[MoreTuple]

Do they operate in Brazil? They apparently have no offices there and are only available over the internet (as is true of all websites throughout most of the world.) How can anyone expect to hold what amounts to a random IP address on the internet responsible for anything?

[kartan]

This argument looks like it can also be applied to even malware. If I put something illegal doesn't has the judges right to stop the distribution of that app in the country? Another question is if what Watsapp did should be illegal. But if the judges can't stop internet companies from doing something illegal who do you thing should do it?

[necessity]

No, he does not have that right. By that same logic brazilians shouldn't be allowed to visit websites from any other country where there's a discrepancy with brazilian law. With a government like ours next thing you know we have our own Great Firewall.

This kind of thing can't even be enforced, being so easy to bypass.

[gcb0]

except you are wrong. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_T...

every country treats certain content as criminal as they wish. Where the servers are is just a minor detail.

[necessity]

No it's not a minor detail, because it's easy to bypass, specially if its a decentralized service. Nevertheless its an outrageous retrenchment of our freedom.

[tremon]

No it's not a minor detail, because it's easy to bypass

All laws are easy to bypass, what's your point? Ever tried to go 60 in a 30km/h zone? Lack of 100% enforcement does not make a law useless.

[gcb0]

BS!

they have bank accounts and deals with many tel co to operate as they do in each country they are.

you do not get pre-installed on the three biggest mobile operators phones (99.9% of market) and get deals where data to your service do not count as part of the limited data-plan on two of them, by just "being an IP address on the web".

[frostymarvelous]

Right now, it's more of a benefit to phone manufacturers to pre-install whatsapp than it is to whatsapp itself.

Same goes for the telcos. Offering free whatsapp and Facebook is a thing. And it's not because whatsapp had a "deal". It's because the telcos want more users.

Developing countries eat that up. People explicitly want to see whatsapp support or they don't buy the phone and many terrible devices have been sold on this premise.

Source: Experience

[gcb0]

Source: 20+yrs on the online advertising industry.

Nothing that lives of ads or telecomunication companies survive only by "serving the user". The telco only pre-install something on the device if: A. they are paid upfront, B. if they get a percentage of the ads.

yeah, serving the user is good, but remember that you are talking about companies that charges for SMS. the day they have to rely on "pleasing the user" hell will freeze over. They rely on regional monopoly, just like in the US.

[hoppa_liza]

Does not including a popular app preinstalled increase sales?

[gcb0]

not at all. what part of monopoly didn't you get? they already have all the sales.

[frostymarvelous]

We have a clear market leader, but it's by no means a monopoly.

People constantly switch network providers here since we have number portability. My wife, me and many of our friends switched to Vodafone cos they were offering a really great Internet package. Free Whatsapp, Facbook, Twitter, Instagram,and Snapchat plus 3.5 GB for what's essentially $9 a month. Here that's unbeatable and unheard of. http://support.vodafone.com.gh/customer/portal/articles/1813...

I doubt all these services are paying for for Vodafone to do this.

[frostymarvelous]

Luckily, there is serious competition here.

MTN does it, Airtel does it and Vodafone I think does it as a package.

If you currently don't offer some sort of package or free service, you're out of the competition.

[eeeeeeeeeeeee]

Do you have a source for this? Why would bank accounts need to be situated in Brazil for these deals to happen? That doesn't make sense.

[gcb0]

you can pay whats app directly via the operator. e.g. http://www.tim.com.br/sp/para-voce/planos/pre-pago/turbo-wha...

you can't do that in brazil without having the papers to do business there. in fact, you can't even sell anything without the right documents. Just like everywhere else.

[ithkuil]

paying whatsapp?

I don't know portuguese so I didn't actually read what the deal is.

Is this a service where subscribers pay the carrier a fee for 30 days of unlimited data traffic to whatsapp servers (VoIP excluded) + 50M of data ?

If yes, does that constitute a transaction the consumer makes directy to whatsapp via the operator? I understand that likely whatsapp and TIM (an Italian company btw) might have made some deal and exchanged some money for the use of whatsapp logo etc, but I guess that transaction could have been done anywhere.

[gcb0]

tim is Spanish.

the app has in app purchase. that page describes both what you described plus paying for in app purchases via operator

[ithkuil]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIM_(brand)

> TIM is an Italian brand owned by Telecom Italia. Originally founded as a mobile telephony company in 1995

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIM_Brasil

> Parent Telecom Italia Mobile, Telecom Italia

[t3nary]

Their apps are in the Brazilian app stores

[speeder]

My apps are in the Danish Google Play and Apple App Store...

