The changes implied tough penalties for a range of financial crimes, including tax evasion, bribery and money laundering, as well as any action that might disrupt the country’s economy, such as a run on the banks.

Furthermore, they included an attempt at a new definition of terrorism, and a doubling of the minimum and maximum sentence attributed to crimes that are deemed to be motivated by terrorist intention.

The incorporation of such legislation came, according to local media, as an attempt to maintain the country’s seat at the G20 table. It was also a response to demands made by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), for Argentina to address its “strategic AML/CFT [anti-money laundering /combating the financing of terrorism] deficiencies.”

These deficiencies were discovered during two previous onsite evaluations conducted by the FATF in 2004 and 2009. They included technical legislative shortcomings in addressing money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and inadequate control by the county’s Financial Information Unit (UIF) over financial institutions and their compliance with regulations. Ignoring the obligations could mean ‘blacklisting’, potentially making trade to and from Argentina more complicated and more costly.

Seguir leyendo en Argentina Independent.

Grupo Temático Comunicação e Culturas Digitais
Nas nossas lutas em prol de um novo paradigma que leve em consideração os bens comuns, materiais e imateriais, e que fuja da mercantilização da vida, precisamos pensar a comunicação, a cultura e as novas tecnologias (e as relações entre elas) como elementos fundamentais. Assim como a linguagem, a tecnologia não é boa ou ruim em si mesma. Ela está em constante disputa, o que fica evidente nas tentativas contínuas e globais de “cercamento” digital, de controle, vigilância e criminalização das trocas e do compartilhamento.

Nesse sentido, a visão que trata a comunicação e a cultura digital como meros instrumentais ignora o potencial de tê-las como fins, como parte da luta por transformações profundas na forma como são geridas as relações de poder, de produção e de distribuição das riquezas globalmente. Mídias livres, pontos de cultura, rádios comunitárias, hackers, o desenvolvimento das tecnologias livres e acessíveis, o advento do copyleft, as experiências digitais de auto-organização, produções colaborativas e outros fenômenos da cultura de redes representam vivências de commons, novas possibilidades para a luta pelo direito à comunicação e à cultura e subsídios para a afirmação de um novo paradigma de relação com o planeta, um paradigma pautado pelo bem comum, pelo que é produzido por todos para a fruição de todos.

A horizontalidade dos meios de produção possibilitada pelas novas tecnologias de comunicação e informação colocam em xeque um modelo de vida baseado no individualismo, no monopólio e no predomínio do interesse próprio, valores impostos pelos impérios que concentram riqueza a partir de uma criação artificial de escassez. Sabe-se, hoje, que é possível produzir comunicação e cultura à margem dos grandes conglomerados. Porém, como contra-ataque, eles buscam impor ou fortalecer legislações restritivas que legitimem a submissão da cultura e da comunicação às leis do mercado, favorecendo a dominação dos povos.
O paradoxo do sistema capitalista expõe o problema do modelo privatista, tanto para os bens materiais quanto para os imateriais. Se o cercamento sistemático retira do homem sua capacidade de subsistir de forma independente e integrada com o meio-ambiente e torna o trabalho humano um mero instrumento para a acumulação, com o consequente desgaste do planeta, a posse das ideias produz controle e expropriação de nossa criatividade, da arte, da cultura, do conhecimento, do território (seja ele virtual ou real) e da comunicação, ou seja, das formas de expressão intangíveis, hoje as principais responsáveis por gerar valor aos produtos do sistema capitalista.

Não saímos na frente na disputa pelos termos e pelas tecnologias, esta é uma batalha travada em condições desiguais e os concentradores têm a vantagem dos hábitos culturais de dominação sustentados por séculos. Por isso, é fundamental ultrapassarmos a visão que estabelece limites e diferenças entre os movimentos sociais, que assume uma postura maniqueísta entre o analógico e o digital, o material e o imaterial. É preciso buscar os pontos comuns entre nós e fortalecê-los. Se as lutas pela integralidade das sementes e pela liberdade dos softwares parecem distantes, a questão por trás de ambas é uma só: a propriedade intelectual, as apropriações privadas do que, em origem, é comum. Do mesmo modo, a luta por políticas públicas que apoiem as culturas do “remix”, da “gambiarra”, da “metarreciclagem”, do consumo colaborativo, podem ser soluções para a obsolescência programada dos aparatos tecnológicos, produzidos principalmente a partir da exploração dos recursos minerais em países da África e dos recursos humanos na Ásia, ou seja, podem ser pautas para os movimentos ambientais e trabalhistas.

