Parse anti-piracy law by bone
On August 1, the law came into force, which I personally call the law “On the Internet” (although, perhaps, now it should be called the law “On the fight against piracy”). I would like to immediately admit my mistake made in my last article. Then, in the article itself, I assured readers that the most odious points of the law would most likely be thrown out of it, and in the comments it was assumed that the established contact between the legislators and the IT community would make it possible to create a project that satisfies all parties. But I did not take into account the influence of a third force, namely, the State Duma. As many have already heard, the whole essence of the “problem” lies in the fact that, as a result, the bill developed by the Ministry of Culture remained a draft law, and a completely different initiative was gained by force: emanating from State Duma deputies V.V. Bortko, E.G. Drapeko, M.P. Maksakova-Igenbergs, M.A. Kozhevnikova, L.L. Levin and R.A. Schlegel. As a result, deputies not only found a way to present their version of the project bypassing the Ministry of Culture (in theory, such industry laws as this should be prepared by the ministries, but it turned out that everything is possible, especially when it is “possible” based on the Constitution), but also presented extremely tough solution to the issue. In fact, we face a completely different law than the one I wrote about earlier. And in theory and content. Moreover, many of the rules they regulate were not entirely clear to ordinary citizens, and therefore I want to try again to close this gap, and at the same time explain that everything is not as bad as it seems. Immediately I warn you that this time there will be a lot of text, and therefore I do not recommend this article to those who do not like reading.
So, today we will talk about the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of July 2, 2013 N 187-FZ, Moscow “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Protection of Intellectual Rights in Information and Telecommunication Networks”. As in most cases, the law itself is virtual. No, he, of course, exists and “did not seem to you,” but his main task is to amend other laws. And since, at least at the time of this writing, the changes have not yet been incorporated into most of the online databases of legislation, I suggest reading the text of the amendments themselves .
The following legal acts of the Russian Federation were changed:
- Arbitration Procedure Code
- Code of Civil Procedure
- Federal Law "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection"
- Civil Code
The arbitration procedural code in this case does not interest us - the changes to it are minimal and concern the elimination of disputable situations with jurisdiction of cases. But the Civil Procedure Code has made quite serious changes, if we consider them in the framework of the issue of protection of intellectual property. Firstly, the Moscow City Court will be the first instance for the consideration of intellectual property protection issues, but only if preliminary security measures have been taken on them. So far with one important clarification: if we are talking about movies. But, as many already know, there will be a discussion on this issue in the future and, quite possibly, the list of intellectual property will be expanded. What is a "preliminary security measures"? Speaking in simple human language, interim measures in the domestic legal process are measures designed to ensure that the defendant could not in any way affect the object or take the action that the lawsuit relates to and thereby eliminate the evidence, reducing the provable damage, etc. P. Such measures, for example, can be imposed on the defendant’s apartment and then he will not be able to sell it to anyone on an urgent basis. Simply put, they are needed to ensure that the plaintiff does not stay with his nose. Very correct rate, if you think about it. Here and within our question, if you think about it, restricting access to the site as part of interim measures is primarily intended as a means to ensure that “the pirate did nothing with the site.” This is if in theory. In practice, this is a great way to simply shut down the site at least until the end of the trial.
')
An application for preliminary security is filed before the claim and is considered by the court. By the way, it may not be accepted. Interim measures, if anything, must be proportionate to the lawsuit, and therefore it will not be possible to demand that the Polintern be blocked immediately. I also want to note that the applicant is traditionally responsible for such interim measures - they are provided for in paragraph 9 of Article 144.1. So, to those who are already rubbing their hands in the hope of strangling competitors, I would recommend at first how to think.
But back to the measures themselves. In case of their satisfaction, the court issues a special preliminary execution list. It is issued to the applicant and, in the event of an application from him, is transferred to ROSCOMNADZOR to block the site. The applicant himself has 15 days to file a claim. Well, to be perfectly precise, it takes as much as 2 months to consider the claim itself. True, if you look at the letter of the law. In fact, things sometimes drag on for a year, or even more.
Results This part of the law seems the most unpleasant. The application for interim measures is filed without notifying the respondent, which means that it can formally lead to the site being blocked even without grounds for this (but that is “formal” - I will explain this in the second part of the article). In fact, the court requires confirmation of the validity of the claimant’s claims. In our case, it is likely that the courts will require confirmation of a violation of rights (in the law it sounds like this: documents confirming the fact of using objects of exclusive rights in information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet), which according to the established practice are notarial inspection acts. This, firstly, should exclude frankly baseless "assaults", and, secondly, if you understand thoroughly, cancels the very essence of interim measures, since the need to use them, due to the presence of already completed evidence, disappears. In the latter case, a rather interesting legal conflict arises, which, however, did not prevent the adoption of this part of the law. In any case, at the moment it is too early to make any assumptions, as there is no practice in the framework of the issue under consideration.
