[A2k] Copyright Law Reform in Brazil:

[Volker Grassmuck]

Copyright Law Reform in Brazil: Anteprojeto or Anti-project?
By Ralf Volker Grassmuck
IP Watch, 23 December 2009
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/23/copyright-law-reform-in-brazil-an=
teprojeto-or-anti-project/

A balancing of the rights of authors and consumers, the re-introduction of =
a private copying exception, a remixing permission and a new regulatory age=
ncy for copyright issues are among the core points the Brazilian Ministry o=
f Culture has planned for the new copyright law. But at the Third Conferenc=
e on Copyright and the Public Interest in S=E3o Paulo a month ago, the Mini=
stry emphasised that the bits and pieces shown to the audience were not fro=
m an actual law draft (=94anteprojeto=94) but only a preliminary proposal f=
or formulating such a draft. The bill still has not been published to date.=
 The delay in releasing the bill for public consultation now threatens the =
work of more than two years on the reform.

Contents
1. Fundamental Imbalances
2. Public Consultation Now!
3. Exceptions and Limitations
4. Authors=92 Contract Law?
5. Collecting Societies and the IBDA
6. Sanctions
7. The Debate

The law reform process was initiated in 2005 when a National Conference on =
Culture proposed to promote a broad public debate on copyright. In December=
 2007, when former Minister Gilberto Gil was still in office, the Ministry =
of Culture (MinC) launched the National Forum on Copyright. Since then one =
international and four national conferences, a number of regional discussio=
ns and sectoral meetings with representatives from various branches of cult=
ure industry as well as civil society were held. The MinC summed up these d=
ebates in a paper that formed the vantage point of the Third Conference on =
Copyright and the Public Interest held on 9 and 10 November in the Centro F=
ecom=E9rcio in S=E3o Paulo. This paper identifies three fundamental imbalan=
ces that require changes to the current Brazilian Copyright Law 9.610 as am=
ended in 1998 (English translation).

Fundamental Imbalances
The first is an imbalance in the relationship between creators and investor=
s, characterised by total buy-out contracts especially in international tra=
de. An adapted copyright law, says the Ministry=92s paper, would stimulate =
new business models and =93facilitate projecting the richness of Brazilian =
cultural production internationally for the benefit of authors, in a more a=
utonomous form not subject to the logic of large business groups that hold =
a global hegemony.=94 Strengthening cultural diversity is indeed one of the=
 central themes of the whole project.

The second is an imbalance between copyrights and the rights of citizens to=
 have access to knowledge and culture. While copyright is one of the fundam=
ental rights protected by the Brazilian Constitution, the paper reminds us,=
 so are the right of access to information, the right to education and the =
right of access to culture. However, the current copyright law creates obst=
acles to the exercise of these latter rights, =93like prohibiting the makin=
g of a complete copy of a work for private use without prior authorisation,=
 the reproduction of works for preservation and restoration, the reproducti=
on of works for the benefit of physically handicapped persons, and even, in=
 some cases, for teaching activities. The current rules have made acts ille=
gal that are so commonplace as recording a movie broadcast on TV or copying=
 a music CD onto one=92s computer.=94

The third issue the paper raises is the inadequate role of the state in the=
 copyright field. The law reform of 1998 repealed the National Copyright Co=
uncil which left the Brazilian state without any means of public policy pla=
nning and protection of the national interests in this area. It was argued =
in this period that copyrights are solely a matter of private interests, in=
 practice legitimising the unchecked outcomes of asymmetric disputes betwee=
n the actors in this industry. There was no institutional oversight. The go=
vernment actions that did exist were driven more by international pressure =
than by the needs of domestic creators and rights holders. In the absence o=
f a capable partner in the executive sphere this frequently led to lawsuits=
.

