Why today's rights holders curse descendants
On February 7, 2013, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) published a report in which Ukraine is assigned to “priority countries”, i.e. recognized as the country with the highest level of piracy in the field of intellectual property. Among other recommendations of the Alliance - increased responsibility for copyright infringement, an increase in the number of police raids. This is only one recent (but official) episode that characterizes the global trend among rightholders: to punish more and more. As Hegel said: “The main lesson of history is that history does not teach anything.” In this post, I will try to show something that modern rightholders do not want to learn.
Criminal liability on the territory of Ukraine from 1961 to 2001 was limited to fines. Only with the adoption of the new Criminal Code, the measure of responsibility increased to 6 years in prison. For comparison, the maximum measure of responsibility for forced donation is 5 years in prison, conducting illegal experiments on a person is 5 years in prison. Bringing to the logical absurd end the plan of the legislator, it is better to cut a kidney from a person than to steal his songs. At the same time, right holders continue to insist on increasing the measure of responsibility. And not just insist, but put pressure on Ukraine through international organizations. In support of the requirements used theses on private property, as the basis of modern society, emphasizes its sacred nature. In this case, the example is the French system of "three blows" - three warnings of the user that he has unlicensed content on his computer, after which conditions are created for bringing a person to criminal responsibility.
These theses on sacred property, as well as the figures "three", heard at a recent conference on intellectual property, were disturbed for some time with a slight sense of deja vu. Somewhere we have already heard. And I understood: The law of the three spikelets! For reference: (also the law “seven eighths”, “the law of the seventh-eighth”, decree “7-8” [1]) - the title of the Decree of the CEC and SNK of the USSR dated August 7, 1932 “On protection of state property enterprises, collective farms and cooperation and the strengthening of social (socialist) property ". This law provided for liability in the form of 5 to 10 years in prison and up to execution. He acquired his name for the fact that people who fell in the years of starvation were cutting off the spikelets from the collective farm fields, and 3 pieces were enough for the application of such harsh measures.
Interestingly, Stalin’s order to Kaganovich, Molotov, was a prerequisite for its adoption: “Socialism cannot finish off and bury the capitalist elements and individual habits, skills, traditions (serving as the basis for theft) that would shatter the foundations of a new society (cooperative, collective farm, state) sacred and inviolable. He cannot strengthen and develop the new system and socialist construction if he does not protect the property of collective farms, cooperation, the state with all his might, if he does not discourage the antisocial, kulak-capitalist elements from plundering public property. For this and need a new law. ". Time has changed, the lineage changed, but the tone remained the same. But already from the brightest representatives of capitalism - the right holders.
')
So what's the history lesson? What has become of this law?
The excesses on the ground were too obvious. After a series of high-profile cases, on January 16, 1936, the CEC and the Council of Ministers of the USSR issued a decree “On the inspection of cases of persons convicted by the CEC and Council of CSC decisions of August 7, 1932. In the memorandum to Stalin, the then prosecutor Vyshinsky reported that the review of cases spikelets completed. More than 115 thousand cases were checked, and more than 91 thousand cases were considered incorrect.
Let now they do not shoot for downloading music (although, who knows, to what measures the responsibility holders will reach), but the generality in the disproportion of the violation and punishment can be traced too clearly. A lawsuit against a girl suffering from pancreatitis, a 2-million lawsuit against a housewife for 24 songs. It makes no sense to burden the post with examples, of which there are many. It is important that such stories become more and more, and people continue to punish "with excesses." There was a formation of a punitive copyright, the main tool of which is a police baton and prison bars. At the same time, an important distinctive feature of copyright protection is that a person is punished not for direct damage, which is practically non-existent, but for lost profits, i.e. an amount absolutely not guaranteed to be received, and not even the fact that the right holder has not yet received this amount.
Today it is difficult to contradict the fact that the copyright management system is changing. The Internet forces to reconsider views on copyright itself as an object of protection. And with the final scrapping of the system, we can well expect a reassessment of the past. Then, probably, it is time to revise the decisions of the courts on the recovery of kilotons of money from ordinary users for a few songs. And then some already American prosecutor, Mr. Vyshinsky, will also cheerfully report to the US Secretary General on the successful completion of the review of cases. And Hegel will look at it all from somewhere above and laugh.
This post is not written to justify the illegal use of other people's works. And all the more so not by simply comparing the maximum measures of responsibility of different articles to discredit criminal liability for copyright infringement. In the end, and for theft you can get no less than murder. The problem you want to show is a clear history lesson. Inadequate protection measure, which is felt by society, does not allow the law to work to protect the author. Now Ukraine is being pushed to adopt in fact an analogue of the law on three spikelets. But if we look back into our history, we will see that the reasons for the high level of piracy are not in the users. Strengthening responsibility does not change the situation radically, even though you enter shooting. The reason is already in the owners. Modern communication systems kill copyright brokers. This leads to the fact that the Alliance, which consists of just such intermediaries, is trying desperately to resist progress, and not to find its way to the user. It is better to intimidate and take money from him for those spikelets that grow on the edge of the field than to find a way to sell them to him. Moreover, they no longer need to grow, they are created, it remains only to mow. The problem is that many holders are too bottomless bins.
