and sales in export markets, a key issue for U.S. firms. Sarkozy and the CEOs also signed an agreement for a newly-established 140 million euro (USD 208 million) investment fund for innovative firms in the medical biotech sector.”

And, on the whole, PhRMA is rather pleased with France.

And when it comes to copyright…”France’s Aggressive Copyright Protection” seems to be “may be more stringent than the U.S.!” France is even described as “a trailblazer” regarding internet and copyright enforcement. Of course, France is sometimes misguided, for example, as to their idea to “tax online ads (the “Google tax”) as a way to compensate authors (mainly publishers) for their losses.” According to the cable, President Sarkozy is taking an anti-competitive approach and French authorities are now studying whether Google abused its dominant position in the online advertising market.”

In conclusion, “France is at the forefront of IPR protection in Europe” and “in the case of aggressive three strikes laws, may be more stringent than the U.S.” And “France’s national health insurance cost containment efforts do not deny adequate and effective IP protection to the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, nor do they prevent fair and equitable market access.” The US Embassy, the ” Post” therefore “will continue to support U.S. pharmaceutical industry efforts to expand markets in France.” What’s good for the US pharmaceutical industry is good for the French consumers?

Paris, July 20th, 2011 – The EU Parliament just published a study assessing ACTA in view of its upcoming ratification vote. Most of the report includes the typical copyright extremism nonsense, especially when it comes to the digital environment. However, this scholarly study cannot but recognize that ACTA contains serious legal flaws and brings nothing to EU citizens. Despite trying hard to help the Commission, it is forced to conclude by suggesting that the EU Parliament should reject ACTA.

After the strong criticisms expressed by EU academics, this study1commissioned by the Directorate-General for External Policies of the European Parliament also recognizes ACTA’s important flaws, while underlining that it is “difficult to point to any significant advantages that ACTA provides for EU citizens beyond the existing international framework.” According to the study, “unconditional consent would be an inappropriate response from the European Parliament given the issues that have been identified with ACTA as it stands”.

The study reaches that conclusion without even offering a comprehensive and objective assessment of ACTA’s digital chapter. It could have gone much further than merely stating that the worst provisions of previous leaked drafts do not appear in the final text. Indeed, a detailed comparison with the requests of RIAA in 2008 shows that the copyright lobby’s demands have deeply influenced the final text.

As a result of the copyright lobbies’ noxious influence, ACTA still includes a set of measures for stepping up the war on the sharing of culture over the Internet2. By pushing for “cooperation” with rights holders and threatening Internet companies with criminal measures, ACTA would force them to police their networks and services, monitoring their users’ communications, systematically circumventing judicial processes3. This is why the United Nations Rapporteur for freedom of expression recently expressed his concern with the impact of ACTA on rights and freedoms online4.

“The study falls short of questioning the legitimacy of the “war on sharing” and of the dangerous provisions negotiated by the Commission that amount to creating a private copyright police of the Net. Even though the study is rather complacent with the entertainment industries’ extremism, it cannot but suggest that ACTA is harmful for democracy and should be rejected. It proposes so many issues that should be fixed in ACTA before it could be ratified that it is a ‘politically correct’ way of stating that the whole agreement is totally unacceptable.” said Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson of La Quadrature du Net.

“ACTA started as an exercise of circumvention of democracy. It resulted in a text that the study recognizes as either useless or harmful. The Members of European Parliament must send a clear message that ACTA will not be imposed on them, and reject it right away.” concluded Philippe Aigrain, co-founder and strategic advisor of La Quadrature.

A Convenção pelos Direitos de Pessoas com Deficiência, adotada em 13 de dezembro de 2006 no âmbito da ONU, estabelece princípios de não discriminação, igualdade de oportunidade e acesso para as pessoas com deficiência. As discussões desse tratado de direito humano chamam também a atenção para os desafios das pessoas com deficiência no que diz respeito ao acesso à materiais educacionais, de pesquisa e acesso à informação e comunicação.