Because of these imbalances, the Ministry proposes to extend the first arti=
cle of the copyright law to include the following language: This law is to =
=93make explicit that there must be a balance between the constitutional pr=
ovisions of copyright protection and the guarantee of full enjoyment of cul=
tural rights and other fundamental rights and the promotion of national dev=
elopment;=94 and it is to =93strive to harmonise copyright protection with =
the principles and rules of free enterprise, protection of competition and =
consumer protection.=94 If passed by the Brazilian Parliament, this would b=
e the first copyright law that I know of that makes balancing of copyright =
with access and usage rights and consumer protection its declared goal.

Public Consultation Now!
But until passage of the bill there is still a long way to go. The copyrigh=
t conference organised by the law department of the Federal University of S=
anta Catarina (UFSC) was to be the culmination of the two-year process with=
 the publication of the draft law. This is to be followed by a public consu=
ltation period of 45 days, leading to a final revision by the Ministry befo=
re the bill is then introduced in Parliament. An open public debate on a mi=
nisterial draft law is itself a novelty in Brazilian lawmaking. The consult=
ation procedure is currently being used for the first time with respect to =
another important Brazilian law project by the Ministry of Justice, the Int=
ernet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil de Internet). At the conference, Minister=
 of Culture Juca Ferreira emphasised that while copyright is an area of pri=
vate activity, it does take place within rules in the public interest. Ther=
efore, the reform process requires a maximum of transparency and openness f=
or democratic participation.

Alas, the Ministry did not publish the actual draft law (announcing the non=
-publication only one day before the conference on the Ministry=92s twitter=
 channel). It only revealed the respective articles of its working draft to=
 the reporters and respondents of the twelve panels of the conference which=
 dealt with the different sections of the copyright law, like the economic =
and moral rights of authors, exceptions and limitations, collecting societi=
es and sanctions. Panel reporters noted the awkwardness of having to commen=
t on a set of articles without knowing their context within the complete bi=
ll. At the very end of the conference the MinC announced via the event=92s =
twitter channel that it will make the full draft law available for public c=
onsultation within 30 days. Later it was learned that yet another ongoing l=
aw reform concerning public funding of culture is fully occupying the Cultu=
re Ministry=92s staff, and that as soon as this is concluded they will cont=
inue work on the copyright law.

However, this delay threatens the chances of the whole reform. Soon campaig=
ning for the elections in 2010 will be politicians=92 top priority. If outg=
oing President Lula does not manage to transfer his overwhelming approval r=
atings of more than 80 percent to his successor in the Workers Party (PT), =
a new conservative government is certain to start the copyright law reform =
from scratch or even follow industry arguments that no reform is needed at =
all. The constructive work of more than two years would be lost. The antepr=
ojeto (draft law) could turn into an anti-project. Addressing this danger, =
there was a protest action by civil society at the conference demanding the=
 immediate release of the draft law and the start of the public consultatio=
n.

Exceptions and Limitations
What is known about the Ministry=92s plans so far is moving Brazil=92s copy=
right law in the right direction, even if in respect to areas like educatio=
n and the online realm not far enough. In line with the analysis that copyr=
ights and usage rights of citizens are out of balance, the MinC proposes to=
 introduce some important new exceptions and to clarify the existing ones t=
o make them more easily comprehensible to citizens.

The previous copyright law in force since 1973 contained a private copying =
exception that the 1998 reform significantly reduced. Since as many copying=
 devices and empty media are sold in Brazil as anywhere else, a prohibition=
 is quite out of sync with reality. Thus, the Ministry plans to permit =93p=
rivate copying, or reproduction by any means or process of any work legitim=
ately acquired, if made in one copy and by the copyist, for his private and=
 non-commercial use.=94

In addition, copies for purposes of portability and interoperability of wor=
ks, i.e., =93for making them perceivable on devices, computer programmes an=
d peripherals other than those for which the work was originally intended,=
=94 shall be permitted without limitation as to the number of copies. This =
would legalise the very common practice of ripping a music CD onto a PC and=
 then copying it to an MP3 player or mobile phone.