Corremos o risco, ao empreendermos discussões sobre justiça social e ambiental que ignoram este novo cenário, chamado por alguns de pós-industrial, de deixar que a lógica capitalista se aproprie da produtividade social evidenciada pelos novos meios e “cerque” o que deveria ser aberto a todos. Justiça social, para nós, compreende incentivar a potência da juventude, dos pobres, das periferias, das minorias negras, quilombolas, indígenas e de todos os demais protagonistas da nossa diversidade social, de modo a lhes dar autonomia para criar seus próprios mundos e incentivar o retorno do valor gerado por essas criações. Não nos queremos incluídos apenas como consumidores.
Justiça ambiental compreende pensarmos o compartilhamento, a fruição solidária, a produção colaborativa, a preservação dos saberes tradicionais, a gestão comunitária e cooperativa dos bens naturais. Numa sociedade cada vez mais ligada sob os mais diversos aspectos – políticos, econômicos, ambientais e culturais – a economia de mercado, baseada em um modelo individualista de tomada de decisão, tem gerado riscos contínuos de forma irresponsável. A governança global capturada pelos organismos financeiros, pelas multinacionais e por governos anacrônicos, centralizada e excludente, é alvo de questionamentos virtuais e reais, nas praças e nos acampamentos de todo o mundo. Se é possível nos comunicarmos em rede e termos voz em qualquer lugar do mundo, por que quem nos representa continua a não nos escutar?

Com o fortalecimento da lógica aberta, gratuita e em rede, consideramos ser possível engendrar revoluções que vão do cultural ao político, do econômico ao ambiental, a partir da prática cotidiana de valores que nos trazem de volta o sentido de comunidade e de commons. Nossas propostas estão relacionadas a três eixos: Ataque aos monopólios e à concentração dos meios, construção de espaços e práticas do comum e resistência às legislações privatistas. Pensar nossas próprias ações e atividades rumo à Cúpula dos Povos a partir deste acúmulo propositivo é um passo essencial para sermos agentes disseminadores deste potencial novo paradigma.
Propostas

* Garantir o uso exclusivo de tecnologias livres no Estado e na própria Rio+20 e no espaço da Cúpula dos Povos, assim como práticas que garantam a transparência (dados abertos) e a participação (uso da Internet como plataforma de decisão política);
* Defender o uso estatal e o investimento público exclusivamente em tecnologias livres e programas de código-aberto, apoiando a cadeia produtiva do software livre, inclusive no âmbito das plataformas online, como o apoio ao uso e desenvolvimento de redes sociais livres e federadas;
* Aproximar grupos ligados à cultura hacker dos movimentos sociais, criando uma rede de intercâmbio e suporte permanente em questões ligadas à comunicação e utilização de tecnologias livres; 
* Abordar a propriedade intelectual a partir de uma perspectiva crítica, tanto na perspectiva dos direitos autorais como no caso de patentes. Garantir que as leis de direito autoral contemplem o uso educacional e gratuito, além de prever o uso de licenças livres para produtos financiados direta ou indiretamente com recursos públicos;
* Garantir a neutralidade da rede, assim como a privacidade e anonimato de seus usários. Lutar contra legislações restritivas, tais como o ACTA, a Lei Sinde na espanha, SOPA/PIPA nos EUA e Lei Azeredo no Brasil. Lutar pela aprovação do Marco Civil na Internet e a garantia de direitos aos usuários da rede em todo o mundo;
* Abordar a Internet e a cultura digital a partir de sua infra-estrutura material: fortalecer iniciativas que lidem com a questão do lixo eletrõnico, lutar contra a exploração do trabalho na fabricação dos equipamentos eletrônicos, fortalecer práticas de metareciclagem e fabricação de hardwares livres;
* Defender políticas públicas que lidem com a comunicação como um mecanismo de garantia do exercício da cidadania e não como um processo exclusivo para instituições, empresas e grandes órgãos de comunicação. Fortalecer possiblidades de indivíduos livremente associados acessarem recursos públicos para produzirem mídia independente;
* Fomentar a utilização individual e coletiva de ferramentas livres de intercomunicação à distância para permitir trocas de experiência, contatos interculturais, coordenação de ações e tomada de decisões coletivas, mantendo a horizontalidade das relações e permitindo articulações independentemente das restrições econômicas de custos de viagem e hospedagem, por exemplo;
* Revisão imediata das concessões públicas para TVs e rádios, lutando contra a propriedade cruzada e o uso destas concessões por políticos. Defender o espectro aberto como um mecanismo de democratização da mídia em todo o mundo;
* Garantir o acesso à Internet como um direito fundamental a todos. No caso brasileiro, rediscutir o Plano Nacional de Banda Larga em um horizonte de ampliação do acesso gratuito e universal;
* Defender políticas públicas para a comunicação que apoiem iniciativas que lidem com pessoas físicas;
Defender uma renda mínima universal como um mecanismo de garantia de acesso aos recursos mínimos para a produção cultural e comunicacional;
* Levar a política dos Pontos de Cultura para outras áreas, como Ciência e Tecnologia (laboratórios de garagem) e Comunicação (Pontos de Mídia Livre para pessoas físicas livremente associadas);
* Defender a adoção imediata de dados abertos e medidas de transparência pública, assim como mecanismos que garantam a participação popular nas tomadas de decisões políticas, paralelamente através de reuniões presenciais e plataformas online.

