Is the movie over?
I would like to say a few words about the scandalous draft law “On the Protection of Intellectual Property”, which has recently been very often discussed in the media and on the Internet.
I recommend reading the original source on your own, because there you can find a few things that you should pay attention to.
UPDATE: While this article was being written, it turned out that the bill was passed in the 2 nd and 3 rd reading, and it can be earned from August 1, 2013. What should be expected actually. True, audio products and books have been excluded from it, which is even more difficult to explain than the haste of its adoption.
The first moment, perhaps not the most obvious, is that the fight against piracy
will oblige the courts and providers, but not the police. This is, in general, a positive phenomenon, given that the former militia often acts on the Internet approximately like an elephant in a culinary shop. The tendency of decriminalization of infringements in the field of copyright, the transition from criminal to civil liability, may in itself mean that lawmakers have decided at least a little to bring their creativity closer to the existing realities. If earlier it was proposed to plant or fine for the laid out film - now everything can be limited to turning off the Internet.
The second good news is that the draft law introduces and more or less clearly outlines the concept and area of responsibility of the “information mediator” (Art. 1253 p1.2.3), as a person who is not responsible for the actions of the user (it’s enough not to know about of them), although it is obliged to take measures to eliminate the consequences of any unlawful actions of this user.
')
As applied to our “rams”, the adoption of the term “information mediator” from a formal point of view should just legalize torrent trackers, since, from a technical point of view, they are exactly in accordance with the draft law: there is no they do not interfere and do not track their contents and do not modernize them. In the case of bittorrent, providers will have to block users from whose IP data is distributed that violate the rights of third parties.
The truth in the draft law here and there is confusion with the terms “hosting”, “provider and“ information intermediary ”, apparently the authors of the draft law out of habit believe that only websites can disseminate information.
In fact, it’s likely that the status of an “information broker” will have to be proved in order not to fall into the “accomplices”.
Third . The draft law prescribes the algorithm of action of the copyright holder for working with illegal content in the network. But let's look at it from the other side. Bear links to the Moscow City Court - is the right or obligation of the copyright holder? If for some reason the right holder does not act according to the regulations outlined in the law and does not carry the reference to the Moscow City Court, does this mean the will of the right holder to freely distribute its content? What is the status of such content in general, if the right holder, knowing about the violation of his rights, does not take actions outlined by law for elimination? Maybe he should be fined, as a legal entity of thousands of commercials for 500, for concealing a crime? Or can this content be distributed? I already wrote about the problem of " abandoned content ", it is the most on the Internet.
one.
Moscow City Court, and why him? Why not Mosoblsud or regional court of Petropavlovsk-on-Kamchatka? Among the lawyers, the Moscow City Court is known as “Mosgorstamp” due to the fact that most of the cassations are left unchanged, correcting the case, at best, for a new consideration. There is hardly any reason to believe that the IGU has a sufficient staff of experts and copyright specialists who are ready to cope with the flow of complaints (but more on that below)
Probably the fact is that in the Russian Federation there is simply no government body that has sufficient competence in resolving such issues. The district courts certainly will not pull, and the Supreme can’t be disturbed because of some Internet links. Well, actually, and the Moscow City Court does not sit idle - there citizens are waiting for several years until they reach the hands of justice.
But the law must be taken now, and it will take a lot of time to create a new state body, and a lot of bylaws, so let it be that there is.
Already, even these considerations give reason to doubt that the bill will work in full force.
2
The mechanism of blocking illegal content. According to the authors, the Moscow City Court should issue prescriptions about it, based on the complaint of the copyright holder. It is logical to assume that before making this order the judge must make sure that the complaint is legitimate, and not podmahivat document without looking:
After that, it can be expected that the decision of the judge is legitimate and reasonable.
3
If only one large vendor on Rutreker can delete one and a half thousand links at a time, then it’s easy to imagine how many Moscow City Courts can get them from all over the Internet. Theoretically, he would have to consider the appeal within the time limits established by law and make a decision on each fact of placement of illegal content. So, dear deputies, there are hundreds of large vendors, and they have excellent search robots ...
In general, how did the authors of the bill imagine the technical implementation of this task?
A room with folders where in paper statements are printed links and a whole courtroom "over the Internet"?