Furthermore, literary works, phonograms and audiovisual works that are no l=
onger available for sale are to be reproducible for non-commercial purposes=
. For the commercial offering of orphan works and out-of-print works, the p=
aper suggests a compulsory licence subject to compensation.

A quotation exception, mandatory under the Berne Convention, is to permit =
=93the use in any work of short extracts from existing works of any kind, o=
r of an entire work of visual art.=94 Clipping services reproducing selecte=
d articles from periodicals shall be permitted for the first time, as long =
as they are non-commercial and their circulation is restricted to members o=
f an association, union or other organization.

An exception to the benefit of disabled persons is to be introduced, but re=
stricted to the visually impaired. =93The reproduction necessary for conser=
vation, preservation and archiving of any work, for non-commercial purposes=
, if carried out by libraries, archives, museums, film archives and other m=
useum institutions,=94 is to be permitted. Since this exception expressly r=
efers to any kind of work it would remove the obstacles to preserving compu=
ter games and other kinds of interactive works that still exist in many jur=
isdictions.

Two other proposed exceptions permit the theatrical performance, recitation=
 or declamation, the visual display and musical performance of works, provi=
ded they have no profit motive and the public can attend free of charge and=
 they serve educational purposes, the purpose of cultural diffusion, opinio=
n forming and debate, or they take place in recognised cinema associations,=
 schools or churches.

Another proposal is intended to increase the accessibility of archived work=
s in the digital age. It is to permit =93the communication and making avail=
able to the public of protected intellectual works that are part of collect=
ions of libraries, archives, museums and documentation centres, film librar=
ies and other museum institutions, for research, study or investigation by =
any means or process, within their facilities or through closed computer ne=
tworks.=94

Finally, the Ministry proposes a general clause that would permit =93other =
special cases of reproduction, distribution and communication to the public=
 of protected works for educational, instructional, informational or resear=
ch purposes or for use as a creative resource, when done to the extent requ=
ired to achieve the purpose and without affecting the normal exploitation o=
f the reproduced work or unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests =
of its authors.=94 This general exception was likened to the US American fa=
ir use provision, reined in by the language of the Berne three-step test. N=
ot only would it extend the manoeuvring space for education and research, t=
he permission of use =93as a creative resource=94 would also extend the leg=
al ground for remixing, that has become a mass practice in Web 2.0 culture,=
 beyond the existing quotation exception =97 a step that many international=
 copyright law scholars have long called for.

All these uses of protected works are to be permitted without authorization=
 by the owners and without payment of a levy. This was also the case for th=
e private copying exception prior to its termination in 1998. But, adds the=
 discussion paper by the Ministry, it now proposes to introduce a levy on p=
rivate copying by means of a special law, and it announced that it will soo=
n start a full debate on this subject.

No exception is proposed for the pressing issue of peer-to-peer file-sharin=
g. Guilherme Carboni, copyright specialist at the private university FAAP i=
n S=E3o Paulo and one of the rapporteurs on exceptions and limitations at t=
he conference, did point out that solutions are being discussed abroad but =
thought that they would be difficult to achieve in Brazil at this point. Th=
e MinC, I was told, consciously kept the issue out of this draft arguing th=
at a solution cannot be found in national legislation but should be sought =
in the international arena. But at WIPO file-sharing is not on the agenda, =
leaving the initiative to proponents of extremist models like the digital d=
eath sentence. Thus it seems that the MinC is taking a head-in-the-sand sta=
nce rather than pro-actively striking a balance between authors=92 rights a=
nd users=92 rights on this important digital challenge.

Authors=92 Contract Law?
The imbalance between creators and exploiters is the first that the MinC em=
phasises in its analysis but the means it suggests to rectify it seem rathe=
r feeble. It proposes a provision that states =93that contracting parties s=
hould observe =85 the principles of honesty and good faith, and cooperate t=
o fulfil the social function of the contract and the completion of its purp=
ose and the common expectations and those of each of the parties.=94 Furthe=
rmore it suggests that either party may request the revision or termination=
 of a copyright contract, for excessive financial burden or when one party =
accrues extreme advantages due to special and unforeseen events.