Challenges of the current context: the dangerous conspiracy between state and market

State and market, at least in its hegemonic shape, are closely linked and it is hard to differentiate their actions. Even those of us who believe that it is possible for a democratic state to guarantee the general well-being, we see ourselves confronted with states that have no shame in catering to the banking sector –the chief culprit for the recent economic crises– while cutting social expenditures. Both state and market share the same ideological commitment to progress and competition. Both are committed to a model of development and economic growth that destroys the planet and the richness of the commons. Both dismantle our culture and livelihoods in order to convert us into consumers of goods. This inevitably leads to such outrages as the Brazilian mining company VALE’s construction of the Belo Monte dam in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, which will have a devastating impact on the biodiversity and the indigenous people of the region.

This threat to what is common to us are achieved through diverse mechanisms:
*Legal: through agreements on free trade and investment protections and intellectual property, and international bodies like the WTO and the WIPO;
*Economic: through private appropriation of territories (landgrabbing);
*Technological: through genetically modified organisms (GMOs), restrictive systems of access to culture (DRM), geoengineering, etc.

All these phenomena are part of a grand, still untold story of our time: the process of enclosure of the commons, which goes beyond the privatization because it involves expulsion, disenfranchisement and social fragmentation. Enclosures are expanding and intensifying, and, “when the last tree is cut, when the last river has been poisoned” they will go on with the enclosure of the fundamentals of life at a scale of nanotechnology.

Meanwhile, the same states and markets have prepared the trap of the “green capitalism,” which they will try to enforce through the Rio+20 conference. This will signal the next round of enclosure, commodification and financialization of nature. At the same time, states and corporations are conducting a war against the right to share by means of agreements like ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), proposed laws like SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (ProtectIP Act), direct attacks against citizen organizations like Wikileaks, regulations that impede the reuse and exchange of seeds, and more patents on traditional knowledge. This is the the moment we are living in.

The concept of the commons and the convergence of the social movements

The commons (some call it common goods) are not simply shared “goods.” The term refers to social practices based on the principle of commoning (the making of a commons). The goals of a commoning-process are clearly different from the typical practices of the state / market duopoly. Furthermore, the commons are a useful conceptual framework to analyse the future that we want. The commons functions like a different operating system at the level of community and probably (here is where the challenge lies) for the entire society, provided we devise appropriate institutions and policies. Hence, the construction of this conceptual framework is a dynamic process. It requires everyone to listen to what each social movement understands to be a commons. It is necessary to know more about the specific practices of commoning, whether they be embodied in indigenous and peasant communities, local seed banks, non-market-based initiatives of urban housing, or communities of developers of digital culture and software. We must understand the similarities of enclosure that each field is suffering, the silent as well as the well-known ones. This mutual awareness can help us to find a way to overcome crippling dualisms like public and private, state and market, individual and collective. In this way we aspire to create new settings that are structured according to creative principles of governance that arise from the bases.

Resistance and construction: commons, commoning

The processes of enclosure face resistance. And most of them can be analysed from a commons perspective. On each continent, organized communities are confronted with these challenges. In Bolivia, for example, there is the emblematic case of TIPNIS, the indigenous territory and national park threatened by the construction of a highway that would split in half a pristine park. Indigenous organizations marched more than 600km during two months in defence of this park and long-standing ways of life based on the communion with nature and on self-government, receiving extraordinary support and urban solidarity. As in this local struggle, the resistance is global. Attacks on water as a commons are encountering organized community resistance in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Africa. Seven million signatures were collected in a referendum on “water as a commons” in Italy in 2011.
On each continent movements like Occupy, the Indignados and others are arising that do not simply resist, but actively search for alternatives. All over the world people are cooperating via the Internet to create shared works and tools –Wikipedia and free software are the most visible examples– and new forms of social mobilization. Each can be thought of and connected to each other by a larger vision of the commons.

The resistance is also propelled by proposals for alternatives that emanate from the social practices of the commons. These practices form an alternative framework for the transformation of daily life as well as for the design of new public norms and policies that recognize self-management as the central element for a necessary social transformation.

Some examples of the variety of experiences, innovations and productions based on the commons are, among many others: strategies of collaborative consumption associated with barter and the practice of sharing; systems of community management of shared resources like forests, waterways and fishing grounds; and numerous initiatives that are building digital commons. Together these commons constitute a rich kaleidoscope of working models based on self-determination and collective management of shared resources. The social practices related to this paradigm naturally vary and yet they also have common features. A principal one is that they exemplify the idea that one’s self-fulfillment depends on the fulfillment of the others, and vice versa, and that this mutual concern blurs the borders between individual and collective interests.

Contradictions, concerns and challenges

Obviously, during this process of building a Commons Sector, the challenges are manifold. On one side, there is no clear consensus for many things. On the other side, many nuances of the commons paradigm have not yet been explored – and further exploration is necessarily going to be part of the ongoing social construction of the commons framework.

There are divergent perspectives among the stewards of various commons. Many digital commoners do not recognize their dependency on the “analogue” world on the one hand (computers cannot produce food), and many ecologists and traditional communities tend to underestimate the potential for social transformation that free technologies and culture can provide, on the other hand. Some commoners believe that the right to share and self-management can achieve the universal desire for social justice without exhausting the natural resources. Others in good faith are skeptical. Some argue that the idea of the commons continues to (re)trace the pathologies of property and the domination of nature and thus tend to be anthropocentric; others that see in the commons the possibility of a greater communion between nature and culture.

