“Tropa de Elite Imitations Ordered Off YouTube”

Youtube [sic] tira do ar imitações de ‘Tropa de Elite’ (G1/Globo):

Oito vídeos com indícios de que incitariam a tortura, na opinião da polícia, foram retirados do site Youtube nesta quarta-feira (10). O portal atendeu solicitação do titular da Delegacia de Repressão aos Crimes de Informática (DRCI), delegado Antenor Martins.

Eight videos with indications that they might incite people to torture, in the opinion of police, were taken off the YouTube Web site today. The portal complied with a request from the head of the IT Crimes Division, Antenor Martins.

Would that be the DRCI of the federal police? Or Rio? Or what?

As it turns out, it is a delegacia of the Rio state legislative police. You would think G1 would let you in on that little detail. There is a certain disconnect between federal and Rio and São Paulo state public policy on such matters, I think you generally say.

Os filmes feitos por jovens imitavam cenas do filme “Tropa de Elite”. Numa delas, um dos jovens tinha a cabeça envolvida com saco plástico e era agredido.

The films, made by young people, imitated scenes from the film Tropa de Elite. In one of them, one of the young men has his head wrapped in a plastic sack and is assaulated.

Depois de assistir às imagens, o delegado enviou ofício ao escritório da Google Brasil, responsável pelo Youtube, solicitando que os vídeos fossem retirados do ar e preservados para análise da polícia.

After viewing the images, the head of the IT Crimes division sent a request to the offices of Google Brasil, responsible for YouTube, asking that the videos be taken off the air and preserved for analysis by police.

On a similar procedure, negotiated between Google and state and local authorities and Brazil, for the (wildly popular) Orkut social-networking site, see

As I understand it, it supposed to be a sort of”preventive custody” measure for content, with a corresponding “habeas content” due-process. right.

Does this signal a wider crackdown on “apologies for crime” speech? Such as the clips show above, or in the following NMM(-TV) post?

The last I checked, you can still download an astonishing video, explicitly celebrating BOPE as lean, mean, killing machine — with interviews with BOPE troopers (“we kill to create a better world”), actual combat footage, a video-game soundrack, and lots of money shots of corpses — that has reportedly also been banned from exhibition in Brazil.

Versions of that and similar videos showed up in the so-called “Tropa de Elite II” pirate version — it was actually titled “Special Operations II” — as supplemental content.

The DVD-burning underground basically just sucked it off of YouTube and blopped into on the disk with the pirated version 1.0 of the film, I guess.

“Eles poderiam estar incitando publicamente a prática de tortura. A gente tem que analisar se é uma brincadeira ou se realmente fizeram aquilo ali pra dizer que tortura é uma coisa positiva”, disse o delegado, que é especialista em crimes cibernéticos.

“They might be publicly inciting persons to practice torture. We have to analyze whether this is a joke or they are really doing that there to say that torture is a positive thing,” said the official, who is a specialist in cybercrimes.

On whether depictions of ghastly acts are jokes or not, see also

I never did find out whether that video depicted a real, or a staged and fictional, act of beheading.

A assessoria de imprensa da Google Brasil informou que o site retira vídeos de conteúdo “indesejado”, conforme previsto nos termos de serviço assinados pelo usuários. Ainda segundo a assessoria, a solicitação da retirada pode ser feita por qualquer usuário.

Google Brasil’s press office said the site takes down videos with “undesirable” content, as provided for in the terms of service agreed to by users. Also according to the press office, the request to take down content can come from any user.

The world indesejado does not appear in the Terms of Service, actually.

There is a link titled something like “report objectionable content.”

YouTube recently split off its Brazilian service, which is accessible at br.youtube.com.
If you are posting to or accessing the site from Brazil, it seems, you are automatically redirected to the new URL.

So, are the terms of service the same in Portuguese for Tupis as they are in English for gringos like me?

Não foi informado se o conteúdo foi preservado conforme o delegado solicitou. O especialista em direito eletrônico, Rony Vainzof, informou que na legislação brasileira nada obriga a “guardar os dados” por um determinado período tempo.

It was not reported whether the content had been preserved, as the delegado requested.

Not reported by whom?

There was a flap here a couple of years ago when a judge ordered a single post by a blogger taken down temporarily from the UOL Blog service while litigation proceeded over whether the content was libelous.