The Ministry also sees the need to clarify that the author may choose to li=
cence certain uses to exploiters rather than transfer property rights. With=
 respect to both literary and music works, the Ministry wants to emphasise =
that publishing companies throughout the term of a contract must take into =
account the author=92s interest, first and foremost they may not impede her=
 desire to make her work accessible to her audience. =93Therefore we propos=
e to make clear that a publishing contract does not imply a transfer of rig=
hts by the author,=94 the ministry said in its paper, implying that it is o=
nly a licence of certain uses stipulated in the contract. Likewise it is th=
e declared intention of the MinC =93to protect professionals such as photoj=
ournalists, illustrators and translators, giving them tools to combat unrea=
sonable assignments.=94

Thus the Ministry plans to significantly strengthen the position of authors=
 vis-=E0-vis the exploiters of their works even if it falls short of introd=
ucing an entitlement of authors to an adequate remuneration for each commer=
cial use made of their works, as did the German legislature in its 2002 cop=
yright law reform.

Remarkably, in line with demands by Lawrence Lessig and other law scholars,=
 it does propose to introduce a registration requirement for the sales of w=
orks, not as a condition for the granting of copyright protection but in or=
der to enable effective information about ownership.

But even the mention of general principles of fairness and honesty met with=
 strong criticism by the rapporteur and her respondent on this conference p=
anel. According to lawyer Eliane Abr=E3o, copyright law does not need to be=
 changed. Given freedom of contract all is well. She went so far as to say =
that copyright is not for amateurs, calling MinC staff amateurs.

Collecting Societies and the IBDA
Currently there exists only one collective rights management organisation i=
n Brazil, the Central Office of Collection and Distribution (Escrit=F3rio C=
entral de Arrecada=E7=E3o e Distribui=E7=E3o, ECAD). It represents 279,000 =
music rights holders and manages the rights to 1.4 million works and 665,00=
0 sound recordings. Like many other music authors=92 and performers=92 coll=
ecting societies across the globe, ECAD is criticised for its lack of trans=
parency, internal democracy and equity in distributing proceeds to its memb=
ers. Its conduct gave rise to several parliamentary investigations. The mos=
t recent one by the Legislative Assembly of S=E3o Paulo in April 2009 led b=
y congressman Buno Covas concluded that the collective management of music =
rights is in a =93state of institutional anarchy.=94 The final report state=
s that ECAD exceeded its financial obligations and its legal and statutory =
requirements, =93giving rise to irregularities and evidence of crimes such =
as forgery, tax evasion, embezzlement, illicit enrichment, conspiracy, rest=
raint of trade and abuse of economic power.=94

Like most music collecting societies in Europe, ECAD also prohibits its mem=
bers to release their works under Creative Commons licenses. In 2007, the d=
irector of the Brazilian composers association, Fernando Brant, led a campa=
ign by personally attacking then-Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil in a seri=
es of newspaper articles for his support of Creative Commons.

As another innovation the MinC now suggests to extend the right to remunera=
tion for public performances to the producers of audiovisual works. =93This=
 will unequivocally improve the possibility of authors, performers and prod=
ucers of audiovisual works for establishing a collective management of the =
public performance right.=94 Also for copy-shops that by means of photocopy=
ing or similar processes reproduce literary works in whole or in part as se=
rvice to their customers the Ministry plans to introduce a levy payment. =
=93In addition to enabling a true collective management of reprographic rig=
hts for authors, this is expected to finally resolve the conflict between t=
he owners of literary works and the teachers and students of educational in=
stitutions.=94

The latter refers to a conflict that escalated in 2004. The Brazilian Repro=
graphic Rights Association (ABDR), acting on behalf of publishers, strives =
to stop photocopying altogether. Until 1998 private copying was permitted w=
ithout a levy payment. The copyright law reform of that year reduced the ex=
ception to a single copy of =93small excerpts,=94 provided it is made by th=
e copying party for private and non-commercial purposes (Art. 49 II of Stat=
ute 9.610/98). In the aftermath, ABDR campaigned for its interpretation tha=
t =93small excerpts=94 are no more than one or two pages of a book and that=
 copy-shops that take a fee for their service are outside the scope of the =
permission.