Essas questões e outros temas essenciais ao desenvolvimento humano foram incorporados à discussão internacional do tema da propriedade intelectual, principalmente, com a adoção da Agenda do Desenvolvimento na OMPI. Em outubro de 2007, a Assembléia Geral adotou 45 recomendações para ampliar a dimensão desenvolvimentista das atividades da organização. Além do que, os Estados Membros também aprovaram uma recomendação para estabelecer o Comitê sobre Desenvolvimento e Propriedade Intelectual (CDIP). A discussão, portanto, condiz com a perspectiva de balancear a esfera de proteção da propriedade intelectual com a questão do acesso ao conhecimento, o que vem de acordo com o artigo 13 do Acordo TRIPS, que prevê que sejam estipuladas exceções e limitações à proteção do direito autoral, bem como o artigo 46 da nossa lei de direitos autorais.

A importância da iniciativa foi mais uma vez respaldada pela intervenção da União Latino-Americana de Cegos (ULAC) e pela World Blind Union. Felizmente, depois de alguns anos fazendo parte da agenda das reuniões do SCCR sem grandes definições, o tema tomou forma com a proposta de texto feita pela Argentina, Brasil, Ecuador, União Européia, México, Paraguai e EUA na sexta-feira a noite, 17 de julho.

O texto foi debatido na segunda-feira, dia 20 de julho, sofrendo oposição do Grupo Africano, que havia feito outra proposta, com uma visão holística das exceções e limitações. A proposta do grupo africano de certa forma foi rejeitada diante da opção das delegações lidarem com um tema específico (acesso para pessoas com deficiência). Na ocasião, o grupo africano e alguns outros países membros colocaram algumas questões, principalmente, sobre o artigo das definições, as previsões de intercâmbio entre fronteiras e medidas de proteção tecnológica.

Na quarta-feira, depois de reuniões informais, o tema voltou à pauta. A missão brasileira posicionou-se de maneira positiva, em uma intervenção que chamou os demais países membros que ainda não haviam entrado em consenso para considerar o texto como uma futura proposta de tratado. Mas os países africanos, apesar de não entrar no mérito do conteúdo do texto,  continuaram  intensas discussões quanto ao procedimento da organização ao adotar documentos. Por fim, nessa quinta-feira, dia 23 de junho, o documento foi incorporado como documento de trabalho oficial.

Esperamos que na sexta-feira, último dia da sessão, a análise do documento continue para que ele se estabeleça como recomendação e mais adiante seja encaminhado para conferência diplomática. Todo esse processo representa um marco significativo na OMPI para de fato implementar algumas das recomendações da Agenda do Desenvolvimento. Se tiver interesse nos próximos desenvolvimentos dessa sessão, pode acompanhar, e opinar, pelo twitter: @joana_varon ou pela hashtag #sccr22

The undersigned organisations represent a broad set of constituencies with a direct interest in the discussions  underway regarding an international instrument relating to broadcasting.

We do not believe that there has been any change in the situation with respect to a proposed treaty on broadcasting since the Conclusions of the Second Special Session of the SCCR in June of 2007 recorded that “ … it would not be possible to reach an agreement on the objectives, specific scope, and object of protection…” of a treaty.

We have seen no evidence that the discussions in subsequent meetings have produced any new positions or proposals that bring agreement closer on any of the mentioned areas: objective, specific scope or object of protection – rather the opposite seems to be the case.

So far we have heard not a single example of harm to broadcasters which cannot be remedied using existing international norms in the  field – in particular, we note that the harm alleged previously related to ‘recordings of broadcasts’ being made available on the Internet are not evidence of harm to broadcasters at all, since what is being disseminated is not a broadcast but a fixation of the programme itself – for which copyright and related rights protection already provides remedies.

We respectfully consider that many challenges confront the copyright and related rights system at the present time, and it would be unfortunate if the SCCR were to continue to devote time to a subject that has produced no agreement on any fundamental point despite more than a decade of negotiations. The SCCR could, for example, deal with limitations and exceptions that support creation, access, and innovative services.

We are at the disposal of the distinguished delegates to the SCCR to discuss these views and we thank you for your consideration.

AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION – ACA

AMERICAN TELEVISION ALLIANCE – ATVA

COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION- CCIA

CREATIVE COMMONS – CC

CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY – CDT

CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION – CEA

CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL – CI

SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY & PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC – CIPPIC

CENTRE FOR INTERNET & SOCIETY – CIS, INDIA

THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION – CTIA

CENTER OF TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY  – CTS/FGV

DIGITAL MEDIA ASSOCIATION – DiMA

EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS – EDRI

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION – EFF

ELECTRONIC INFORMATION FOR LIBRARIES – eIFL

FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION EUROPE – FSFE

GCI COMMUNICATIONS CORP. – GCI

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LIBRARY ASSOCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS – IFLA

INTERNATIONAL MUSIC MANAGERS FORUM – IMMF

IPJustice

KNOWLEDGE ECOLOGY INTERNATIONAL – KEI

LIBRARY COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE – LCA

OPEN KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION – OKFN

OPEN RIGHTS GROUP – ORG

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION- PK

TiVo

TIME WARNER CABLE

USTELECOM

Answers from comments proposed on the document, mainly by African Group, are still to be delivered to move forward on the approval (or not) of the proposal.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is with measure pleasure that Brazil notes that we started this second week of the 22nd SCCR with a text on the table that’s co-sponsored by Australia Brazil now Cuba Mexico Paraguay and the United States and that is also supported by the EU. For Brazil this text has always been negotiated with a view to becoming the basis of an international treaty on exceptions and limitations to copyright for persons with print disabilities.

Brazil was looking forward with both hope and humility to further listening to the remarks, suggestions and criticisms from all Member States as well as from Civil Society organizations, which are following closely this negotiating process.

This process is now two years old. Time is right to take a few more steps towards a truly historic achievement in this UN organisation. We are indeed in a position to make a significant contribution to mitigate the plight of more than 150 million human beings. These are people who have limited access to education and culture. Not because lack of drive to work hard. Not because of lack of thirst of knowledge and not because of lack of aspiration to play their part in the material and cultural welfare of our countries. For unforeseen circumstances that science cannot still remedy they are deprived on the basic right to equal opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, back in 2009 Brazil decided to table in this committee a draft treaty on exceptions and limitations guided by two assumptions the first one the international treaty we are seeking to conclude must be a useful instrument for persons with print disabilities. This is why we tabled the text originally elaborated by the World Blind Union by people who know best the reality on the ground. Second, the international copyright regime is a mature system with more than 120 years of implementation, experience in many countries. It is feasible to craft precise and effective exceptions and limitation norms without depriving the rights of authors to reap the benefits of their creativity. We all recognize those rights and are fully committed to defend them, that there be no doubt about it.

Those two assumptions remain the guiding principles underlying Brazil’s position. We are committed to help bringing this negotiating process to a successful outcome. For Brazil a successful outcome is an international instrument which will be useful and effective. An effective instrument which makes clear the firm commitment on the ground of all Member States to mitigating the book famine of more than 150 million people worldwide.

At the end of the process there must be a treaty. There is no reason why we should not aim for a treaty. This question, whether we should or not aim for a treaty should also be answered also bearing in mind the broader background of all of the themes under discussion in this committee.  We see emerging consensus gathering around the texts around the protection of audiovisual performances. Nobody is questioning that if this consensus prevails a diplomatic conference should be convened to adopt a treaty on the protection of audiovisual performances. If we succeed in forging consensus around the texts on exceptions and limitations for persons with print disabilities we should also in a precise point in time convene a diplomatic conference to adopt a treaty.

We do not see why there should be a substantive difference of treatment between the negotiations under protection of audiovisual performances and the negotiations on exceptions and limitations for people with print disabilities. We see rather a strong ethical case for adopting a treaty on exceptions and limitations for persons with print disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

In 2004, Chile recommended that the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) undertake a review of the current state of exceptions and limitations within the larger realm of intellectual property regimes. This recommendation was adopted by WIPO in 2005, and WIPO subsequently initiated a series of studies on exceptions and limitations in specific sectors.

Particularly relevant to the work of IFLA was the study commissioned by WIPO from Professor Kenneth Crews, “Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives,” which WIPO published in 2008. The results of this study revealed that numerous Member States had either no exceptions or limitations for libraries and archives in their national copyright legislation, or had only minimal, general provisions.

