With a few exceptions, Latin American countries have not yet begun a serious discussion on the protection of copyright and intellectual property of audiovisual content on the Internet.
By Richard Santa S.
The massification of the internet changed, especially among the youngest, the way they consume books, music and audiovisual content. Now the vast majority is consumed for free. Therefore, any attempt to regulate the traffic of content on the Internet receives immediate rejection.
But why is it intended that on the Internet you can not protect copyright and in traditional media if? The laws of all countries have always protected perpetrators from infringing copyright and related rights. These laws of each nation have been ratified from the international level through treaties signed by each country.
The protection of audiovisual content, which is our responsibility, has been seriously affected by the emergence of web pages dedicated to transmitting, live or on demand, the programs of channels around the world, which has generated a legal battle between the production companies and these portals.
In Latin America the best known case is that of Cuevana, but it is not the only one. Against this Argentine portal several processes are followed, in the first the warner production company managed to get the justice to rule in its favor and make remove all its contents from that page, the same claim that the HBO production company has in an ongoing process.
The question that many are asking is whether the laws of Latin American countries provide due protection for the copyright of audiovisual content after the emergence of new transmission technologies such as the Internet.
For the Argentine lawyer Pablo Martínez, an expert in telecommunications, the legislation in his country, and in general in all Latin American countries, is very old and has not adapted to the new reality. "On the Internet everything is free and in the face of that reality the intellectual property system is fragile."
In the same vein, the Colombian lawyer researcher and expert in computer law, Ana María Mesa, said that the current legislation, its interpretation and application, is short due to lack of typical description of some behaviors that require protection of copyright and related rights.
Failed attempts
Over the past year there have been several attempts by several countries to regulate Internet content, including fields for the protection of intellectual property and copyright.
The most notorious case was that of the United States, with the so-called SOPA Act, which was not approved in the US Congress after a worldwide rejection. But there are also other essays of legislation on the subject such as the digital canon in Spain and other similar projects in France.
In Latin America, little has been attempted to legislate on the subject. For Pablo Martínez at this moment the world does not know what to do with copyright on the Internet. "We are in a grey area with unsuccessful regulatory trials. Countries in our region are more eager to see what happens in other parts of the world before looking for solutions of their own."
He adds that before the internet, the violation of intellectual property and copyright of audiovisual content were, for the most part, plagiarism. But this situation changed and now with the internet the problem is that a total copy is made, a reproduction of the work without authorization.
Colombian case
Colombia has been one of the few countries in the region that has tried to regulate content on the Internet. During 2011 and the beginning of this year, an attempt was made, also unsuccessfully, to pass a law that included the protection of copyright and intellectual property. This was called "Lleras Law", alluding to the minister who presented the project, Germán Vargas Lleras.
But in March of this year, the regulatory framework for the entry into force of Colombia's Free Trade Agreement with the United States was approved. This Law included in two of its articles the protection of copyright of audiovisual content touching on Internet issues, which for many was the approval of the "Lleras 2 Law".
Ana María Mesa, maintains that Article 13 of the aforementioned Law restricts only the retransmission through the Internet of television signals, whether terrestrial, cable or satellite, without the authorization of the owners of both the content and the signal itself.
"This point seeks to counteract events such as those that occur when a broadcaster has the exclusive rights to broadcast a sporting event and a third party retransmits it via the Internet or resources over IP. It is important to mention that the standard in question does not refer to broadcast and transmission events, since it only mentions retransmission, and does not distinguish whether it refers to incidental or coded television signals, "he explains.
Limitations and exceptions in the digital environment demand special treatment, which unfortunately, in the recent legislation approved in Colombia, was not taken advantage of and an opportunity to regulate the subject was missed.
The lawyer adds that "the contents are claimed by the users of the network regarding that the protection measures should not prevent use, without exploitation, as indicated by the limitations and exceptions, making it impossible to access to make the private copy and personal use of audiovisual works or any other, this being the way they fight for their rights, even more so when accessing the work there is no sign or notorious information that prohibits such use and much less, when there are no technological measures that prevent it".
And although the Colombian government insists on explaining that the approved regulatory framework is applicable in the acts related to the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, it is not possible to affirm that in terms of execution, and application of the norm, a different scope cannot be given or materialized.
"This can be a door that facilitates the normative inclusion of many or all of the provisions initially established in the bill misnamed 'Lleras Law' filed. The relationship between this and the Law is all, starting with the subject matter, intellectual property: a. copyright and related rights, b. industrial property, "said the Colombian lawyer.
This problem has to grow because every day access to the internet is massified and as well as access options from different mobile devices, such as tablets and smartphones, and not only from the computer.
*Lack of development in digital environment
How different is Colombian legislation on audiovisual copyright protection compared to other Latin American countries? Colombia is in regulatory evolution that allows updating its legislation on copyright in a more accurate, objective and guaranteeing way of the rights of creators and inventors.
"With this process we have to compare ourselves with more legislatively developed countries such as Brazil, Chile and Argentina. In addition to countries that would believe themselves to be as evolved as us, however they are one step ahead such as Peru and partly Venezuela, "said Ana María Mesa.
He concluded that the most worrying thing is that Colombian legislation does not have major evolution in the issue of the digital environment, and it was precisely the issuance of this law a legislative opportunity, totally missed.
*Lower costs is the key
The law of protection of copyright to audiovisual content, and in general to all fields in Argentina is very old, from 1933, although it has had adaptations in its body since that date.
That is why the lawyer Pablo Martínez asks: "the internet has facilitated the massive distribution of files of all kinds, including video, which has greatly cheapened the acquisition, but is the industry adapting to this reality? Have you changed the marketing scheme of your products? Has it lowered their prices?"
This situation was experienced by the music industry 10 years ago when they began to market music through virtual stores, lowering costs. Cheapening, according to Martinez, is the key, because ordinary people compare the relatively high cost of buying a product to downloading it illegally at no cost.
It concludes that we must work on the issue from different points: lower production and distribution costs, but covering all payments for intellectual property protection and copyright, as well as social awareness that it is a crime to download or consume on the Internet without paying, as well as going to a supermarket and taking something without paying.