There are also many unresolved concerns: One of the most recurrent is the tension between the local, the regional and the global. It is impossible to think of commoning without thinking about a social subject, a “community.” It is therefore easiest to think about the commons paradigm at a local level. But thinking about the commons at a global level is a great challenge, and even impossible to escape because there is only one earth, and we have not only the right but the responsibility to share it. Confronted with this challenge, it is fair to ask what should be the role of a state that conceives itself as a defender of the commons?

Even while these explorations must proceed, it is necessary to name the commons in order to consolidate alternatives to the current state/market model and to visualize and communicate the alternatives. Nevertheless, our language is so permeated by the terminology of the state/market system and that of ideologies having a different mindset, that a major challenge is to develop a new vocabulary that truly describes the world we want. Resolving the conundrum of “common goods that are not goods” cannot be a closed process. Which is why we invite you to help us collectively build this vocabulary in a way that we can adapt to the diversity of contexts in which we each act.

The commons are right before our eyes. Together we will find methods for naming them and, even more important, for converting them into a diversity of governance systems based on the principles of commoning.

Porto Alegre
January 2011

Retos del contexto actual: siniestra colaboración entre estados y mercado

Estado y mercado, al menos en sus formas hegemónicas, están íntimamente conectados y es difícil diferenciar sus acciones. Incluso aquellos que creemos en la posibilidad de un estado democrático, garante del bienestar, nos encontramos frente a estados que no se avergüenzan de someterse a la banca -principal causante de las recientes crisis- mientras recortan gastos sociales. Ambos comparten la misma valoración de la ideología del progreso y la competencia, y están comprometidos con un modelo de desarrollo y crecimiento económico que destruye el planeta y la riqueza de los bienes comunes, desmantelando nuestras formas de subsistencia para sustituirlas por mercancías. Vale como ejemplo el hecho de que en medio de la selva amazónica la empresa minera brasileña VALE esta construyendo la represa Belo Monte, con un impacto devastador para la biodiversidad y los pueblos indígenas de la región.
Tal cercamiento de lo que nos es común, se realiza a través de mecanismos diversos:
* Legales: Tratados de Libre Comercio, de Protección de Inversiones, de Propiedad Intelectual, en la OMC, la OMPI, y otros organismos internacionales,
* Económicos: como el avance y apropiación privada de los territorios
* Tecnológicos: mediante organismos genéticamente modificados -OGM- , sistemas de restricción de acceso a la cultura -DRM- , geoingenierías, etc.

Entonces, “cuando el último árbol haya sido derribado, y el último rio contaminado” seguirán cercando los fundamentos de la vida a escala nanotecnológica. Todos estos fenómenos son parte de una de las grandes historias todavía no contadas de nuestro tiempo: el proceso de cercamiento de los bienes comunes, que va más allá de la privatización, que involucra despojo y fragmentación social.

Mientras tanto, los mismos estados y el mercado, han preparado la trampa del capitalismo verde, que tratarán de imponer en Rio+20. Esto no es sino la próxima ronda de cercamiento, mercantilización y financialización de la naturaleza.

En paralelo, estados y corporaciones conducen una guerra contra el derecho a compartir, mediante tratados como ACTA
(Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), propuestas de leyes como SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) y PIPA (ProtectIP Act), ataques directos contra organizaciones como Wikileaks, regulaciones que impiden el reuso e intercambio de semillas, la promoción de más patentes sobre conocimientos tradicionales. Todos estos son signos distintivos del momento que vivimos.

La noción de bienes comunes y la convergencia de los movimientos sociales

Los bienes comunes no son bienes. Significan, al mismo tiempo, prácticas sociales basadas en el principio del commoning (el hacer común), claramente distintas de las prácticas típicas del duopolio Estado / Mercado. Además, son un marco conceptual para el análisis sobre el futuro que queremos. Los commons funcionan como un sistema operativo diferente a nivel de comunidad y quizás (y ahí reside el reto) también para la sociedad en su conjunto. Entonces, la construcción de este marco conceptual es una dinámica que requiere escuchar lo que cada movimiento social percibe como bien común. Se requiere conocer más sobre las prácticas específicas del commoning, sean estas basadas en comunidades indígenas y campesinas, bancos de semillas locales, iniciativas no mercantiles de acceso a la vivienda en las ciudades o en comunidades de desarrolladores de cultura digital y software, para entender lo que tienen de similar y aprender sobre los procesos de cercamiento que sufre cada campo, tanto los silenciosos como los más sonados. Todo esto puede ayudarnos a encontrar un camino que supere las limitaciones de los dualismos como público y privado, estatal o de mercado, individual o colectivo. De esta manera, aspiramos construir escenarios nuevos, estructurados bajo principios de gobernanza creativos desde las bases.

