21 de maio de 2010, às 18:05h

Clic aquí para ver la versión en español

We present the complete version of the new proposed text for the Draft Bill Proposition on Civil Rights Framework for Internet in Brazil, in four formats (.txt, .rtf, .doc, .pdf).

RTFPDFTXT DOC

clique the icon to download

And, below, the new text, with direct links to the respectives formats,  also,  you can see the modification made on the proposal step-by-step:

Section IV

On the content removal

Article 19. The Internet connection provider will not be liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties. (preserved)

Article 20. The Internet service provider may only be liable for damages arising out of content generated by third parties if the provider was notified and did not take the steps within its competence in a reasonable term to make unavailable the content signaled as harmful.

§ 1. Internet service providers must maintain at least one clearly visible electronic channel for the receiving notifications and counter-notices.

§ 2. The Internet service provider may create an automated mechanism in order to conform to the procedures described in this Section


Article 20. The Internet service provider may only be liable for damages arising out of content generated by third parties if the provider receives a court order, and fail to comply with its ruling, in order to take the measures within its scope of service and within the defined term to make the content the court signaled as infringing unavailable. (proposal for new text)


Article 21. The notification describe on Article 20 shall contain, under penalty of invalidation:

I – identification of the applicant, including full name, civil registry and fiscal identification numbers and current contact information;

II – date and time of transmission;

III – clear and specific identification of the content signaled as harmful to enable unambiguous locality of the notified material;

IV – description of the relationship between the applicant and the content identified as harmful; and

VI – legal justification for removal.


Article 21. The court order described on Article 20 shall contain, under penalty of invalidation (proposal for new text)

I – identification of the applicant, including full name, civil registry and fiscal identification numbers and current contact information;

II – clear and specific identification of the content signaled as harmful to enable unambiguous locality of the notified material;

III – description of the relationship between the applicant and the content identified as harmful; and

IV – legal justification for removal.


Article 22. After removing the content, Internet service providers will be responsible to report this action to the user who has produced the content, quoting the reasons for removal as raised by the notification, and establishing a reasonable deadline for the permanent removal.

Sole Paragraph. If the user responsible for the harmful content is not identifiable or able to be located, and if the requirements for notification are met, the service provider should keep the content unavailable.

Article 22. After removing the content, Internet service providers will be responsible to report this action to the user who has produced the content, quoting the reasons for the court order, whenever the user responsible for the infringing content is identifiable. (proposal for new text)


Article 23. The user who has produced the content can counter-notice the Internet service provider – properly attending the requirements of Article 21 – in order to require the restoration of the blocked content and, by doing so, assuming sole responsibility for any damage caused to third parties. In response to the counter-notice, the service provider will be obliged to restore access to the blocked content and to inform the party who presented the notification that it has been restored.

Sole Paragraph. Any other interested parties, be it individuals or legal entities, properly attending the requirements of Article 21, may present counter-notice, assuming, by doing so, responsibility for the content’s maintenance.

Article 23. Users who possess administrative powers to manage content will be treated alike Internet service providers for the purposes of the clauses described in this Section. (preserved)

Article 24. Both the party that reports harmful content and the party that contests the removal of the content will be held responsible for any false or erroneous information they provide, as well as for abusive behavior or bad faith, in accordance to the law. (suppressed)

Article 25. Users who possess administrative powers to manage content will be treated alike Internet service providers for the purposes of the clauses described in this Section. (suppressed)

Be Sociable, Share!