Brazilian Blawger: “YouTube Case Runs Counter toTrend”

Jurídico M&B-A is the blawg — law blog — of Monteiro & Barbosa, a law firm in Guaratinguetá, São Paulo, Brazil.

And it offers some excellent analysis, I think, for free — the author of the post is Mr. Plinio J. Marafon — of the current situation here in Brazil with respect to administrative reform and the reform of the corporations code under the Novo Código Civil.

So in case you do not trust me on my analysis of the YouTube case — as you definitely should not, because I am not a laywer (IANAFL), thank God — consider the following analysis, which, again also runs entirely counter to the nam myoho renge kyo-based pronouncements of John Palfrey of the Berkman Center for the Intel Inside Society, who serves as an “independent [cough:abramoff] legal expert” to the tech press on such cases.

Caso YouTube contraria tendência

YouTube Case Runs Counter to Trend

O caso da modelo Daniela Cicarelli, que fez com que o site YouTube ficasse fora do ar para diversos usuários durante pelo menos 24 horas, deixou advogados que atuam com questões relacionadas à privacidade na internet em estado de alerta. Apesar de não haver uma legislação clara e específica que regule os casos envolvendo o direito de imagem no mundo digital, a decisão contrariou o que tem sido a tendência dos Tribunais de Justiça (TJs) em situações semelhantes: a de não responsabilizar civil ou criminalmente os provedores do conteúdo polêmico, já que em geral atuam como meros distribuidores.

The case of model Daniela Cicacarelli, which wound up causing the Web site YouTube to be off the air for a number of users for at least 24 hours, left lawyers who practice in the area of privacy in a state of high alert. Although there is no clear and specific legislation on the issue in cases involving the right of images in the digital world, the decision ran contrary to what has been a marked trend in the the courts in similar situations: Not holding the providers of controversial content personally or criminally responsible, given that in general they act as mere distibutors of the content.

Again, remember that this “trendbucking” outcome was based on the order as issued — and in the process, unduly revised — by administrative judge Lincon Antônio Andrade de Moura, and not as originally authored by the competent judge in the case, Mr. Zuliani.

And that the plenary session later affirmed Zuliani’s ruling, and its rationale.

Thereby reestablishing the trend that the author of this post very judiciously points out for the discreet and superior risk manager in this post. –Ed.

Em uma análise dos 358 casos que tratam de privacidade na internet e que chegaram à segunda instância do Judiciário – os TJs – de todo o país desde 2000, o advogado especialista Renato Opice Blum constatou que apenas cinco chegaram ao Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), mas com especificidades que impedem a consolidação de uma jurisprudência em torno do tema na instância superior. Nos TJs, a tendência tem sido a de exigir apenas a retirada do conteúdo do ar pelos provedores, que têm cumprido as decisões temendo as vultosas multas aplicadas. Já a responsabilidade civil e a criminal ficam por conta de quem, de fato, colocou o conteúdo polêmico à disposição na rede.

In an analysis of 358 cases that deal with privacy on the Internet that have reached appeals courts throughout Brazil since 2000, lawyer and Internet law specialist Renato Opice Blum noted that only 5 were appealed further up the chain, and then only with specifications that blocked the consolidation of jurisprudence on the theme in the higher courts. In the TJs, the trend has been to demand only that the providers remove the controversial content from the air. Providers have generally complied with such orders, fearing the massive fines that have been applied. But civil and criminal liability adheres to the person who, in fact, posted the controversial content to the site.

As multas e indenizações têm sido a grande arma contra esse tipo de conflito na internet, o que aumenta o risco de esse mercado virar uma grande indústria de processos. Os montantes podem variar de R$ 10 mil por dia – valor freqüentemente cobrado do provedor que não identificar o usuário que praticou o ato – a R$ 50 mil contra quem praticou o uso indevido de uma marca ou difamou a imagem de alguém, por exemplo. No caso do YouTube, foi estipulado um valor de R$ 250 mil ao dia contra o site. Os casos pedindo quebra de sigilo são os mais comuns: apenas o escritório de Opice Blum cuida de mais de 200 ações do tipo.

Fines and awards have been the major weapon against this type of Internet-related dispute, which increases the risk of this industry becoming a lawsuit factory on an industrial scale. The amounts can range from R$10,000 a day — a sum frequently collected from the provider who refuses to identify the user who practiced the act in question — to R$50,000 a day, against those who make improper use of a brand or defame the image of someone, for example. In the YouTube case, a fine of R$250,000 a day was specified. Cases in which litigants demand the unsealing of private information are the most common — The Opice Blum office is handling more than 200 cases of this kind.

[I wonder how many of the cases Mr. Blum's firm is handling have to do with campaign advertising struck down, and ordered off the free election advertising hour here, as being, er, factually challenged, by Brazilian elections judges, and then reposted to YouTube in defiance of the Brazilian election court's order?

For an example, see this NMM-TV Zeitgeist Newsreel episode. --Ed.]