Resistencia y construcción: bienes comunes, haceres comunes

Los procesos de cercamiento también encuentran resistencias. Y buena parte de ellas pueden ser comprendidas desde la perspectiva de los commons. Al mismo tiempo, en cada continente, comunidades organizadas enfrentan estos desafíos. Como en Bolivia, el emblemático caso del TIPNIS, territorio indígena y parque nacional amenazado por la construcción de una carretera que partirá en dos un parque aún intacto. Las organizaciones indígenas marcharon más de 600km durante dos meses, en defensa de sus formas de vida basadas en la comunión con la naturaleza y el autogobierno, obteniendo extraordinario apoyo y solidaridad urbana. Como esta lucha local, la resistencia es global. La defensa del agua como bien común encuentra comunidades organizadas en resistencia en las Américas, Europa, Asia y África. En Italia se recogieron 7 millones de firmas en un referendum hecho en el 2011 por el “Agua como bien común”.

En cada continente surgen movimientos como los Occupy, los indignados, movimientos que no sólo resisten sino que buscan alternativas. En todo el mundo las personas cooperan a través de Internet para crear obras y herramientas basadas en la práctica social de compartir -Wikipedia, el software libre, son los ejemplos más visibles- , y así se construyen nuevas formas de movilización social que pueden ser pensadas y articuladas desde la visión de los commons.

La resistencia llega también acompañada de visiones propositivas, en particular a partir de las prácticas sociales de los bienes comunes, que se configuran como un marco alternativo para la transformación de la vida cotidiana, así como para el diseño de normas y políticas públicas que reconocen la autogestión como elemento central para la transformación social.

Algunos ejemplos de la rica variedad de experiencias, innovaciones y producciones basadas en los commons son, entre tantas otras: estrategias de consumo colaborativo ligadas al trueque y a la práctica de compartir, sistemas de gestión comunitaria de recursos compartidos como bosques, canales de agua, áreas de pesca, así como numerosas iniciativas en los bienes comunes del mundo digital. Juntas ofrecen un caleidoscopio rico en autodeterminación y gestión colectiva de recursos compartidos. Las prácticas sociales relacionadas a este paradigma tienen rasgos en común. El principal es que se sostienen en la idea de que la realización personal depende de la realización de los demás, y viceversa, y así, de alguna forma borran las fronteras entre el interés particular y el interés colectivo.

Contradicciones, inquietudes y retos

Obviamente, en este proceso, los retos son múltiples. Por un lado, muchas cosas están lejos de ser consensuales. Por otro lado, hace falta explorar muchos matices del paradigma – y esta exploración será parte del proceso de apropiación del mismo.

Hay visiones divergentes entre los defensores y reproductores de los comunes digitales que tienden a invisibilizar su dependencia del mundo “analógico” por una parte (las computadores no pueden producir comida), y los ecologistas o comunidades tradicionales que tienden a subestimar el potencial transformador social de las tecnologías y la cultura libres, por otra. Hay quienes creen que el derecho a compartir y la autogestión es suficiente para conciliar el deseo universal de justicia social sin agotar los recursos naturales, y otros que lo dudan. Hay quienes critican que la propuesta de los bienes comunes sigue calcada en la propiedad y la dominación de la naturaleza y por ello tiende a ser antropocéntrico y otros que ven el los bienes la posibilidad de comunión entre naturaleza y cultura.

Al mismo tiempo, las inquietudes son muchas: Una de las más recurrentes es la tensión entre lo local, lo regional y lo global. No se puede pensar en haceres comunes sin pensar en un sujeto social, en ‘comunidad’. Por ello es más fácil pensar este paradigma a nivel local. Hacer lo mismo a nivel global es un reto grande pero inescapable, porque la tierra es una sola y tenemos no solamente el derecho sino también la responsabilidad de compartirla. Cuál será el rol de un Estado que se entienda como defensor de los bienes comunes en enfrentar este reto?

Más allá de estas exploraciones, para poder consolidar alternativas al modelo vigente, visualizarlas y comunicarlas, hace falta nombrarlas. Sin embargo, nuestro lenguaje está tan atravesado por la terminología del duopolio estado/mercado o la de ideologías de diferente índole que hay que darse a la tarea de desarrollar un nuevo vocabulario del mundo que queremos. Resolver el problema de la denominación de “los bienes comunes que no son bienes” no puede ser un proceso cerrado. Los invitamos a construir este vocabulario colectivamente de manera tal que se pueda adaptar a la diversidad de contextos en los que actuamos.

Los “commons” están ahí delante de nuestros ojos. Juntos encontraremos la forma de cómo nombrarlas y, más importante aún, de cómo convertirlas en una diversidad de sistemas de gobernanza basada en principios del “commoning”.

Sue Gardner, Directora Ejecutiva de la Fundación Wikimedia, dijo:

“La Fundación Wikimedia saluda estos avances. Este es otro paso más hacia la destrucción final de estas dos piezas legislativas propuestas. Pero seamos claros: estas leyes no están muertas. Volverán y cuando lo hagan, no deben socavar los intereses de cientos de millones de personas que contribuyen a una red libre y abierta.