To examine the issues and what should be done for the benefit of libraries and archives worldwide, in April 2009 IFLA and EIFL convened a workshop at the British Library comprising librarians, intellectual property specialists, the World Blind Union, and representatives of other NGO’s to develop a set of principles that should drive creation of an appropriate instrument to facilitate the mission of libraries throughout the world.

At its World Library and Information Congress in Milan in 2009, the IFLA Governing Board approved the principles, and asked the Chair of IFLA’s Committee on Copyright and Other Legal Matters to appoint a working group to draft an instrument, based on those principles, for consideration by the Member States of WIPO. After wide consultation with librarians, representatives of Member States and other knowledgeable individuals, IFLA’s working group has developed a “Treaty on Copyright Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives”. In preparation for the work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives scheduled for November 2011, IFLA offers this proposal to further informed discussion of the issues.

In a major breakthrough on the WIPO negotiations on copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities, at around 1pm today, a non-paper “resulting from informal discussions among Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, the European Union and its Member States, Mexico, Paraguay and the United States of America” was distributed at the WIPO SCCR 22.

A copy of the document is available HERE.

The seven page paper presents an agreement on many of the most thorny issues in the agreement, among some but not all countries. For example, the Africa group did not sponsor the non-paper, and nor did any government from Asia. KEI presented some comments bellow:

1. There is no agreement about the status. It could be a recommendation, an “instrument” or a treaty. That has to be resolved later, and is the hot topic of the negotiations right now.

2. The term “print disabilities” is used frequently, but not defined. It is not entirely clear if the text covers works “born digital.” In Article B, beneficiary persons refers to “printed works.” KEI believes publishers wanted the term print disability precisely because they would argue it did not apply to e-books, and the entertainment industry wanted the term print disability because they did not want it apply to captioning of films for persons who are deaf. It is not clear how limiting this will be, as publishing increasingly moves to works born digital, including many, like Kindle E-Books, that are not accessible because of the inaccessible menus and disabling of text to speech.

In this regard, note that text covering person who were deaf was eliminated from an earlier version of the text.

3. The definition of “Beneficiary persons” makes references to persons who are “unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate” a book. The DAISy consortium is concerned that some disabilities are considered “diseases” rather than “physical disabilities,” such as a severe allergic reaction to paper.

4. The term authorized entity contains two restrictive and potentially problematic paragraphs that during the informal negotiations KEI and the WBU recommended be eliminated:

An authorized entity has the trust of both persons with print disabilities and copyright rights holders. It is understood that to obtain the trust of rightholders and beneficiary persons, it is not necessary to require the prior permission of said rightholders or beneficiary persons.[1]

If an authorized entity is a nation-wide network of organizations, then all organizations, institutions, and entities that participate in the network must adhere to these characteristics.

Here are some issues:

• What does it mean to say “An authorized entity has the trust of . . . copyright rights holders” when “it is not necessary to require the prior permission of said right holders”? And, when the definition of an authorized entity says “It is understood that to obtain the trust of rightholders . . . ” what exactly is implied? Is there an obligation “to obtain the trust of rightholders”?
• Many developing country organizations and negotiators are concerned about efforts to create unrealistically high expectations about the administrative burdens on those distributing works.
• Will these provisions address the role of teachers, health works, parents, employers, first responders and others who are in practice involved in the distribution of work?

5. Articles F on technological protection measures is somewhat more limited than was proposed by the WBU, but seemed acceptable to most parties.

6. Article G on contracts simply says countries are free to do whatever they want.

7. There is a short Article H on privacy, something that some countries had at one point wanted to eliminate.

8. The role of for-profit entities is set out in footnote 2, which ways “It is understood that cooperation or partnerships with other organisations, including for profit organisations, shall be permitted.” This is more limited than the proposal by the WBU. As a practical matter, the role of for-profit entities will be important to the extent that such entities are involving the digitalization of orphaned works.

9. The text eliminated some of the parts of the WBU proposal on subjects such as standards, which were not central the copyright issues, but that may have had practical benefits in terms of expanding access.

