Thread by @EFF

Brazil’s #FakeNews Bill has a new draft amending the #RemunerationRule requiring tech platforms to pay for publishers’ news content. It's nice that the drafters tried again with this underspecified rule, but it's still not ready to be a law. Congress should delete the rule. 1/

In our analysis, we explained why a remuneration rule has no place in this bill.

Tldr: relying on copyright to get a fair deal for publishers is a dangerous gambit, with consequences for media monopolization, free expression and the free press. 2/

eff.org/deeplinks/2022…

The rule assumes that copyright gives publishers the power to license (and thus control and block) quoting and discussing the news.

Rather than giving a cultural veto to publishers, lawmakers and regulators should address adtech, and promote competition and transparency. 3/

The new draft leaves the most crucial questions unanswered, punting them to subsequent regulation or a court ruling. For example: What constitutes a 'use' that triggers the remuneration obligation? How should the payment be calculated? How will they be distributed? 4/

Even the new "clarifications" raise more questions than they answer. For example, the new draft says that no remuneration is owed when a user shares a URL - but does that apply when the shared URL triggers an automated preview of an article? 5/

Brazil's copyright exempts quotes if the source and author are credited. If a user forgets to name the author, does that trigger a payment? Must platforms now monitor all user-posted quotations to make sure they pay for (or delete) incorrectly formatted quotes? 6/

You just can't use copyright to unrig the monopolized, unfair ad market. As we wrote, addressing #BigTech's crooked practices can't be accomplished by copy-pasting the industry's toxic "Move Fast and Break Things" ethic. 7/

eff.org/deeplinks/2022…

Rather than shoehorning a rushed, problematic proposal into the Fake News Bill, rapporteur @orlandosilva should remove the remuneration obligation from the bill.

fin/