I never been there, I don't read or write danish, I never interacted with danish government, or met any danish person.

If the dane government wanted something from me, and sent a letter to some random person, written in danish, even if it reaches me, I wouldn't understand it anyway.

Thus, having app in some other country store doesn't prove much, except that you clicked "publish" somewhere on Google or Apple uploading interfaces.

[kuschku]

> except that you clicked "publish" somewhere on Google or Apple uploading interfaces.

At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations.

A famous example of someone operating legally under local law, but who got prosecuted for having merely a website accessible in another country, was Kim Dotcom.

That’s the current state of international law, either lobby to change it, or accept it, but don't ignore it.

[gambiting]

>>At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations.

Uhm nope. If my app(published on Apple Store/Google Play) violated a law in Saudi Arabia and they sent me a letter requesting me to appear and subject myself to 100 lashes for violating their law, I would very promptly disregard said letter, to put it politely.

[Grollicus]

You might do this and then you get convicted in absentia, Saudi Arabia will send a request for extradiction, your country will say no, done. Except: better not travel to Saudi Arabia or any other country that will extradict. Also Saudi Arabia will propably ban your App, which is what is happening in Brasil.

[AnthonyMouse]

> You might do this and then you get convicted in absentia, Saudi Arabia will send a request for extradiction, your country will say no, done. Except: better not travel to Saudi Arabia or any other country that will extradict.

And that is the problem. You can't actually expect people to hire lawyers from 108 different countries to see if their app is legal in each of them just because they're going to distribute it on the internet, to say nothing of what happens when two countries have mutually contradictory laws (e.g. privacy vs. data retention). And a person who goes to see the Great Pyramids shouldn't have to worry about being hauled off to Saudi Arabia and then stoned to death because their app doesn't prohibit blasphemy.

> Also Saudi Arabia will propably ban your App, which is what is happening in Brasil.

Which only increases the proliferation of tools to bypass the restriction.

[serge2k]

They have every right to pull your app, arrest you and prosecute you if you ever do go to their country, and apply to have your extradited under relevant treaties.

[YokoZar]

I disagree, because I believe human rights exist.

[lerpa]

They have every right to do something ridiculous like that, in the same sense Hitler had every right to kill the Jews. I.e. only in their minds.

Harmful lays laws should not be considered lawful just because somebody wrote them down.

[lawpoop]

And you won't care if they summarily shut down your app in their country, then, of course?

[kuschku]

Then don’t publish your app in those countries.

[gambiting]

But....why not? As a person interested in selling my app, why would I not publish it in the largest number of markets available?

[beedogs]

> A famous example of someone operating legally under local law, but who got prosecuted for having merely a website accessible in another country, was Kim Dotcom.

That's a pretty shit example, given everything that happened around that case.

[mirimir]

Lesson there is not to piss off the US IP industry ;)

[hbosch]

They are in the Apple and Google app stores, you mean to say.

[t3nary]

The person I was replying to asked "Do they operate in Brazil?". And considering that the app stores are on a country level, I'd say they do.

[newman8r]

The app stores operate there as distributors. Just because my product is distributed somewhere by a third party doesn't necessarily mean I operate there.

If an art dealer sells a painting to someone in brazil, does it mean the original artist operates in Brazil?

[colejohnson66]

I think the difference is that you /knowingly/ (to an extent) sell your app to Brazil. If you sell your art depicting, say, women in power to Saudia Arabia to someone here and they move to Saudia Arabia and sell it, it's not your fault. But if you told him it's ok to sell that painting in Saudia Arabia, I would assume you can be held liable.

(Not that I agree with that, but that's what it looks like)

[newman8r]

In the artist/dealer scenario, only the latter is actually under the legal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia and could be legally compelled to follow a court order. They can choose to hold anyone liable but their legal and practical ability to compel an entity to comply doesn't extend beyond their state unless they have an agreement with another state.

Apple has a corporate office in Brazil (google too) and they're the ones who distribute and approve the application for sale there. They're legally required (I assume) to respond to legal notice they're served with. WhatsApp is not legally required to do so, and others have pointed out that it might not even be legally feasible for them to do so.

Of course this situation is more complex because obviously Apple doesn't have the data and I doubt Brazil wants to get into a legal battle with Apple. And although Brazil doesn't have the ability to force WhatsApp to comply with anything, they do have the leverage of being able to shut down their service. Should make for an interesting story to follow.

At the very minimum, if they had served Apple/Google instead, they would have had a legal requirement to actually respond. I don't know much about the actual case so these are mostly assumptions.