Criminal liability on the territory of Ukraine from 1961 to 2001 was limited to fines. Only with the adoption of the new Criminal Code, the measure of responsibility increased to 6 years in prison. For comparison, the maximum measure of responsibility for forced donation is 5 years in prison, conducting illegal experiments on a person is 5 years in prison. Bringing to the logical absurd end the plan of the legislator, it is better to cut a kidney from a person than to steal his songs. At the same time, right holders continue to insist on increasing the measure of responsibility. And not just insist, but put pressure on Ukraine through international organizations. In support of the requirements used theses on private property, as the basis of modern society, emphasizes its sacred nature. In this case, the example is the French system of "three blows" - three warnings of the user that he has unlicensed content on his computer, after which conditions are created for bringing a person to criminal responsibility.
These theses on sacred property, as well as the figures "three", heard at a recent conference on intellectual property, were disturbed for some time with a slight sense of deja vu. Somewhere we have already heard. And I understood: The law of the three spikelets! For reference: (also the law “seven eighths”, “the law of the seventh-eighth”, decree “7-8” [1]) - the title of the Decree of the CEC and SNK of the USSR dated August 7, 1932 “On protection of state property enterprises, collective farms and cooperation and the strengthening of social (socialist) property ". This law provided for liability in the form of 5 to 10 years in prison and up to execution. He acquired his name for the fact that people who fell in the years of starvation were cutting off the spikelets from the collective farm fields, and 3 pieces were enough for the application of such harsh measures.
Interestingly, Stalin’s order to Kaganovich, Molotov, was a prerequisite for its adoption: “Socialism cannot finish off and bury the capitalist elements and individual habits, skills, traditions (serving as the basis for theft) that would shatter the foundations of a new society (cooperative, collective farm, state) sacred and inviolable. He cannot strengthen and develop the new system and socialist construction if he does not protect the property of collective farms, cooperation, the state with all his might, if he does not discourage the antisocial, kulak-capitalist elements from plundering public property. For this and need a new law. ". Time has changed, the lineage changed, but the tone remained the same. But already from the brightest representatives of capitalism - the right holders.
')
So what's the history lesson? What has become of this law?
The excesses on the ground were too obvious. After a series of high-profile cases, on January 16, 1936, the CEC and the Council of Ministers of the USSR issued a decree “On the inspection of cases of persons convicted by the CEC and Council of CSC decisions of August 7, 1932. In the memorandum to Stalin, the then prosecutor Vyshinsky reported that the review of cases spikelets completed. More than 115 thousand cases were checked, and more than 91 thousand cases were considered incorrect.
Let now they do not shoot for downloading music (although, who knows, to what measures the responsibility holders will reach), but the generality in the disproportion of the violation and punishment can be traced too clearly. A lawsuit against a girl suffering from pancreatitis, a 2-million lawsuit against a housewife for 24 songs. It makes no sense to burden the post with examples, of which there are many. It is important that such stories become more and more, and people continue to punish "with excesses." There was a formation of a punitive copyright, the main tool of which is a police baton and prison bars. At the same time, an important distinctive feature of copyright protection is that a person is punished not for direct damage, which is practically non-existent, but for lost profits, i.e. an amount absolutely not guaranteed to be received, and not even the fact that the right holder has not yet received this amount.
Today it is difficult to contradict the fact that the copyright management system is changing. The Internet forces to reconsider views on copyright itself as an object of protection. And with the final scrapping of the system, we can well expect a reassessment of the past. Then, probably, it is time to revise the decisions of the courts on the recovery of kilotons of money from ordinary users for a few songs. And then some already American prosecutor, Mr. Vyshinsky, will also cheerfully report to the US Secretary General on the successful completion of the review of cases. And Hegel will look at it all from somewhere above and laugh.
This post is not written to justify the illegal use of other people's works. And all the more so not by simply comparing the maximum measures of responsibility of different articles to discredit criminal liability for copyright infringement. In the end, and for theft you can get no less than murder. The problem you want to show is a clear history lesson. Inadequate protection measure, which is felt by society, does not allow the law to work to protect the author. Now Ukraine is being pushed to adopt in fact an analogue of the law on three spikelets. But if we look back into our history, we will see that the reasons for the high level of piracy are not in the users. Strengthening responsibility does not change the situation radically, even though you enter shooting. The reason is already in the owners. Modern communication systems kill copyright brokers. This leads to the fact that the Alliance, which consists of just such intermediaries, is trying desperately to resist progress, and not to find its way to the user. It is better to intimidate and take money from him for those spikelets that grow on the edge of the field than to find a way to sell them to him. Moreover, they no longer need to grow, they are created, it remains only to mow. The problem is that many holders are too bottomless bins.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/175115/
All Articles