O #PLFakeNews tem um novo texto alterando a #RegraDeRemuneração exigindo que as plataformas paguem por conteúdos de notícias. Reconhecemos que houve uma nova tentativa, mas essa regra pouco especificada ainda não está pronta para se tornar lei. O Congresso deve retirá-la do PL.1/
Em nossa análise, explicamos por que este PL não é o lugar certo para a regra de remuneração. 2/
Apoiar-se nos direitos autorais para conseguir um acordo justo para veículos de imprensa é arriscado, com consequências para a concentração da mídia, a liberdade de expressão e a imprensa livre. 3/
A regra termina por assumir que os direitos autorais dão à imprensa o poder de licenciar (e assim controlar e bloquear) a citação e a discussão de notícias. 4/
Em vez de conferir um veto cultural à imprensa, legisladores e reguladores deveriam olhar para o mercado de publicidade online, e promover competição e transparência. 5/
O novo texto deixa as questões mais cruciais para futura regulamentação ou interpretação dos tribunais. Por exemplo: qual é o “uso” que gera a obrigação de remuneração? Como o pagamento deverá ser calculado? Como será distribuído? 6/
Mesmo os novos complementos levantam mais questões. Por exemplo, a nova proposta diz que não há dever de remuneração quando usuários compartilham uma URL – mas isso se aplica quando a URL compartilhada gera uma prévia automática do artigo com a notícia? 7/
A lei brasileira excepciona citações se mencionados o autor e a origem do conteúdo. Se um usuário esquecer de nomear o autor, isso gera a obrigação de pagamento? 8/
As plataformas deveriam agora monitorar todas as citações de notícias por usuários para assegurar pagamento (ou deletar) citações mal formatadas? 9/
Não podemos usar os direitos autorais para resolver o injusto e monopolizado mercado de publicidade online. Como escrevemos, não enfrentaremos as práticas abusivas das #BigTech copiando e colando a ética tóxica de “Mover-se rápido e quebrar coisas”. 10/
Ao invés de inserir uma proposta problemática de remuneração no #PLFakeNews, o relator do PL @orlandosilva deveria retirar essa regra do projeto de lei.
fim/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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/
Since 2015, EFF has given out annual “awards” during Sunshine Week to highlight terrible and ridiculous responses to public records requests. Follow along with this thread as we share the latest ignominious winners of "The Foilies" below! eff.org/deeplinks/2022…
Wu-Tang Clan remains untouchable—not even a FOIA request could release their famed exclusive single-copy album, Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. But FOIA did free some redacted images of the album and its intricate case: eff.org/deeplinks/2022…
When Operation Warp Speed met FOIA: the FDA claimed it would take 55 years to release records concerning their review of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. eff.org/deeplinks/2022…
San Francisco passed a landmark ordinance requiring transparency and a process for community input in decisions about police surveillance. But the SFPD, aided by the rich and powerful, thinks it's above democratic control. sfchronicle.com/bayarea/articl…
As @sairahussain87 put it, “The ordinance as it stands allows for exigency when there is a danger to life or serious physical harm to a person...What the mayor's proposal tries to do is expand that to [where] basically exigency can mean almost anything.” sfchronicle.com/bayarea/articl…
This ballot initiative is especially troubling given our pending lawsuit with @ACLU_NorCal, filed on behalf of three activists of color after SFPD violated the ordinance by using the camera networks to conduct live surveillance of protests for Black lives. eff.org/cases/williams…
Over 125 academics and organizations are urging the UN Ad Hoc Committee to protect human rights when developing any potential cybercrime convention. From a human rights perspective, it is essential to keep the scope of any convention on cybercrime narrow. eff.org/deeplinks/2022…
But even a narrow focus on cyber-enabled crimes can be used to undermine rights. Laws criminalizing unauthorized access to computer networks or systems have been used to target digital security researchers, whistleblowers, and journalists. eff.org/deeplinks/2021…
Any convention should explicitly include a malicious intent standard and clear provisions that allow security researchers to work without fear of prosecution, and should not transform corporate or government computer use policies into criminal liability. eff.org/files/2022/01/…
@EFF Pedro Vaca emphasized the bill “could not have positive qualifications” from the Rapporteur’s Office and shared he fears the bill’s “deficit to recognize the efforts that the IACHR has made regarding free expression on the Internet for more than 10 years.” 2/
@EFF Indeed. The bill makes platforms strictly liable for any harms caused. Although it seeks to exempt liability from third-party content, platforms remain liable in case they fail to “act with diligence” to restrict illegal content they have “effective knowledge” about. 3/