El apagón fue liderado por millones de usuarios comunes de internet y por la gente que hace posibles proyectos como Wikipedia, escritores, fotógrafos, editores e ilustradores. Ellos enviaron un mensaje claro al congreso: No se metan con la libertad de expresión, no destruyan la Internet libre y abierta, no sigan las instrucciones de los intereses corporativos. Este es un momento en la historia en el que la gente que crea y comparte obras en internet como parte del movimiento de cultura libre, y toda la gente que depende del acceso a esas obras, están pidiendo ser escuchadas y exigen que su libertad de expresión sea protegida.”

Sobre la Fundación Wikimedia
http://wikimediafoundation.org
http://blog.wikimedia.org

La Fundación Wikimedia es la organización sin fines de lucro que opera Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre. De acuerdo con comScore Media Metriz, Wikipedia y los otros proyectos sostenidos por la Fundación Wikimedia reciben más de 474 millones de visitantes únicos por mes, conformando así el quinto sitio web más popular del planeta. Wikipedia está disponible en 282 idiomas, y contienen más de 20 millones de artículos elaborados por la contribución de más de 100 mil voluntarios alrededor del mundo. La Fundación Wikimedia está radicada en San Francisco, California.

Contacto de prensa:
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
Wikimedia Foundation
Tel. +1 415 839 6885 x 6609
jwalsh@wikimedia.org

En Argentina, Wikimedia Argentina es el capítulo local de la Fundación Wikimedia y atiende a la prensa en prensa@wikimedia.org.ar

San Francisco, CA — January 20, 2012 — On January 18, millions of people called their Congressional representatives to denounce SOPA and PIPA as attacks on the free and open Internet. This morning, leaders in the House and Senate announced consideration of the bills would be indefinitely postponed, after many members of Congress, including some supporters of the bills, issued statements disassociating themselves from the legislation over the past two days.

Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, said:

The Wikimedia Foundation welcomes these developments. This is another step towards the ultimate destruction of these two pieces of proposed legislation. But let’s be clear, these bills are not dead. They will return, and when they do, they must not harm the interests of the hundreds of millions of people who contribute to the free and open Internet.

The blackout was led by millions of ordinary Internet users, and the people who make projects like Wikipedia possible – writers, photographers, editors and illustrators. They sent a clear message to Congress: don’t mess with free expression, don’t destroy the free and open Internet, don’t do the bidding of traditional corporate interests. This is a moment in history when the people who create and share works on the Internet as part of the free knowledge movement, and the people who depend on access to those works, are asking to be heard and to have their freedom of speech protected.

About the Wikimedia Foundation

http://wikimediafoundation.org

http://blog.wikimedia.org

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation receive more than 474 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most popular web property world-wide (comScore, November 2011). Available in 282 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 20 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of more than 100,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Media Contact:

Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
Wikimedia Foundation
Tel. +1 415 839 6885 x 6609
jwalsh@wikimedia.org

But SOPA and PIPA are really only the tip of the iceberg. The same forces behind these domestic U.S. laws have continued to both push for other states to pass similar domestic laws, as well as to secretly negotiate international trade agreements that would force signatory nations to conform to the same legal standards. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Ley Doring (Mexico), Ley Sinde (Spain), Ley Hadopi (France) are only a few examples. Members of the copyright industry lobby such as the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI) are funneling huge amounts of resources into getting states to pass inherently flawed copyright enforcement laws. What results are laws that encroach on national sovereignty, overstep traditional principles of jurisdiction, harm innovation, and ultimately violate users’ rights.

Digital liberties activists and organizations internationally found the day of online action to be a golden opportunity to educate their constituents on the effects such laws would have on websites in their countries and the future of the free and open Internet. Recognizing the common thread of overbroad enforcement and technical defects that runs through these bills, the following organizations have taken a stance against the efforts of special interests to censor citizens and kill innovation in the name of preserving the entertainment industry’s business model.

U.S. spreads overbroad IP enforcement measures through secretive international agreements and threats towards trade sanctions

In recent years major copyright industry lobbyists have sought stronger power to enforce their copyrights across the world to preserve their business models. These efforts have been underway in a number of international fora including the G8 summit, transnational trade agreements such as ACTA and TPP, and the Annual Special 301 Process–a report with tiered “watch lists” of countries with supposedly deficient intellectual property laws and enforcement policies. As U.S. Public Interest Groups and EU Scholars have noted, SOPA includes a provision designed to further entrench U.S. IP rightsholders’ influence on other countries’ laws and policies. While the passage of SOPA and PIPA could certainly have longstanding consequences for societies and economies around the world, we hope the enormous attention shed on these two Internet blacklist bills raises international awareness of the impact of these copyright enforcement proposals sought by U.S. IP rightsholders worldwide.

La Quadrature Du Net, a French-based advocacy organization stated:

This site has gone dark today in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT-IP Act (PIPA) discussed in the US Congress, as well as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), currently debated in the European Parliament. These initiatives amount to a global attempt to censor the Internet in the name of copyright.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), a Canadian-based advocacy group stated:

[SOPA and PIPA] is yet one more example of the harms that can result for an overly aggressive, no holds barred, U.S.-driven IP agenda. It imposes more restrictive standards on foreign intermediaries than the U.S. requires of its own Internet companies through its DMCA notice-takedown regime.

