Danger: Globo defends the Civil Framework for the Internet

247 - Report published this Sunday in Folha (read hereThe article denounces an alleged collusion between Globo and Congressman Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ) to defend the interests of the Marinho media group in the vote on the new Marco Civil da Internet (Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights). The same accusation had already been made by Renato Rovai (read more). hereCoincidence or not, Globo seems to be in a hurry to analyze the topic. Read below the editorial published this Sunday:

A prime example of how society advances ahead of legal frameworks—which, from time to time, need to be updated—is the internet. And at this moment, in establishing rules for this new activity, there is a risk of making mistakes that could harm the best possible use of what is intended to be regulated. The Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil da Internet), a project submitted by the government to Congress, is a case in point. It was extensively debated in the Chamber of Deputies before going to the Senate, and is at the center of heated disagreements.

But in September, after the revelation that electronic spies from the American National Security Agency were spying on President Dilma Rousseff, her interlocutors, and even Petrobras, the government saw in the project the possibility of erecting legal barriers against this type of invasion of privacy. The project's rapporteur, Deputy Alessandro Molon (PT-RJ), was then asked to include in the text a requirement that major global internet providers maintain data centers in Brazil to facilitate the execution of court orders regarding any content transmitted over the Brazilian network.

To expedite the process in the Chamber of Deputies, the bill was placed under urgent consideration, aiming for approval within a maximum of 45 days. That deadline expired last week, and the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet bill began blocking the House's agenda. The Speaker of the Chamber, Henrique Eduardo Alves (PMDB-RN), urged the conflicting parties to reach an agreement before the bill is put to a vote this week.

There are two major points of contention. One concerns the concept of "net neutrality," included in the project with government support and across party lines. The other revolves around the defense of copyright. On this issue, the project embraces the usual practice that anyone who feels affected by the misuse of their work can notify the alleged infringer outside of legal channels. From then on, the notified party becomes legally responsible for the copyright infringement. But some want the communication to be made through the courts. In practice, this is an obstacle, sometimes insurmountable, for artists, authors, and copyright holders who lack the money and resources to access the justice system.

In the case of "net neutrality," there are active factions within the House that disagree with the principle, and among them is Congressman Eduardo Cunha, from Rio de Janeiro, leader of the PMDB party. "Neutrality" faces strong opposition from telecommunications companies worldwide, as they see it as an obstacle to increased revenue. After all, the principle guarantees all network users the same traffic conditions (speed, file size, etc.).

This is not a trivial matter, as it undermines the central idea of a free internet, open to all. Allowing differentiated pricing by providers creates space, for example, for the creation of barriers to entry for new competitors in the digital world.

Since everything has already been thoroughly debated, it's time for the House to vote on the bill.

Danger: Globo defends the Civil Framework for the Internet.