ministerial reform when public outcry led him to reconsider, he appointed Marcelo

Calero as minister, who fired Souza once again and stripped the Intellectual Rights
Directorship of its new monitoring function -resulting in a de facto dismantaling
of the system created by 2013 colle-ctive management reform bill, The policy plans
of the new administration are unclear but so far have locked out the public
intersest groups in favor of the traditional copyright lobbies which chased under
the demands for "balance" in the Lula and (Dilma Vana) Rouseff administrations34.

Photocopies and Collective Management

The Ministry of Culture expected that copyright reform would solve the controversy
surrounding photocopies in the universities by subjecting to state -supervised
collec-tive management , with some room for unliscensed reproduction through
limitations to copyright. Schools would pay royalties on some portion of the total
number of copies made at the university. Publishers would hopefullly be satisfied
with more recivery of campus materials costs tha they had received under existing
practices.

The first draft of the Copyright Reform (2010)35 established that total or
partial copies of literary artistic, and scientific works made bye photocopying or
similar proc-esses would be subject to renumeration paid to the rights holders if
carried out for com-mercial or for-profit purposes at first glance , then, it is
questionable whether educational copying would be subject to compensation. Article
88-A, ll, however , clearly imposes that obligation on commercial establishments
providing photocopying sservices (i.e, copy shops) by requiring thm to obain
authorization from rights holders or collective rights management organizations in
order to make copies of copyrighted works the user's intent non-commercial,
educational, or otherwise - is not taken into account .

Collection and disribution of the royalties would be carried out by collective

man-agement associations created for this purpose, and copy shops would be required
to keep detailed records of the works and quantity of pages copied to allow for the
proper identification of the money collected as compensation for copying.
Publishers would be legally bound to give at least 50 percent of the proceeds.

This part of the proposal was ver controversial ABRELIVROS, which represents pri-
mary and secondary education publishers , raised concerns about the difficulty of
col-lecting royalties36. The National Syndicate of Book Publishers (SNEL, Sindicato
Nacional dos Editors de Livros), the most powerful book industry association in
Brazil claimed that the entire chapter on collective licensing for reprographic
copies was redundant because the 1998 law already authorized such a system, and
questioned the necessity of an explicit statement with regard to photocopies37.
Free culture advocates, however, worried that the collective management system
might override the proposed exceptions for private copies and education, which did
not require compensation (Ministry of Culture nd,b).

Despite the turmoil the legal basis for a strong state role in the regulation of
collective management was eventually created in 2013. The publication of law
12853/13 provided a clear incentive for the creation of col-lective rights
management organiza-tions for reprographic rights in august 2016, Brazilian book
publishers announced the foundation of a new entity, the Brzilian Collective
Licensing Association (ABRALC, Associacao Brasilirera de Licenciamento Coletivo)38,
which they explicitly advertised as an "ECAD for books" modelled after Norway's
Kopinor and the US copyright clearance center as of early 2017, however, its future
was unclear the gutting of the minis-try of culture and its supervisory role
appears to have put the new association on hold a year and a half after its
announcement ABRALC doesn't have a website.