The Chilean digital rights advocacy group, Derechos Digitales, also framed their position against SOPA in light of the overreaching international copyright enforcement regimes:

So while many of us speak out against the U.S. bill, the governments of Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia and the United States are moving quickly on a new international agreement that reproduces one of the greatest threats of SOPA: censorship of Internet sites for possible infringements of copyright, giving police powers to Internet service providers. (Read here and here in Spanish)

Markus Beckedahl, Chairman of Digitale Gesellschaft, a German User Rights Group, explained to the German public:

If only half of the proposed legislation comes into force, this is going to have a huge negative impact on the internet. ACTA, PIPA and SOPA are of similar kind: Music and film industries try to destroy the net slice for slice – the so called salami tactics.

Read more here, here, here, and here (in German)

SOPA and PIPA would disrupt national sovereignty and harm local economies

In countries where policymakers are currently debating the need for website blocking proposals, the adoption of SOPA or PIPA will create pressure to mirror U.S. law regardless of any empirical evidence of its effectiveness or appropriateness. What is most disconcerting for individuals and enterprises outside the U.S. is the way in which SOPA and PIPA could effectively override their countries’ national laws and impose more restrictive standards on foreign Internet intermediaries than it does on U.S. Internet companies.

50 human rights organizations from around the world signed a letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in opposition to PIPA, highlighting its serious jurisdictional and freedom of expression concerns:

…Creating a mechanism that requires a representative of a website to make a court appearance in the U.S. in order to defend themselves against an allegation of infringement would disproportionately impact smaller online communities and start-ups based abroad that do not have the capacity to address concerns in the United States.

Open Rights Group based in the United Kingdom also emphasized the due process implications of these overbroad U.S. Internet blacklist legislation:

There are two reasons that Open Rights Group are supporting a protest aimed at US laws. First, the overly broad definitions and wording of the bills put any websites at risk of action from US authorities. Second, we face many of the issues with these copyright-related bills here in the UK: inappropriate enforcement measures, in particular website blocking; overly-broad or vague definitions and wording; and weaknesses in due process and redress.

Michael Geist, a leading Canadian legal scholar on digital civil liberties and copyright, drew attention to the impact SOPA would have in Canada and its parallels with ACTA and TPP:

While SOPA is proposed U.S. legislation, it has implications for all Canadians, including provisions that treat all Canadian IP addresses as if they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Moreover, Canada faces the same relentless copyright lobbying campaign. From the much-criticized digital lock rules found in Bill C-11 to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to the proposal to extend the term of copyright protection in the Trans Pacific Partnership, Canadian copyright policy is increasingly shaped by the same groups promoting SOPA.

Global Voices Online, an international community of bloggers around the world told their readers:

[PIPA/SOPA] would raise the cost of participation on [social media and other user generated sites] for all users worldwide, and could force many social media projects to shut down, especially smaller websites and businesses.

OpenMedia.ca, a Canadian-based advocacy group warned:

As Canadian Internet users and online innovators, we have a lot to lose if SOPA is passed. SOPA could fundamentally reshape the Internet in the U.S., Canada, and the rest of the world. … Tell Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gary Doer (Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S.) that Canadians are against SOPA.

Threatens human rights and access to information worldwide

Most of the criticism regarding SOPA and PIPA however, has focused on the way they would institute massive online censorship and fundamentally break the Internet in the name of intellectual property enforcement. These bills would encompass any foreign site accessible from the U.S. and give corporations and other private parties new powers to censor websites from around the world with court orders that would cut off domain names, payment processors, and advertisers.

Internet Governance Caucus, an international coalition of civil society organizations and individuals around the world participating at the UN Internet Governance Forum reaffirmed the free speech implications of Internet blacklist legislation:

We have made a decision to join the black out in protest of the arbitrary censorship of the Internet which violates people’s rights to responsibly use the Internet. We note with increasing concern the the various censorship mechanisms around the world including but not limited to India’s Intermediary Guideline Rules (IGR) nor the United States of America’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)and Protect IP Act (PIPA). Any country’s censorship mechanisms affect ordinary Internet users all over the world.

Amnesty International, a globally recognized organization fighting injustice and promoting human rights, noted that “[PIPA and SOPA] would create a powerful and unprecedented market incentive to censor user generated content. And their passage would signal very clearly to countries around the world that it is OK to sacrifice some rights in the name of some other good.”

Greenpeace, a global environmental organization sharply denounced the laws:

If SOPA/PIPA become law, sites like Greenpeace.org could go dark simply because one of our corporate targets files a claim that its intellectual property rights have been violated. No proof required, no court hearing.

Article 19, an international freedom of expression organization stated:

[PIPA/SOPA] will stifle free speech, innovation and undermine Internet security, all for the sake of Hollywood studios.