UOL Blog, in an excess of enthusiasm, simply cancelled the account and erased all the content.

Electronic law specialist Rony Vainzof said that Brazilian law does not require “preserving data” for a specific period of time. 

Huh?

I thought understood there was a “habeas content” principle involved.

Vainzof, besides being an “expert on electronic law,” is also an associate at the firm of Opice Blum.

Advocacia consultiva, preventiva e contenciosa nas áreas cível, comercial e criminal, com ênfase em Direito Eletrônico e da Informática – Professor da Faculdade IBTA e do Instituto Paulista de Educação Continuada e Professor convidado pela PUC/SP, Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes/SP, UNISA – Universidade de Santo Amaro, AASP – Associação dos Advogados de São Paulo, OAB/Santos, Lex Editora S.A. e ADPO – Academia de Desenvolvimento Profissional e Organizacional – Pós-Graduando em Direito e Processo Penal pela Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, Bacharel em Direito pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie e Especialização em Direito Eletrônico pelo Instituto Paulista de Educação Continuada – Vice-Coordenador do Comitê de Legislação e Membro do Comitê Anti-Fraude da Câmara Brasileira de Comércio Eletrônico; Membro do Conselho de Comércio Eletrônico da Federação de Comércio/SP

As is every legal pundit consulted by Globo on matters of “digital law,” it seems.

These people are industry lobbyists, for crying out loud. Who do they represent? It’s hard to know. They don’t generally say.

But are presented solely as “academic experts” in the area.

It’s astonishing.

The rector of Mackenzie, by the way, argued, in all seriousness, that the reelection of the incumbent president of Brazil could be interpreted as a divine punishment visited by God upon the Brazilian people.

See

On lurking lobbyists, see also

Consumers of content through Tupi-YouTube have to agree to the following:

G. O usuário está ciente de que ao usar o website do YouTube estará exposto ao Material do Usuário de diversas fontes, e que o YouTube não se responsabiliza pela precisão, utilidade, segurança ou propriedade intelectual próprias ou relacionadas a esse Material do Usuário. O usuário compreende ainda e aceita que poderá estar exposto a Material do Usuário que seja impreciso, ofensivo, indecente ou condenável, e que o usuário renuncia, como o faz de fato, a qualquer direito ou indenização legal ou justa, presente ou futura, contra o YouTube em relação a esse tema, e concorda em indenizar e isentar o YouTube, seus Proprietários/Operadores, afiliados, e/ou franqueadores, na medida máxima permitida por lei, em relação a todos os assuntos relativos ao uso do site.

Very rough translation:

The user is aware that while using this site they will be exposed to user-provided content from various sources, and that YouTube is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, security or intellectual property of these or content related to this user-provided material. The user also understand and accepts that they may be exposed to user-provided content that could be inaccurate, offensive, indecent, or reprehensible, and the user waives all present or future rights and damage, legal or otherwise, against YouTube with respect to this subject, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless YouTube, its owner-operators, affiliates and/or franchisees, to the maximum extent permissible by law, in relation to all such matters while using the site.

I actually do not see any provisions in the br.youtube Conditions of Use that talk about “undesired” types of content, or legal procedures for borking it. Except that YouTube reserves the right to bork content for any reason at all, at any time, without notice.

They appear to be simply literal translation of the English-language terms of service  for YouTube.com
Furthermore

Estes Termos de Uso serão regidos pelas leis internas do Estado da Califórnia, independentemente dos princípios de conflitos de leis. Qualquer reclamação ou controvérsia entre o usuário e o YouTube que decorra total ou parcialmente do website do YouTube será dirimida exclusivamente por um tribunal competente localizado no condado de San Mateo, na Califórnia.

These Conditions of Use shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, regardess of the principle of the Conflict of Laws. Any complaint or controversy between the user and/or YouTube stemming wholly or partially from the YouTube Web site shall be adjudicated exclusively by a competent court of law located in the County of San Mateo, in California.

In which case,  something is funny about this G1 report, given that the basic principle in this version of the Conditions of Use seems to be “consume this content at your own risk.”

Pure guess: Look for a repeat of the legal wrangling over the Cicarelli video, this time with a different trigger, and in the Rio courts.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s