Moscow City Court will build its data center where there will be a dynamically updated link database with millions of entries, and its own search engine that tracks the removal of prohibited content?
four.
What will providers do when they get IPs blocked by court decisions? Will they block bittorrent? It is impossible, or technically difficult. Will they be blocked at all to the joy of competitors? Users are the daily bread of providers, and bittorrent is black caviar and foie gras on this bread (file sharing provokes a transition to faster, and therefore more expensive, tariffs). Rather, providers will learn to circumvent these requirements than voluntarily deprive themselves of their customer base.
The mass exodus of popular domains from the .ru zone ( tfile is the last example, and it makes no sense to list them all, so you know everything) didn’t teach the legislators anything. Although the domain blocking at the registrar level is no longer included in the draft law, the same is planned for IP addresses, and the next step is the migration of clients from Russian hosts to foreign ones, which are not subject to the requirements of the Moscow City Court.
In general, how do the authors of the bill think that the work of the provider should look like, in the firewall of which, at the request of the law, one hundred thousand records should be included, daily, at the same time, updated?
Well, in the quality, so to speak, of the conclusion.
Annual attacks on the Internet, in the form of the adoption of senselessly cruel and previously unrealizable laws - something like a ritual among the people's representatives. You can be outraged every time, but you can get used to it. In the end, do not forget that in Russia, even Wi-Fi routers without GLONASS chips and without registering with the Ministry of Communications is illegal to use.
Perhaps these steps will finally push the p2p technology to upgrade to the stage of complete impossibility of control over them.
Or maybe the people whose will is so peculiarly embodied in the bills by its elects, will gather near the Duma and ask
I recommend reading the original source on your own, because there you can find a few things that you should pay attention to.
UPDATE: While this article was being written, it turned out that the bill was passed in the 2 nd and 3 rd reading, and it can be earned from August 1, 2013. What should be expected actually. True, audio products and books have been excluded from it, which is even more difficult to explain than the haste of its adoption.
The first moment, perhaps not the most obvious, is that the fight against piracy
will oblige the courts and providers, but not the police. This is, in general, a positive phenomenon, given that the former militia often acts on the Internet approximately like an elephant in a culinary shop. The tendency of decriminalization of infringements in the field of copyright, the transition from criminal to civil liability, may in itself mean that lawmakers have decided at least a little to bring their creativity closer to the existing realities. If earlier it was proposed to plant or fine for the laid out film - now everything can be limited to turning off the Internet.
The second good news is that the draft law introduces and more or less clearly outlines the concept and area of responsibility of the “information mediator” (Art. 1253 p1.2.3), as a person who is not responsible for the actions of the user (it’s enough not to know about of them), although it is obliged to take measures to eliminate the consequences of any unlawful actions of this user.
')
As applied to our “rams”, the adoption of the term “information mediator” from a formal point of view should just legalize torrent trackers, since, from a technical point of view, they are exactly in accordance with the draft law: there is no they do not interfere and do not track their contents and do not modernize them. In the case of bittorrent, providers will have to block users from whose IP data is distributed that violate the rights of third parties.
The truth in the draft law here and there is confusion with the terms “hosting”, “provider and“ information intermediary ”, apparently the authors of the draft law out of habit believe that only websites can disseminate information.
In fact, it’s likely that the status of an “information broker” will have to be proved in order not to fall into the “accomplices”.
Third . The draft law prescribes the algorithm of action of the copyright holder for working with illegal content in the network. But let's look at it from the other side. Bear links to the Moscow City Court - is the right or obligation of the copyright holder? If for some reason the right holder does not act according to the regulations outlined in the law and does not carry the reference to the Moscow City Court, does this mean the will of the right holder to freely distribute its content? What is the status of such content in general, if the right holder, knowing about the violation of his rights, does not take actions outlined by law for elimination? Maybe he should be fined, as a legal entity of thousands of commercials for 500, for concealing a crime? Or can this content be distributed? I already wrote about the problem of " abandoned content ", it is the most on the Internet.
Well, now let's talk about what the authors of this law did not find out, did not know, or pretended they did not know.
one.