10. The provisions on cross border exchanges of works are only implemented in Article D. Article D, which seems to focus on the right to export by an “authorized entity.” Article E on the importation of works allows beneficiary persons or authorized entities to import. The asymmetry is designed to have more limited rights to export works. According to the USPTO, the text would not permit a blind individual to share an accessible copy a blind individual in another country.

11. The relationship between the text and other flexibilities in national intellectual property laws is possibly problematic if Article D(3) is considered a limitation on the use of flexiabilities that are not subject to the three step test. There are several exceptions in the Berne convention that are not subject to the three step test, and there are also exceptions in the TRIPS agreement on exhaustion of rights (Article 6), control of anticompetitive practices (Article 40) and the limitations on remedies (Article 44) which are not subject to the three step test. This could be fixed if the text added something along the lines of, “and/or and without prejudice to other exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors that are otherwise permitted by the Berne Convention or the TRIPS Agreement.”

In this regard, note also that the preamble makes references to “the importance and flexibility of the three-step test for limitations and exceptions established in Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention and other international instruments” and does not acknowledge other important flexabilities.

12. In Article E, regarding imports, there is no reference to “or someone acting on his or her behalf,” as is found in Article D(2)(B).

13. In Article A, on the definition of “reasonable price for developing counties,” compare what the WBU proposed to the non-paper:

• WBU text: “prices that are affordable, taking into account disparities of incomes for persons who are visually impaired. “
• Non-Paper: “prices that are affordable in that market, taking into account the humanitarian needs of persons with print disabilities.”

The document will be discussed on Monday sessions, for live twits of the debate, please, follow: @joana_varon, that will be locally following the session.

Source: Communia Project

After almost four years of activities, the COMMUNIA Project is closing down. But many members, willing to pursue its overall goals, decided to form of an International Non-Profit Association based in Brussels. The Association’s mission is to educate about, advocate for, offer expertise and research about the public domain in the digital age within society and with policy-makers.

The COMMUNIA Association aims at expanding the discussion and activities carried out by the Project so far, planning in particular to help us create a more balanced discussion about copyright in the digital environment and maximize the economic, social and cultural impact of our cultural and scientific heritage.

The COMMUNIA Association launch event is planned for Thursday June 16, 2011 at 09:00PM CEST, at The MONK Café Rue Sainte Catherine, 42, in Bruxelles. Everybody is welcome! More details on its website and on this LinkedIn page.

Here is a first article/interview about the new Association, while a list of 14 principles to protect and promote the public domain has already been drafted. It includes a warning against ever-longer automatic copyright protection periods (up to 90 years), a call to sanction “any false or misleading attempt to misappropriate public domain material,” and to only grant full copyright protection to registered works.

Please spread the word, join us in Bruxelles and follow this new endeavour on Twitter!

The need to protect and promote the Internet and the limitations on the State in the regulation of this medium were set forth in a joint declaration signed this June 1 by the Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression of the Americas, Europe, Africa, and the United Nations.

The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank LaRue; the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS), Catalina Botero Marino; the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatović; and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Faith Pansy Tlakula; issued a joint declaration establishing guidelines to protect freedom of expression on the Internet.

In the Joint Declaration, the four rapporteurs maintain that States have the obligation to promote universal access to the Internet, and cannot justify for any reason the interruption of that service to the public, not even for public safety or national security reasons. In principle, any measure that limits access to the network is unlawful, unless it meets the strict requirements established by international standards for such actions.

The rapporteurs establish that freedom of expression must apply to the Internet in the same way it applies to all other media. In this respect, any restriction imposed must comply with the international standards in force, such as being expressly established by law, pursuing a legitimate aim recognized by international law, and being necessary to accomplish such aim.

Actions such as the mandatory blocking of websites are extreme actions that may only be justified in accordance with international standards, such as the protection of minors from sexual abuse. Content-filtering systems that cannot be controlled by the users, imposed by governments or commercial providers, are also actions that are incompatible with freedom of expression.

