GC Reform, Creative Commons and Social Influence
Interesting statements from the round table of the CEMI of the Russian Academy of Sciences about the reform of the 4th part of the Civil Code, the draft of the changes are promised to be published soon.
I will cite to begin with a few quotes from the round table on the reform of the Civil Code from the mouth of the developer GK4 (former and present) Vitaly Kalyatin:
... speaking about the regulation of intellectual property, probably, it is necessary to take into account the fact that usually a change in legislation is dictated not so much by motivations of a humanitarian nature, by a desire to make life easier for citizens than by economic ones. There is a need to protect a certain interest, and then the relevant rules in the legislation appear. Now, if you look at legislation, for example, the 19th century, there it is very significant. Then it was fashionable to justify the need to adopt legislation with reference to highly moral motives. And therefore, in those documents that accompanied the laws, there was always a rationale that this is done in order to give the opportunity to unfortunate, starving authors, to receive means for existence, for life, etc. But, nevertheless, at that time these changes were also dictated by the needs of specific large producers. And sometimes they collided with each other and then everyone referred to the interests of the society or the author.
...
And here, in this case, we are just at that stage when, probably, there is no longer any need to cover our commercial interests with a reference to “ephemeral” public interests.
...
The stage when we have the desire to protect large manufacturers do not oppose anything from the other side. Previously, there has always been a struggle of interests of certain parties, now we have only Internet providers who can somehow resist the copyright holders, because they are also major participants in this market and they are also interested in not being prosecuted, but their sphere of interest pretty narrow.
...
When we talk about the interests of users, in this case, we still do not have the interest of any subject who would undertake to protect their interests precisely as economic ones. Therefore, I think that it is very logical here that we will now have all the interests of Internet users limited to. And the emergence of these laws, in general, is probably the beginning of a new stage in the development of copyright law.
Obviously, there is no subject who will protect the interests of the user in terms of their economic activities. That is, if now providers and rightholders include economic levers of pressure ranging from propaganda activities in the media and ending with the direct drift of money to the authors of bills and deputies, then no one will defend our rights in the same way. This is openly said the developer of the bills.
How can you influence decision making. Only public opinion and public indignation, ranging from protest of the blogosphere, ending with rallies, petitions and concerts.
If this is not the case, then fees like 1% for the retirement of Mikhalkov will be added several times a year. Because it is beneficial to someone.
Now a few words about the Pirate Party.
1) We have no goals and political ambitions to manage society.
2) We are not trying to protect the rights of all Internet users, especially those who do not care about their rights.
3) We have a goal of putting forward legislative initiatives with the support of public opinion.
4) Clause 3, we need to assert exclusively our rights (mine personally, our members and supporters, who should be the backbone of public influence).
')
As for Creative Commons. I asked the same law writer about the possibility to use free licenses in the territory of the Russian Federation. Again, a quote from the transcript of the round table at the Russian Academy of Sciences:
In that project, at least, which currently exists, another little model is fixed there. In my opinion, the model that exists in the form of free software, it simply does not fall on our legislation, that is, it will not be combined with anything. There is another option offered. Namely, that the right holder may, by public announcement, define the limits of public use. In principle, under this formula free software, at least functionally, that which lies in the idea, fits very well. Just legally it will be a slightly different model.
Shakirov. And the text of the licenses themselves will go under it or not?
Kalyatin. Of course. Because the copyright holder makes a statement and sets the limits on which it will continue to be used. That is, he can say: "Here is the text of the document on which it will be used." That is, it will work, it will just be a contract in our plan, because otherwise there will be a lot of conflicts with different norms.
But do not take it as the victory of good over evil. So this is only one thing. Some kind of new mechanism exists, how it will work is not clear. Such promises have already been made more than once, but so far they have never been fulfilled, moreover, in the koloirs, lawmakers promised that “as long as we write laws, there will be no free licenses in Russia”. What do I want to say, when these amendments to the Civil Code are published, it is necessary that public life begins to boil, the musicians spoke for the SS, the users were indignant at the fact that everything is so difficult, the State Duma read a piece of paper that free licenses need to be legalized if there is a joint again, you will learn what it means to “collect broken teeth with broken hands” (figuratively, of course, it is said).
I think now, after these quotations, no one will rely on the easy victory of common sense and on the fact that everything will be just fine. File sharing, of course, will be because it is beneficial to the copyright holder. You can fine and introduce new fees, who will refuse this.