O advogado explica que a tendência da Justiça brasileira tem sido a de, inicialmente, responsabilizar o provedor, que se livra de penalidades se retira o conteúdo do ar no prazo exigido. Este foi o caso do YouTube, que, na ação de setembro do ano passado havia retirado o vídeo nos endereços conhecidos. O que surpreendeu foi a responsabilização do site no recurso ao Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (TJSP) por não ter evitado a volta do conteúdo.

Blum explains that the trend in Brazilian courts, at first, was to hold the content provider liable, so that it can relieve itself of penalities only by taking the content off the air in the time allotted for it to do so. This was the case in the YouTube affair, which, during the action brought last September had taken down the videos at the specified URLs. What was surprising was the appeal to the TJSP, seeking to punish it for not having avoided the return of the content to the site.

I bet you that people linked to the plaintiff’s side of that case will be discovered to have reposted the Cicarelli video themselves. Just a hunch.

O entendimento da Justiça imunizando o provedor que cooperar está alinhado com a grande referência em legislação internacional sobre o tema – a lei americana Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), explica o advogado Marcelo Goyanes, do Veirano Advogados. Na avaliação dele, a legislação brasileira que tem estimulado celebridades a acionarem sites interativos é o artigo 20 do novo Código Civil, que prevê que o uso de imagens pode ser proibido por seu dono em casos de finalidade comercial ou com conteúdo difamatório.

The YouTube court’s decision to immunize the provider that cooperates is aligned with the benchmark piece of international legislation on this topic — the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act, says Marcelo Goyanes, from the firm of Veirano, Attorneys-at-Law.In his view, the Brazilian law that has stimulated celebrities to sue interactive Web sites is Article 20 of the New Civil Code, which provides that [publication of] images can be prohibited by their owner in cases of defamation or commercial re-use.

No, noot really, I don’t think: Article 20 and related provisions, in my understanding (IANAFL), actually more closely resemble the European Union directives on this subject.

Who is this Goyanes, and who does he work for? My sense is that he is pulling a Palfrey on us. –Ed.

O advogado Marco Antonio Sabino, do Koury Lopes Advogados, avalia que a jurisprudência do STJ para o “mundo real” diz que uma imagem de “top less” feita em uma praia não constitui violação de imagem se for publicada em um jornal. Por analogia, essa posição também teria sido contrariada. De modo geral, diz, a Justiça pesa a relevância da informação contra o direito à privacidade. Ganha o que for considerado mais importante.

Marco Antonio Sabino, of Koury Lopes, interprets the general trend in STJ jurisprudence, in “real world” terms, as implying that the “topless” image taken on a beach would not constitute a violation if it were published in a newspaper. But the STJSP’s decision seems, by analogy, to reverse that position. Generally speaking, he says, the Court weighs the relevance of the information against the right to privacy, with the decision going to whichever interest is found more compelling.

Para o advogado Durval de Noronha, do Noronha Advogados, que atua no Brasil para o Google – e, portanto, para o Orkut, alvo de 44 ações do Ministério Público -, há dificuldade em fazer valer as decisões do Judiciário brasileiro em função de muitos sites estarem no exterior, fato associado à ausência de tratados internacionais com os países-sede. Para o presidente da Associação Brasileira dos Provedores (Abranet), António Tavares, a reação ao caso Cicarelli desestimula este tipo de ação, cuja tendência é ser resolvida por auto-regulação, em sua opinião.

But Durval de Noronha, of the Noronha firm, which represents Google in Brazil — and therefore, Orkut as well, which has been the target of 44 lawsuits by the Public Ministry — it is difficult to enforce orders by Brazilian courts because so many of the sites are operated from abroad, which is compounded by a lack of international treaties between Brazil and the home countries of the firms. [i.e., Doha failed, so Brazil has not agreed to "converge up" to WIPO and WTO "standards"]

According to the president of the Brazilian Association of Internet Providers (Abranet), António Tavares, the reaction to the Cicarelli case will put a damper on this kind of lawsuit, which, in his view, is tending more and more to be settled through self-regulation.

Noronha is the guy who negotiated the successful deal between Google and the Federal Police. Listen to him.

He is the only guy here advocating a proposition with concrete results in the win column at this point, I think.

And what I think what he is saying here, reading between the lines, is that the real trend that is being bucked here is for the provisions of the reforms of the Novo Código Civil to prevail in court, absent any contrary statutory authorities such as The Azeredo-Magalhães Internet Monopoly Protection Act and GATS.

If you missed the follow-up, the temporary order issued by Judge Zuliani — which required only that the specific URL be blocked, not the whole site — was upheld by the plenary session.

It is my understanding that the plenary session applied Zuliani’s test, too: Telefônica and Brasil Telecom had to prove that it was technically impossible to comply with Zuliani’s order, as originally written.

Which is, of course, impossible to prove.

Because they were lying.

And not only that, they were trying to sell that lie to the public with the connivance of media groups who actively concealed the fact — through the presentation of “independent experts” in a “journalistic” context — that they had a dog in the fight.