In a previous post, talking about internet freedom in Peru and the attempts to restrict it, we tangentially commented about the project known as #sopacriolla, an initiative by the Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism (MINCETUR in Spanish) purportedly to gather input for the construction of copyright and ISP (Internet Service Provider) standards. So far so good, except for the questions about how binding the final product of that process will be with respect to the actual bill. Journalist Bruno Ortíz of Vida y Futuro addressed the issue and talked about it to Erick Iriarte, the attorney in charge of the initiative, who stated: En tres meses, el Gobierno planea tener lista una propuesta legal que permita determinar si los operadores de telecomunicaciones son o no responsables de la piratería online. El Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo (Mincetur), con el apoyo del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), ha iniciado el proceso de elaboración de una norma que determine los niveles de responsabilidad de los operadores de telecomunicaciones y los gestores de contenido (Google, Yahoo, etc.) por la difusión de piratería en Internet,[…] La idea de crear el texto a partir de una convocatoria pública de opiniones, detalló, es no tener un proyecto como el que se propuso en el Congreso de Estados Unidos (Ley SOPA, es decir Stop Online Piracy Act) In three months, the government plans to have a legal proposal ready that will be able to determine whether or not telecommunication operators are responsible for online piracy. The Minister of Foreign Trade and Tourism (MINCETUR), with the support of the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB), has begun the process of developing a standard that determines the levels of responsibility of telecom operators and content managers (Google, Yahoo, etc.) for the spread of Internet piracy, […] The idea of creating the text based on a public call for opinions, he explained, is to not have a project like the one proposed in the U.S. Congress (SOPA, i.e., Stop Online Piracy Act). ISP, image from the blog Liberación Digital (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 CL) However, a few days later, said web was out of service, including social media accounts created as a support. All this amid allegations, both in mass media and on the internet, that the initiative was in reality a pretext for wanting to implement a law in Peru like the North American law known as SOPA [en], with all the bad images that evokes. The scant coverage and difficult hour (8 a.m.) that accompanied the proposed schedule of workshops to gather public input also resulted in an online petition to MINCETUR asking for greater transparency in this process. From his blog, Chillinfart casts doubts on the way in which MINCETUR handled this proposal: seamos malpensados, esto pasa a un día de la primera charla sobre la regulación a los proveedores de internet que sugirió el MINCETUR en esa página. ¿Qué pensaban ocultar? […] ¿Con Qué autoridad moral un ministerio piensa hablar de propiedad intelectual cuando desoyó los reclamos al respecto en el TLC [tratado de libre comercio] con la Unión Europea antes de su firma? Y esto sumado a la censura que dio ese ministerio contra sus propias críticas al TPPA, vemos para donde camina el MINCETUR y con quienes piensa reunirse en esas charlas. We should be suspicious, this happens one day after the first talks about the regulation of the internet providers that MINCETUR suggested on that page. What were they trying to hide? […] By what moral authority does a ministry talk about intellectual property when it rejected complaints about it in the FTA (Fair Trade Agreement) with the European Union before it was signed? Add this to the censorship by the Ministry of its own criticisms to the TPPA (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement), and we see where MINCETUR is going and with whom they plan to meet in those talks. Professor Eduardo Villanueva takes it a little further, trying to explain and show what is behind the relationship between the state and the telecom companies in the context of copyright: En el caso de las industrias culturales, el problema principal es que varios estados han optado por tragarse una narrativa falaz sobre protección de los creadores intelectuales a cambio de garantizar modelos de negocios obsoletos. […] Sin embargo, hay una transacción de por medio. […] Efectivamente, las empresas de telecomunicaciones y los proveedores de contenidos pueden ser protegidas de distintas maneras a cambio de ser agentes privados de la vigilancia estatal. In the case of cultural industries, the main problem is that many states have chosen to swallow a false narrative about protection of intellectual creators in exchange for guaranteeing obsolete business models. However, a transaction is involved.