I will cite to begin with a few quotes from the round table on the reform of the Civil Code from the mouth of the developer GK4 (former and present) Vitaly Kalyatin:
... speaking about the regulation of intellectual property, probably, it is necessary to take into account the fact that usually a change in legislation is dictated not so much by motivations of a humanitarian nature, by a desire to make life easier for citizens than by economic ones. There is a need to protect a certain interest, and then the relevant rules in the legislation appear. Now, if you look at legislation, for example, the 19th century, there it is very significant. Then it was fashionable to justify the need to adopt legislation with reference to highly moral motives. And therefore, in those documents that accompanied the laws, there was always a rationale that this is done in order to give the opportunity to unfortunate, starving authors, to receive means for existence, for life, etc. But, nevertheless, at that time these changes were also dictated by the needs of specific large producers. And sometimes they collided with each other and then everyone referred to the interests of the society or the author.
...
And here, in this case, we are just at that stage when, probably, there is no longer any need to cover our commercial interests with a reference to “ephemeral” public interests.
...
The stage when we have the desire to protect large manufacturers do not oppose anything from the other side. Previously, there has always been a struggle of interests of certain parties, now we have only Internet providers who can somehow resist the copyright holders, because they are also major participants in this market and they are also interested in not being prosecuted, but their sphere of interest pretty narrow.
...
When we talk about the interests of users, in this case, we still do not have the interest of any subject who would undertake to protect their interests precisely as economic ones. Therefore, I think that it is very logical here that we will now have all the interests of Internet users limited to. And the emergence of these laws, in general, is probably the beginning of a new stage in the development of copyright law.
Obviously, there is no subject who will protect the interests of the user in terms of their economic activities. That is, if now providers and rightholders include economic levers of pressure ranging from propaganda activities in the media and ending with the direct drift of money to the authors of bills and deputies, then no one will defend our rights in the same way. This is openly said the developer of the bills.
How can you influence decision making. Only public opinion and public indignation, ranging from protest of the blogosphere, ending with rallies, petitions and concerts.
If this is not the case, then fees like 1% for the retirement of Mikhalkov will be added several times a year. Because it is beneficial to someone.
Now a few words about the Pirate Party.
1) We have no goals and political ambitions to manage society.
2) We are not trying to protect the rights of all Internet users, especially those who do not care about their rights.
3) We have a goal of putting forward legislative initiatives with the support of public opinion.
4) Clause 3, we need to assert exclusively our rights (mine personally, our members and supporters, who should be the backbone of public influence).
')
As for Creative Commons. I asked the same law writer about the possibility to use free licenses in the territory of the Russian Federation. Again, a quote from the transcript of the round table at the Russian Academy of Sciences:
In that project, at least, which currently exists, another little model is fixed there. In my opinion, the model that exists in the form of free software, it simply does not fall on our legislation, that is, it will not be combined with anything. There is another option offered. Namely, that the right holder may, by public announcement, define the limits of public use. In principle, under this formula free software, at least functionally, that which lies in the idea, fits very well. Just legally it will be a slightly different model.
Shakirov. And the text of the licenses themselves will go under it or not?
Kalyatin. Of course. Because the copyright holder makes a statement and sets the limits on which it will continue to be used. That is, he can say: "Here is the text of the document on which it will be used." That is, it will work, it will just be a contract in our plan, because otherwise there will be a lot of conflicts with different norms.
But do not take it as the victory of good over evil. So this is only one thing. Some kind of new mechanism exists, how it will work is not clear. Such promises have already been made more than once, but so far they have never been fulfilled, moreover, in the koloirs, lawmakers promised that “as long as we write laws, there will be no free licenses in Russia”. What do I want to say, when these amendments to the Civil Code are published, it is necessary that public life begins to boil, the musicians spoke for the SS, the users were indignant at the fact that everything is so difficult, the State Duma read a piece of paper that free licenses need to be legalized if there is a joint again, you will learn what it means to “collect broken teeth with broken hands” (figuratively, of course, it is said).
I think now, after these quotations, no one will rely on the easy victory of common sense and on the fact that everything will be just fine. File sharing, of course, will be because it is beneficial to the copyright holder. You can fine and introduce new fees, who will refuse this.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/108547/
All Articles