Moscow City Court, and why him? Why not Mosoblsud or regional court of Petropavlovsk-on-Kamchatka? Among the lawyers, the Moscow City Court is known as “Mosgorstamp” due to the fact that most of the cassations are left unchanged, correcting the case, at best, for a new consideration. There is hardly any reason to believe that the IGU has a sufficient staff of experts and copyright specialists who are ready to cope with the flow of complaints (but more on that below)
Probably the fact is that in the Russian Federation there is simply no government body that has sufficient competence in resolving such issues. The district courts certainly will not pull, and the Supreme can’t be disturbed because of some Internet links. Well, actually, and the Moscow City Court does not sit idle - there citizens are waiting for several years until they reach the hands of justice.
But the law must be taken now, and it will take a lot of time to create a new state body, and a lot of bylaws, so let it be that there is.
Already, even these considerations give reason to doubt that the bill will work in full force.
2
The mechanism of blocking illegal content. According to the authors, the Moscow City Court should issue prescriptions about it, based on the complaint of the copyright holder. It is logical to assume that before making this order the judge must make sure that the complaint is legitimate, and not podmahivat document without looking:
- 1) Make sure that the applicant has EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS for the disputed copyright object by requesting the necessary documents. If the application was submitted by a third party, find and notify the software and obtain its consent, or get acquainted with the content license. (Unless, of course, the Moscow City Court is ready to delete anything, on request from anyone)
2a) in the case of music or film, download the content by reference and compare it with the sample received from the copyright holder.
2b) in the case of software, it would be a good idea for an expert to conclude that the .iso file by reference “MS_Windous_9.1_beta patchd” does not contain the image of Ubuntu 13.04 and not the DVDRip of the “ CPSU Congress 27 ”. - 3) Determine exactly where the illegal content is stored, and write out a prescription to the owner of that particular site, his hoster, or the user or his provider, and not Yandex or Google, who issued the link to the movie, the tracker, or the like.
- 4) to do all this in a DAY, or even three, is not important. (I remind you that the queue at the Moscow City Court is for years)
After that, it can be expected that the decision of the judge is legitimate and reasonable.
3
If only one large vendor on Rutreker can delete one and a half thousand links at a time, then it’s easy to imagine how many Moscow City Courts can get them from all over the Internet. Theoretically, he would have to consider the appeal within the time limits established by law and make a decision on each fact of placement of illegal content. So, dear deputies, there are hundreds of large vendors, and they have excellent search robots ...
In general, how did the authors of the bill imagine the technical implementation of this task?
A room with folders where in paper statements are printed links and a whole courtroom "over the Internet"?
Moscow City Court will build its data center where there will be a dynamically updated link database with millions of entries, and its own search engine that tracks the removal of prohibited content?
four.
What will providers do when they get IPs blocked by court decisions? Will they block bittorrent? It is impossible, or technically difficult. Will they be blocked at all to the joy of competitors? Users are the daily bread of providers, and bittorrent is black caviar and foie gras on this bread (file sharing provokes a transition to faster, and therefore more expensive, tariffs). Rather, providers will learn to circumvent these requirements than voluntarily deprive themselves of their customer base.
The mass exodus of popular domains from the .ru zone ( tfile is the last example, and it makes no sense to list them all, so you know everything) didn’t teach the legislators anything. Although the domain blocking at the registrar level is no longer included in the draft law, the same is planned for IP addresses, and the next step is the migration of clients from Russian hosts to foreign ones, which are not subject to the requirements of the Moscow City Court.
In general, how do the authors of the bill think that the work of the provider should look like, in the firewall of which, at the request of the law, one hundred thousand records should be included, daily, at the same time, updated?
Well, in the quality, so to speak, of the conclusion.
Annual attacks on the Internet, in the form of the adoption of senselessly cruel and previously unrealizable laws - something like a ritual among the people's representatives. You can be outraged every time, but you can get used to it. In the end, do not forget that in Russia, even Wi-Fi routers without GLONASS chips and without registering with the Ministry of Communications is illegal to use.
Perhaps these steps will finally push the p2p technology to upgrade to the stage of complete impossibility of control over them.
Or maybe the people whose will is so peculiarly embodied in the bills by its elects, will gather near the Duma and ask
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/184206/
All Articles