Possible regulation

Executive Secretary of the Ministry of Culture (MinC), Márcio Tavares, historian, art curator and cultural manager, has become, over the last two and a half years, the government's main interlocutor for a sensitive issue: the regulation of video on demand (VoD) services operating in the country.

Although platforms are currently the environment through which most audiovisual works circulate, they have not yet been integrated into the Brazilian legal framework. Therefore, unlike what happens, for example, with foreign film distributors and telephone operators, they do not collect the Contribution for the Development of the National Film Industry (Condecine).

The way this tax is collected is one of the points of contention in the regulatory project that the government intends to put to a vote this month, and Tavares spoke to CartaCapital about this on two occasions: at the Culture and Creativity: Boosting Ibero-American Development meeting, held at Itaú Cultural, in São Paulo, and at Rio2C, a creativity event held at Praça das Artes, in Rio.

CartaCapital: You mentioned the new amendment that the government supports. Can you explain it? Márcio Tavares: The government had been preparing an amendment to the two bills that were being processed: one in the Senate, reported by Senator Eduardo Gomes (PL–TO), and another in the Chamber, reported by Deputy André Figueiredo (PDT–CE). A few weeks ago, Deputy Jandira Feghali (PCdoB–RJ), after hearing the ministry, presented a report that largely represents our positions. Now we will make a political effort to ensure that the text goes to the plenary in a condition to be considered and approved.

“Our Congress is extremely resistant to any agenda involving digital media,” observes Márcio Tavares

CC: Is there a real possibility of a vote soon? MT: Senator Randolfe Rodrigues (PT-AP) has been working with the presidents of the Houses to make the vote in the Chamber possible this month. Minister Margareth Menezes is also leading this process. We want the vote to take place this semester, so that the bill can be approved in the Senate in the second half. Political friction is constant in the country, but this is a more favorable year to advance this agenda.

CC: What does the amendment provide for? MT: It provides for an adequate quota of Brazilian works in the catalogs of platforms and a Condecine that guarantees the sustainability of the Audiovisual Sector Fund (FSA); ensures the concept of independent Brazilian production companies; and guarantees intellectual property to Brazilian producers. Given the concrete political conditions, this text seems to us to be a possible agreement, which meets most of the demands of the audiovisual sector, especially the independent sector. The project also includes a rule that provides for platforms to reinvest part of the resources paid in the form of Condecine in licensing and pre-licensing of Brazilian works, especially independent ones.

CC: What is the quota percentage and the value of Condecine? MT: The quota requires a minimum of 10% of Brazilian works in the catalogs, in addition to screen prominence, which means their presence on the recommendation pages. Condecine is 6% of the platforms' gross revenue.

CC: How does reinvestment work? MT: Of the total amount collected from Condecine, the forecast is that 40% will go to the FSA and 60% can be reinvested by the platforms in the form of licensing and pre-licensing of Brazilian works.

Nationality. Sintonia (left) is a Netflix original. The government wants to ensure that Brazilian companies hold the property rights to the works – Image: Helena Yoshioka/Netflix

CC: Does this mean that platforms will be able to use part of the tax due to purchase the rights to display these works for a certain period? MT: Exactly. From the moment they purchase, they negotiate clauses as in any licensing contract. Our purpose is to maintain the intellectual property of works made with public funds with Brazilian companies.

CC: In other projects, it was foreseen that part of the tax could be used in co-productions. MT: There are those who defend this format, and it is in place, as long as the model guarantees that the majority producer is Brazilian. However, in principle, it seems to us that the licensing model better preserves the possibility for our producers and companies to guarantee the return on their production, especially because, once the licensing term has expired, the work can be renegotiated with another player. What we reject is the use of reinvestment in works that have foreign intellectual property.

CC: In originals from the platforms. MT: Yes, you cannot finance a foreign work with public money.

CC: Netflix came out in favor of regulation this year. How has the government perceived the general reaction of the major platforms to the amendment? MT: This bill does not meet what the platforms consider to be ideal or desired regulation. Their dissatisfaction is mainly related to the investment and reinvestment model.

CC: It's also not what some independent producers consider ideal. MT: Yes, there are even bolder proposals circulating, but they would make a deal much more complex to process.

