About 1% fee for equipment and blanks. Thinking out loud
Without regard to copywriting and risking to suffer karma, I would like to comment on the wave of indignation about the deduction of the fee for free reproduction for personal purposes in general and about the RSP with Mikhalkov in particular.
The first. The norms relating to the remuneration for free reproduction appeared in the Civil Code at the end of 2006, the same is written about accredited organizations, the percentage of distribution, and so on. That is, it was necessary to be outraged then and not by the actions of Mikhalkov, but by the actions of the authorities.
The second. I suggest, all the same to understand the subject of indignation, and for this to look into part 4 of the Civil Code. Text can be found here . All the fuss is due to the fact that the state finally got its hands on what it should have done long ago, namely, to determine an accredited organization that collects money for the free reproduction of works for personal purposes. (Article 1245 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). And this state chose Mikhalkov, unloved by many.
What is the reproduction for personal purposes, set out in Article 1273 of the Civil Code. In short, a citizen may, without the consent of the author or other rights holder and without paying remuneration, reproduce a citizen, if necessary and exclusively for personal purposes, of a lawfully published work, with the exception of: databases, computer programs, screens and amateur recordings of performers, books and notes, as well as mysterious point about the fact that you can not reproduce works of architecture in the form of buildings and similar structures.
2. In the case when the reproduction of phonograms and audiovisual works is carried out exclusively for personal purposes, authors, performers, manufacturers of phonograms and audiovisual works are entitled to remuneration provided for in Article 1245 of this Code.
Now let's see what a legitimately published work is:
Article 1268. Right to promulgation of a work
1. The author has the right to publicize his work, that is, the right to carry out an action or give consent to the implementation of an action that for the first time makes a work available to the public through publication, public display, public performance, broadcast or cable or any other way. .
At the same time, publication (release) is the release into circulation of copies of the work, which is a copy of the work in any material form, in a quantity sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the public based on the nature of the work.
Based on the definition of “Reproduction” given in paragraph 1 of paragraph 2 of article 1270, the following conclusion can be drawn (correct me lawyers):
Paying 1% for a technique or carrier, you get the opportunity to copy for personal purposes (but not distribute) movies, music and other audiovisual works that were legally published (screenshots and amateur recordings of Elton John concerts can not be copied). Those. You can rightfully copy yourself a license disk from the movie that your comrade lent you (comrade, this did not do well from the point of view of copywriters, but you are bribed smoothly), or you can download the image of this disc from torrents.
Therefore, the comment habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/110440/#comment_3513747 in vain zaminusovali. In essence, the comrade is right, the only thing is that sharing his enthusiasm or not is everyone’s business.
Now, as for the collection itself at 1%, the fact that the FPR sent out letters of happiness to the producers and that Mikhalkov would claim 1% of the cost of the aircraft-ships, because there is something to play the music on.
Cell phones, DVD players, etc. are listed in the Resolution as a commodity, 1% of which is paid to an accredited organization, it would be strange to think that an accredited organization will limit itself to flash drives and discs.
The full list of equipment and carriers, from which the fee is charged, is exhaustively given in Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 14, 2010 N 829. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 14, 2010 N 829. There are no ships and aircraft, as well as cars and refrigerators. It is clear that the strength of marasmus in our country knows no boundaries, but still there is no need to prematurely to assault. Otherwise, you can already start shouting that you have introduced the right of the first night and a tax on the air. Well, so what, that have not yet entered - can after all! Therefore, you need to pre-shout and be nervous.
Yes, by the way, from the appendix to the mentioned Resolution it is clear that it is useless to disassemble laptops at the border in order to import separate HDDs and laptops, because even with laptops without HDD collection is taken.
')
Questions remain open as to why the fee is set at 1% and not at 0.5% or not at 2%, as well as regarding the transparency of the competition for the choice of an accredited organization.
The first. The norms relating to the remuneration for free reproduction appeared in the Civil Code at the end of 2006, the same is written about accredited organizations, the percentage of distribution, and so on. That is, it was necessary to be outraged then and not by the actions of Mikhalkov, but by the actions of the authorities.
The second. I suggest, all the same to understand the subject of indignation, and for this to look into part 4 of the Civil Code. Text can be found here . All the fuss is due to the fact that the state finally got its hands on what it should have done long ago, namely, to determine an accredited organization that collects money for the free reproduction of works for personal purposes. (Article 1245 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). And this state chose Mikhalkov, unloved by many.
What is the reproduction for personal purposes, set out in Article 1273 of the Civil Code. In short, a citizen may, without the consent of the author or other rights holder and without paying remuneration, reproduce a citizen, if necessary and exclusively for personal purposes, of a lawfully published work, with the exception of: databases, computer programs, screens and amateur recordings of performers, books and notes, as well as mysterious point about the fact that you can not reproduce works of architecture in the form of buildings and similar structures.
2. In the case when the reproduction of phonograms and audiovisual works is carried out exclusively for personal purposes, authors, performers, manufacturers of phonograms and audiovisual works are entitled to remuneration provided for in Article 1245 of this Code.
Now let's see what a legitimately published work is:
Article 1268. Right to promulgation of a work
1. The author has the right to publicize his work, that is, the right to carry out an action or give consent to the implementation of an action that for the first time makes a work available to the public through publication, public display, public performance, broadcast or cable or any other way. .
At the same time, publication (release) is the release into circulation of copies of the work, which is a copy of the work in any material form, in a quantity sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the public based on the nature of the work.
Based on the definition of “Reproduction” given in paragraph 1 of paragraph 2 of article 1270, the following conclusion can be drawn (correct me lawyers):
Paying 1% for a technique or carrier, you get the opportunity to copy for personal purposes (but not distribute) movies, music and other audiovisual works that were legally published (screenshots and amateur recordings of Elton John concerts can not be copied). Those. You can rightfully copy yourself a license disk from the movie that your comrade lent you (comrade, this did not do well from the point of view of copywriters, but you are bribed smoothly), or you can download the image of this disc from torrents.
Therefore, the comment habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/110440/#comment_3513747 in vain zaminusovali. In essence, the comrade is right, the only thing is that sharing his enthusiasm or not is everyone’s business.
Now, as for the collection itself at 1%, the fact that the FPR sent out letters of happiness to the producers and that Mikhalkov would claim 1% of the cost of the aircraft-ships, because there is something to play the music on.
Cell phones, DVD players, etc. are listed in the Resolution as a commodity, 1% of which is paid to an accredited organization, it would be strange to think that an accredited organization will limit itself to flash drives and discs.
The full list of equipment and carriers, from which the fee is charged, is exhaustively given in Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 14, 2010 N 829. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 14, 2010 N 829. There are no ships and aircraft, as well as cars and refrigerators. It is clear that the strength of marasmus in our country knows no boundaries, but still there is no need to prematurely to assault. Otherwise, you can already start shouting that you have introduced the right of the first night and a tax on the air. Well, so what, that have not yet entered - can after all! Therefore, you need to pre-shout and be nervous.
Yes, by the way, from the appendix to the mentioned Resolution it is clear that it is useless to disassemble laptops at the border in order to import separate HDDs and laptops, because even with laptops without HDD collection is taken.
')
Questions remain open as to why the fee is set at 1% and not at 0.5% or not at 2%, as well as regarding the transparency of the competition for the choice of an accredited organization.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/110501/
All Articles