According to the declaration, Internet service intermediaries must not be held responsible for content generated by third parties; nor may they be required to control user-generated content. They shall be held responsible only when they fail to exclude content when directed to do so in a lawful court order, issued in accordance with due process, and provided that they have the technical capacity to do so. The intermediaries must be required to be transparent with respect to their practices for the management of traffic or information, and must not discriminate in any way in the treatment of data or traffic.

With respect to criminal and civil liabilities, the declaration states that jurisdiction to resolve conflicts arising from web content must lie with the States most closely tied to the case. In addition, private individuals who feel adversely affected by certain content disseminated on the web should only be able to take legal action in the jurisdiction in which they can demonstrate having suffered a substantial harm.

Finally, the rapporteurs recommend that the States adopt detailed plans of action to comply with the duty to guarantee universal access to the Internet, especially for socially excluded groups such as the poor, the disabled, or persons living in isolated rural areas.

The text of the Joint Declaration is as follows:

International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression

JOINT DECLARATION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE INTERNET

The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,

Having discussed these issues together with the assistance of ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression and the Centre for Law and Democracy;

Recalling and reaffirming our Joint Declarations of 26 November 1999, 30 November 2000, 20 November 2001, 10 December 2002, 18 December 2003, 6 December 2004, 21 December 2005, 19 December 2006, 12 December 2007, 10 December 2008, 15 May 2009 and 3 February 2010;

Emphasising, once again, the fundamental importance of freedom of expression – including the principles of independence and diversity – both in its own right and as an essential tool for the defence of all other rights, as a core element of democracy and for advancing development goals;

Stressing the transformative nature of the Internet in terms of giving voice to billions of people around the world, of significantly enhancing their ability to access information and of enhancing pluralism and reporting;

Cognisant of the power of the Internet to promote the realisation of other rights and public participation, as well as to facilitate access to goods and services;

Welcoming the dramatic growth in access to the Internet in almost all countries and regions of the world, while noting that billions still lack access or have second class forms of access;

Noting that some governments have taken action or put in place measures with the specific intention of unduly restricting freedom of expression on the Internet, contrary to international law;

Recognising that the exercise of freedom of expression may be subject to limited restrictions which are prescribed by law and are necessary, for example for the prevention of crime and the protection of the fundamental rights of others, including children, but stressing that any such restrictions must be balanced and comply with international law on the right to freedom of expression;

Concerned that, even when done in good faith, many of the efforts by governments to respond to the need noted above fail to take into account the special characteristics of the Internet, with the result that they unduly restrict freedom of expression;

Noting the mechanisms of the multi-stakeholder approach of the UN Internet Governance Forum;

Aware of the vast range of actors who act as intermediaries for the Internet – providing services such as access and interconnection to the Internet, transmission, processing and routing of Internet traffic, hosting and providing access to material posted by others, searching, referencing or finding materials on the Internet, enabling financial transactions and facilitating social networking – and of attempts by some States to deputise responsibility for harmful or illegal content to these actors;

Adopt, on 1 June 2011, the following Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet:

7.      General Principles

a.       Freedom of expression applies to the Internet, as it does to all means of communication. Restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet are only acceptable if they comply with established international standards, including that they are provided for by law, and that they are necessary to protect an interest which is recognised under international law (the ‘three-part’ test).

b.       When assessing the proportionality of a restriction on freedom of expression on the Internet, the impact of that restriction on the ability of the Internet to deliver positive freedom of expression outcomes must be weighed against its benefits in terms of protecting other interests.

c.       Approaches to regulation developed for other means of communication – such as telephony or broadcasting – cannot simply be transferred to the Internet but, rather, need to be specifically designed for it.

d.       Greater attention should be given to developing alternative, tailored approaches, which are adapted to the unique characteristics of the Internet, for responding to illegal content, while recognising that no special content restrictions should be established for material disseminated over the Internet.

e.       Self-regulation can be an effective tool in redressing harmful speech, and should be promoted.

f.        Awareness raising and educational efforts to promote the ability of everyone to engage in autonomous, self-driven and responsible use of the Internet should be fostered (‘Internet literacy’).