“Associating the increase in subscription prices with government positions is economic terrorism”

CC: In addition to defending a 12% Condecine, some entities linked to independent production complained that they were not heard by you. MT: Our position is to seek mediation, serving the interests of the Brazilian industry in a privileged way. I am always open to dialogue and have already spoken with almost all the entities. But the audiovisual management has a large number of associations. When they ask me directly for an agenda, I try to meet it, within my possibilities. As for the percentage, we have been consistent in the proposal, especially because, in the negotiation of a project of this magnitude, to be a reliable interlocutor, you cannot change your position every day, every hour. It is obvious that we respect the demands for 12%, but for a long time we have been working on a text that includes the 6% Condecine, something that, as I said, is not easy to achieve.

CC: In an interview with CartaCapital in February, you, the Audiovisual Secretariat and the minister lamented the fact that Brazilian cinema is divided. Has that changed? MT: No. The sector has not been unified, and that does not help the process. I think it is essential that the sector trusts in the government's efforts to approve regulations that are favorable to Brazilian industry and independent Brazilian production. It seems to me that without unity among entities, artists and opinion makers, we will not be able to approve this robust text, as it was presented.

CC: Does the opposition come more from the platforms or from members of Congress? MT: Our Congress is resistant to any agenda involving digital media. In the Culture sector, since 2023, we have managed to approve several specific laws for audiovisual media, but none of them affected large international corporations.

CC: Is the regulation of streaming impacted by other discussions about the digital ecosystem? YouTube itself is streaming… MT: Without a doubt. Even though each project has its own specificities, they all affect the interests of large corporations – and each one has its own behavior and political actions. I agree when you say that part of this sector is convinced that it needs to be regulated. However, there is another part that does not seem to be and that is affected by regulation. All of these matters – network regulation, copyright, artificial intelligence, streaming – are essential for the future of the country, but they have difficulty advancing in Congress.

CC: Do you think some sectors might understand that this project opens a loophole for other big tech activities to be regulated? MT: I hadn't thought about it from that perspective, but I think it's a valid argument. What I know is that sectors opposing the government have sought to create a climate of panic through misinformation.

CC: What are they saying? MT: They associate the value of subscriptions with the percentage of Condecine to be applied. But Condecine is a Contribution for Intervention in the Economic Domain (Cide), which has nothing to do with the subscription process. There are regulations around the world that are based on the volume of subscriptions, but ours is not like that. Associating the increase in the prices of VoD service subscriptions to government positions is economic terrorism.

CC: Did you take inspiration from regulations in other countries? MT: Our VoD regulation will be unique because it has to fit into a well-formed and very particular ecosystem – precisely because of the nature of Condecine. But I will give you some examples. South Korea requires a reinvestment of 3% of revenue in South Korean works. France has a percentage of 20% to 25%, but it is based on partial revenue, that is, after all taxes are deducted, and there is a quota for European productions. In Spain, reinvestment does not require ownership, only language.

CC: You have been cited as a defender of big tech. Where do you think this perception comes from? MT: I don't know where it comes from. But I know that I am a left-wing nationalist, committed to national industry, and I am a person of dialogue – I will not stop talking to anyone, because this is an exercise that my position requires. I only regret that versions are being passed on to the press that are intended not to contribute to the debate, but to destroy personalities.

CC: At Rio2C, you were at a table discussing the creation of a federal Film Commission – an action to attract foreign productions and filming to the country. Was this part of the negotiation strategies for the regulation of VoD? MT: No, they are very separate things. One thing is to address the regulatory dimension. Another is to work on the dimension of attracting foreign investment, strengthening international co-productions and improving infrastructure. These agendas do not overlap. Structurally, the regulation of VoD is much more important. Initiatives to attract investment are a public policy treaty.

CC: What does it mean to regulate the audiovisual market? MT: Regulation must understand the unequal in an unequal way. The government's action exists to provide greater protection to those who would not survive in fierce competition. We advocate, above all, for those who have less capacity to influence – which, in this case, is independent production. The regulatory environment must, at the same time, ensure that platforms thrive in Brazil, so that they continue to invest their own resources and increase the contribution base of Condecine, which feeds the public fund. Regulation also needs to consider Brazilian independent platforms. Good regulation, in short, must both allow the growth of the sector and ensure the balance of existing asymmetries. •

*The journalist traveled at the invitation of Rio2C.

Published in issue no. 1366 of CartaCapital , on June 18, 2025.

This text appears in the printed edition of CartaCapital under the title 'Possible regulation'