At the beginning of the new century, an agreement on a fee per copy was con=
cluded between publishers and copy-shops, but ABDR unilaterally broke it an=
d started a police campaign against =93piracy.=94 In 2004, it started to su=
e leading educational institutions like the University of S=E3o Paulo (USP)=
, the Pontifical Catholic University of S=E3o Paulo (PUC-SP) and the Univer=
sity of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) for allegedly facilitating copyr=
ight infringements, as well as student organisations running copy-shops lik=
e the one at the Funda=E7=E3o Getulio Vargas (FGV) Business School in S=E3o=
 Paulo. In 2005 alone, ABDR made 158 requests for search and seizure of cop=
ies of books in universities.

In response, students and academics in S=E3o Paulo and Rio started the move=
ment Copiar Livro =E9 Direito! (Copying Books is a Right!). They argued tha=
t prices, especially for textbooks, are prohibitively high while commercial=
 availability is low. A study [pdf] by the Research Group on Public Policie=
s for Access to Information (GPOPAI) at USP shows that the majority of stud=
ents at that university had to pay a full month=92s income of their entire =
family or more in order to buy the books required for one school year. Furt=
hermore, it found that one third of the books on the mandatory reading list=
 for undergraduate courses at 36 universities were out of print. For the cu=
rriculum of the FGV Business School even half of the mandatory books were f=
ound to be out of print. Sharing the few library copies is not feasible wit=
hout photocopying.

Solving this crisis by legalising private copying is therefore one of the m=
ost urgent tasks the MinC has taken on. Representatives from academia deman=
d that at least for educational purposes this should not require a levy pay=
ment, arguing that many of the relevant works were created with public fund=
ing and should be available for educational uses in the public interest. Th=
e MinC, as mentioned before, sees a need for a levy but its reference to a =
special bill and public debate indicates that it wants to keep this issue s=
eparate from the current copyright bill. Introducing a levy on photocopying=
 would then require encouraging the establishment of collective management.

Since Brazil is one of the few countries where there is no public oversight=
 of collecting societies - leading to a situation in which the ill-reputed =
ECAD has given a bad name to collective management in general -, the Minist=
ry=92s plan to encourage at least two new collecting societies is tied to t=
he proposal for a new regulatory agency. Such agencies are well-established=
 in many areas of private enterprise, e.g. ANATEL for the telecommunication=
s industry, the Ag=EAncia Nacional de Cinema (ANCINE) for the audiovisual s=
ector, and also the unions need to be approved by the Ministry of Labor and=
 Employment.

The paper thus proposes the creation of an Instituto Brasileiro de Direito =
Autoral (IBDA) under the Ministry of Culture that will =93supervise, regula=
te and promote the collective administration of rights, provide administrat=
ive dispute mediation and arbitration in this area, organise the registrati=
on of works, provide the state with the technical capacity to act in the in=
terests of the country in the international arena and encourage the dissemi=
nation of copyrights.=94 The Ministry expresses its belief that it is neces=
sary to promote and stimulate the creation of other associations of authors=
 and publishers in addition to those of audiovisual and textual works. In o=
rder to ensure fair representation, an effective and transparent management=
 of the rights entrusted to them and compliance with the rules of collectio=
n and distribution of levies, including obligations under international agr=
eements, the collective management organisations will have to seek approval=
 by the new IBDA.