8.      Intermediary Liability

a.       No one who simply provides technical Internet services such as providing access, or searching for, or transmission or caching of information, should be liable for content generated by others, which is disseminated using those services, as long as they do not specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey a court order to remove that content, where they have the capacity to do so (‘mere conduit principle’).

b.       Consideration should be given to insulating fully other intermediaries, including those mentioned in the preamble, from liability for content generated by others under the same conditions as in paragraph 2(a). At a minimum, intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content and should not be subject to extrajudicial content takedown rules which fail to provide sufficient protection for freedom of expression (which is the case with many of the ‘notice and takedown’ rules currently being applied).

9.      Filtering and Blocking

a.       Mandatory blocking of entire websites, IP addresses, ports, network protocols or types of uses (such as social networking) is an extreme measure – analogous to banning a newspaper or broadcaster – which can only be justified in accordance with international standards, for example where necessary to protect children against sexual abuse.

b.       Content filtering systems which are imposed by a government or commercial service provider and which are not end-user controlled are a form of prior censorship and are not justifiable as a restriction on freedom of expression.

c.       Products designed to facilitate end-user filtering should be required to be accompanied by clear information to end-users about how they work and their potential pitfalls in terms of over-inclusive filtering.

10.  Criminal and Civil Liability

a.       Jurisdiction in legal cases relating to Internet content should be restricted to States to which those cases have a real and substantial connection, normally because the author is established there, the content is uploaded there and/or the content is specifically directed at that State. Private parties should only be able to bring a case in a given jurisdiction where they can establish that they have suffered substantial harm in that jurisdiction (rule against ‘libel tourism’).

b.       Standards of liability, including defences in civil cases, should take into account the overall public interest in protecting both the expression and the forum in which it is made (i.e. the need to preserve the ‘public square’ aspect of the Internet).

c.       For content that was uploaded in substantially the same form and at the same place, limitation periods for bringing legal cases should start to run from the first time the content was uploaded and only one action for damages should be allowed to be brought in respect of that content, where appropriate by allowing for damages suffered in all jurisdictions to be recovered at one time (the ‘single publication’ rule).

11.  Network Neutrality

a.       There should be no discrimination in the treatment of Internet data and traffic, based on the device, content, author, origin and/or destination of the content, service or application.

b.       Internet intermediaries should be required to be transparent about any traffic or information management practices they employ, and relevant information on such practices should be made available in a form that is accessible to all stakeholders.

12.  Access to the Internet

a.       Giving effect to the right to freedom of expression imposes an obligation on States to promote universal access to the Internet. Access to the Internet is also necessary to promote respect for other rights, such as the rights to education, health care and work, the right to assembly and association, and the right to free elections.

b.       Cutting off access to the Internet, or parts of the Internet, for whole populations or segments of the public (shutting down the Internet) can never be justified, including on public order or national security grounds. The same applies to slow-downs imposed on the Internet or parts of the Internet.

c.       Denying individuals the right to access the Internet as a punishment is an extreme measure, which could be justified only where less restrictive measures are not available and where ordered by a court, taking into account the impact of this measure on the enjoyment of human rights.

d.       Other measures which limit access to the Internet, such as imposing registration or other requirements on service providers, are not legitimate unless they conform to the test for restrictions on freedom of expression under international law.

e.       States are under a positive obligation to facilitate universal access to the Internet. At a minimum, States should:

i.      Put in place regulatory mechanisms – which could include pricing regimes, universal service requirements and licensing agreements – that foster greater access to the Internet, including for the poor and in ‘last mile’ rural areas.

ii.      Provide direct support to facilitate access, including by establishing community-based ICT centres and other public access points.

iii.      Promote adequate awareness about both how to use the Internet and the benefits it can bring, especially among the poor, children and the elderly, and isolated rural populations.

iv.      Put in place special measures to ensure equitable access to the Internet for the disabled and for disadvantaged persons.

f.        To implement the above, States should adopt detailed multi-year action plans for increasing access to the Internet which include clear and specific targets, as well as standards of transparency, public reporting and monitoring systems.

Frank LaRue

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Dunja Mijatović

OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

Catalina Botero Marino

OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

Faith Pansy Tlakula

ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information