Wednesday’s blackout day signifies a new era for the global digital civil liberties movement. Through blogs, tweets, and posts, thousands of organizations, activists, and individuals truly made it the success that it was. This has only been a sample of the great advocacy work that took place yesterday. Here are some other organizations, groups, activists and even political parties who participated on this very important day for the future of the Internet:

Association for Progressive Communications (International)
Asociacion de Internautas (Spain) reported that over a hundred Spanish page–including themselves–went dark in solidarity with their American sisters.
BytesforAll (Pakistan)
Center for Technology and Society, Fundacao Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
European Digital Rights (28 privacy and civil rights organizations members based in Europe)
Fundacion Via Libre (Argentina)
Global Voices Advocacy (International)
GreenPeace (Chile)
GreenLeft (Netherlands)- green political party
Green Party (Germany)- green political party
Internet Society India Chennai
Nupef (Brazil)
Pirate Parties of UK, Spain, Argentina, Sweden, Canada, and more
Revista do Terceiro Setor, RETS (Brazil)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Millones "imaginaron un mundo sin conocimiento libre" y actuaron para oponerse a SOPA/PIPA

San Francisco, CA – 19 de enero de 2012– Durante las 24 horas del miércoles 18 de enero de 2012, 162 millones de personas visitaron la página del apagón de Wikipedia, un acontecimiento histórico sin precedentes en el más grande repositorio de cultura libre del mundo.  Más de 8 millones de ciudadanos de los EEUU, buscaron los datos de contacto de los congresistas a través de Wikipedia para protestar contra Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) y ProtectIP Act (PIPA), las dos leyes propuestas en los EEUU, que de aprobarse, dañarán la Internet libre y abierta.  


La protesta derivó en una atención global sobre SOPA y PIPA, legislaciones que hasta entonces habían sido presentadas como una batalla entre poderosos intereses corporativos.  Antes del apagón, se preveía que las leyes iban a pasar por el Congreso con apoyo bipartidario. Pero desde que el público masivamente se sumó al debate este miércoles,  miembros de Congreso de ambos partidos declararon su oposición e hicieron que la aprobación de las leyes sea más difícil.  

"El apagón de Wikipedia ha terminado y el público se ha pronunciado" dijo Sue Gardner, Directora Ejecutiva de la Fundación Wikimedia.  "162 millones de ustedes vieron la página del apagón preguntando si podían imaginar un mundo sin conocimiento libre. Ustedes dijeron no. Ustedes llenaron los contestadores telefónicos y atestaron sus servidores. Su voz fue fuerte y clara".

Inmediatamente después del inicio del apagón, #factswithoutwikipedia, #sopastrike, y  “Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge” fueron tendencia mundial en Twitter. En la primera hora del apagón #wikipediablackout fue el 1% de todos los tweets. Másde 12 mil personas dejaron comentarios de apoyo en la entrada del blog de la Fundación Wikimedia donde anunciamos el apagón.  

Para Wikipedia, esta lucha jamás tuvo que ver con el dinero, sino con el conocimiento.  Como una comunidad de autores, editores, fotógrafos y programadores, los wikipedistas invitamos a todos a compartir y construir el trabajo que de hecho ya ha comenzado.  

En poco más de una década, los wikipedistas construimos la mayor enciclopedia de la historia de la humanidad. La misión de wikipedia es empoderar y comprometer a las personas en la documentación de la suma de todo el conocimiento humano y hacerlo disponible para toda la humanidad en forma perpetua.

Internet ha facilitado que la creatividad, el conocimiento y la innovación brillen. Entonces, cuando Wikipedia y otros sitios se sumaron al apagón, los lectores entendieron que deben dirigir todas sus energías a proteger la Internet libre y abierta.  

Agradecemos a nuestros lectores por su enorme apoyo!  

Sobre Wikimedia Foundation

La Fundación Wikimedia es una organización sin fines de lucro que se ocupa de mantener operativa la enciclopedia Libre Wikipedia.  De acuerdo a ComScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia y los demás proyectos operados por la Fundación Wikimedia reciben más de 474 millones de visitas únicas por mes, haciendo que este sea el quinto sitio web más popular del mundo (comScore, noviembre 2011).  Disponible en 282 idiomas, Wikipedia contiene más de 20 millones de Artículos desarrollados por una comunidad global de voluntarios conformada por más de 100 mil personas.  La Fundación Wikimedia está radicada en San Francisco, California.  
Contactos de Prensa Wikimedia Foundation: Jay Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org

Sobre Wikimedia Argentina
Wikimedia Argentina es el capítulo local de la Fundación Wikimedia, una asociación civil sin fines de lucro independiente que comparte los objetivos y la misión de la Fundación Wikimedia en Argentina. Más información en http://www.wikimedia.org.ar
Contacto de Prensa en Argentina: prensa@wikimedia.org.ar

For us, this is not about money. It’s about knowledge. As a community of authors, editors, photographers, and programmers, we invite everyone to share and build upon our work.

Our mission is to empower and engage people to document the sum of all human knowledge, and to make it available to all humanity, in perpetuity. We care passionately about the rights of authors, because we are authors.

SOPA and PIPA are not dead: they are waiting in the shadows. What’s happened in the last 24 hours, though, is extraordinary. The internet has enabled creativity, knowledge, and innovation to shine, and as Wikipedia went dark, you’ve directed your energy to protecting it.

We’re turning the lights back on. Help us keep them shining brightly.