Transforming ECAD to abide by these rules will certainly be a major underta=
king. Establishing a sound basis for collective management will be an impor=
tant step for expanding its application to the digital realm. A comprehensi=
ve registry of works, today partially organised by the National Library, wi=
ll not only facilitate trade in copyrights but also legal certainty with re=
spect to orphaned works, free-licensed works and to works in the public dom=
ain. Administrative dispute arbitration entails the chance of reducing the =
number of court cases. In short, the IBDA promises to be a crucial instrume=
nt in improving the copyright environment of Brazil.

Sanctions
The final section of the Copyright Law and the final panel of the conferenc=
e as well deal with sanctions. Here the MinC presented two remarkable propo=
sals concerning DRM [digital rights management] and payola.

Even though Brazil has not signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, in its=
 1998 reform it nevertheless did implement nearly literally the protection =
of DRM established there. The MinC now proposes to keep the current prohibi=
tion of the circumvention of technical protection measures (Art. 107) in pl=
ace, however, to complement it with a prohibition of the abuse of TPMs by i=
mpeding lawful uses in any way. Just as in the Spanish copyright law, compa=
nies that use DRM would have to make them respect user rights.

Finally the MinC wants to put an end to the common practice of bribing radi=
o stations and shops for increasing the public=92s exposure to certain work=
s. Therefore, =93it creates penalties for those who offer or receive advant=
ages for increasing the public performance of works or phonograms, known as=
 =91jab=E1=92 or =91payola.=92=94

The Debate
Those who the analysis found to be at the top end of the unbalanced copyrig=
ht see-saw are naturally inclined to conservatism. Thus the most vociferous=
 publisher associations and the music collecting society ECAD made it clear=
 from the beginning of the reform process that they oppose any changes to t=
he current copyright law. At the copyright conference, their voices were ra=
rely heard. This might be because they are so sure of themselves that they =
don=92t find such a public debate worth while. They certainly have other ch=
annels to influence legislation, one of which is the press. On the morning =
of the first day of the conference one could read in the newspapers that th=
e President of the Brazilian Copyright Association (ABDA), Jos=E9 Carlos Ag=
uiar, complained that =93authors were not consulted and the emphasis of the=
 reform is on the weakening of copyright.=94 (Folha de S. Paulo, 9.11.2009)=
 The same article cites Juca Novaes from the Associa=E7=E3o Brasileira de M=
=FAsica e Artes (Abramus) as saying that the reform is a =93top-down measur=
e=94. Given the great effort of the Ministry to organise a two-year-long op=
en debate with countless opportunities for input by authors and industry th=
is is simply ridiculous.

Novaes also formulated one of the main lines of attack against the law proj=
ect, calling it a =93nationalisation of copyright,=94 positing the public o=
versight of the workings of ECAD by the Copyright Institute as something ak=
in to communism. In fact, the IBDA only re-creates the National Copyright C=
ouncil (CNDA) that was abolished by the 1998 reform. Another influential ne=
wspaper, the Estad=E3o (9.11.2009), titled =93Copyright turns into battlefi=
eld,=94 citing Roberto Mello, the director of Abramus, as accusing the bill=
 of being =91=92statist and interventionist=94 and declaring =93war=94 on t=
he proposal. The large content providers like internet portals, ISPs and br=
oadcasters, said Mello, are not willing to pay for the use of works. These =
huge corporate interests will fight to avoid paying four or five percent of=
 the value of the content to collecting societies. The attacks thus undersc=
ore how much such public oversight is needed.

Elaine de Moura, lawyer of another publishers=92 association, rightly criti=
cised the lack of full access to the draft law, making a deeper analysis of=
 the proposals impossible. At the same time, she warned against =93excessiv=
e references=94 to constitutional rights and to the Code of Consumer Protec=
tion (CDC), since their compliance is anyway guaranteed by all laws (Golden=
light.biz, 14.11.2009). Professor Antonio Morato, quoted in the same articl=
e, sees the Ministry=92s proposal as a =93suppression of the rights of auth=
ors.=94 What is needed is public policies to promote culture, he said, wher=
eas the copyright law does not need to be changed.

Quite the opposite, argues his colleague from UFSC and organiser of the con=
ference Professor Mark Wachowicz. The 1998 law reform was restrictive, rais=
ing protections to a maximum. Today, there is an imbalance between economic=
 and public interests, he said, citing the ban on copies of excerpts of boo=
ks in universities and on preservation copies by libraries as examples of o=
ver-protection. =93Our law protects industry rather than cultural diversity=
.=94 (Folha de S. Paulo, 9.11.2009)

That the organisations resisting change express opinions supposedly on beha=
lf of all authors, without consulting the diversity of opinions of the arti=
stic community, is one of the main points of criticism of the movement M=FA=
sica Para Baixar (MPB, =93Music for Download=94 and a play on the common te=
rm =93M=FAsica Popular Brasileira=94). In a statement handed out at the con=
ference, the labelndie label musicians that make up MPB specifically highli=
ght the corruptness of the current music system: While every community radi=
o station has to pay licensing fees to ECAD, none of the local artists they=
 play receive any money but only the authors of the 600 most-played songs. =
And these are most-played because labels pay stations to do so. Prohibiting=
 jab=E1 (payola) and controlling ECAD through the proposed Brazilian Instit=
ute of Copyright is therefore the most urgent task for MPB in order to incr=
ease cultural diversity and the possibility of income generation for a grea=
ter number of people involved in the music production chain. The Composers=
=92 Unions of the States of Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul also suppo=
rt the reform, recalling the recent parliamentary investigation in S=E3o Pa=
ulo of ECAD.

Two weeks after the copyright conference, Gilberto Gil, on tour in London, =
said in an interview (Estad=E3o, 21.11.09) that there is a deconstruction o=
f the classical model of authorship in the internet age. =93But there is a =
second important aspect of the principle of copyright, which is access to w=
orks, and that is emerging to a great extent.=94 And with it, authorship it=
self and new forms of micro-authorship proliferate. =93In order to approach=
 this dimension we need to re-design the entire system of copyrights.=94

Already at the end of 2008 an initiative by academics, artists, writers, te=
achers, editors and members of civil society issued the Carta of S=E3o Paul=
o on Access to Cultural Goods that was also distributed at the conference. =
For them as well, it is evident that the digital revolution necessitates a =
copyright reform in order to establish a new balance between authors and ex=
ploiters, and between private interests and public interests. The Carta=92s=
 demands include the right to private copying and other non-commercial uses=
, to reproductions for format shifting and preservation, of accesses to orp=
han works, the reduction of the copyright term from 70 to 50 years after th=
e death of the author, a limitation of the assignment of exclusive rights t=
o five years strengthening authors=92 control over their works, and checks =
on DRM and on collecting societies.

Many, if not all, of these demands for adequate responses to urgent challen=
ges of the digital age seem to be echoed in the Ministry of Culture=92s pla=
ns. How exactly nobody knows, until the Ministry finally publishes its draf=
t law and the final round of debate on a balanced copyright for the 21st ce=
ntury can begin. The clock is ticking on the possible success of the reform=
. Much is at stake - for the future of Brazilian culture, for other countri=
es in Latin America who look to Brazil as a role model and for the world.

Volker Grassmuck is a media sociologist and freelance author. He has conduc=
ted research on the knowledge order of digital media, on copyright and the =
knowledge commons at Free University Berlin, at Tokyo University and at Hum=
boldt University Berlin and will continue to do so at the University S=E3o =
Paulo from mid-2009. He was project lead of the conference series Wizards o=
f OS and the copyright information portal iRights.info, and co-founded the =
initiatives mikro and privatkopie.net.

Categories: Access to Knowledge, Copyright Policy, Developing Country Polic=
y, English, Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting, Inside=
 Views, IP Law, WIPO


----
http://www.vgrass.de/