Well, for a snack:
The Moscow City Court refused to consider the first complaint on the anti-piracy law (lenta.ru, August 01, 2013). The judge refused, since the film company did not provide evidence that the rights to the films indicated in the complaint belong to her. In addition, Sam Klebanov, who filed the complaint, did not provide documents, from which it would follow that he is the general director and president of the company, stressed Usacheva.
The Moscow City Court refused to block three sites (lenta.ru, 02 August 2013). We are talking about complaints to the websites of the closed online cinema "Turbofilm" and the open torrent tracker Rutor. A statement to these sites was made by Now, which asked to close access to the five foreign films featured on these sites. Now, which provides the entertainment video-portal Future Now, is a part of the TNT group of companies owned by Gazprom-Media holding. In the second case, the Moscow City Court refused to consider the appeal due to improper execution of the document. In particular, the applicant company did not provide the necessary data about its CEO.
As they say, and the men did not know!
The second part of the Merleson Ballet is the amendments to the Federal Law No. 149 “On Information ...”. It concerns the registry and the procedure for restricting access to sites. In many ways, it intersects with the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, but it must be considered separately. She is considering the procedure for blocking the site on the basis of a judicial act, which, as we have already established, can be a writ of execution issued as a statement of interim measures, as well as an effective decision on the case itself, and, apparently, for lawmakers interim measures they are significantly higher in importance, since the emphasis is on them.
If you look at the procedure as briefly as possible, the scheme appears as follows: the right holder applies to ROSKOMNADZOR, which in turn sends the hosting order to transfer to the site owner the requirements to take measures to remove such information, and then the hosting sends the requirements to the site owner. The deadline for the last action is one working day. Accordingly, in case of ignoring the requirements, the site should be included in the "black list". The important point of this procedure is that the consequences in the form of inclusion in the registry can occur both as a result of inactivity of the site owner and hosting. In general, the moment with the notification of the final person in this list is the most problematic, especially considering the unreliability of the method of communication, which, most likely, will be e-mail. There is also a procedure for excluding a resource from the registry.
Everything else, I immediately had a rather interesting question. The blocking procedure is described quite fully and provides for notification of the site owners themselves, which makes the procedure for taking interim measures, which I wrote about above, is completely comical. A person suspected of a violation of rights is not only informed that they are going to sue him, but also offer to eliminate the circumstances of such a violation. The only thing I can assume in this case is reasonable is that I myself am a fool in this situation and simply do not understand something. However, the dry letters of the law mean the opposite.
By the way, if we talk about the registry itself, then the way it functions is determined by ROSCOMNADZOR itself. Since August 1, the site nap.rkn.gov.ru has started its work, where you can familiarize yourself with the main documents on the basis of which the registry is valid, and check whether this or that site is blocked. The complete list of blocked resources is not presented by tradition. But I caught the eye of a rather interesting inscription: to submit an application, you must be authorized through the ESIA (it is also an electronic government). Thus, one more element is embedded in the procedure - registration on the state-owned portal. True, it is already optional: it seems to me that the document flow between the court and ROSCOMNADZOR will nevertheless be more simplified (do not forget that the writ of execution can also be transmitted by the court itself).
Results As we see, the site blocking system works only in one case: if the right holder has a court decision. There is no extrajudicial blocking about which, for some reason unknown to me, many websites write, there is no trace. Yes, the law is full of holes, but these holes are currently working in both directions, and if from the side of sites they consist in the absence of a proper warning mechanism for owners and limited possibilities of their protection, then right holders are already faced with a formidable force - the judicial system of the Russian Federation which, as is known, is a separate branch of power and can, at its own discretion, interpret laws. And without a court it is impossible to add something to the register. At the same time, again, the question that worried many is removed: that someone will not understand trying to close sites. The Moscow City Court has dispelled these doubts, not letting in not only those who did not have title documents, but even those who forgot to bring the decision on the appointment of the general director.
And now let's move on to the Civil Code, which we left for sweets. Here, however, the changes are the least odious and have, as usual, a supporting role: they fix the general system of law introduced by law 187, and also establish the order of pre-trial communication of sites and right holders. In particular, the amendments to the Civil Code introduce the concept of the so-called information mediator. The definition of such an intermediary is rather long and confused, but much more important is what the intermediary is not responsible for.
First, if the intermediary transmits the material in the information and telecommunications network, it is not responsible:
- if he is not the initiator of the transfer of material and does not determine the recipient of the specified material
- if it does not change the specified material in the provision of communication services, except for changes made to ensure the technological process of transfer of material
- if he did not know and should not have known that the use of the relevant result of intellectual activity or means of individualization by the person who initiated the transfer of material containing the corresponding result of intellectual activity or means of individualization is illegal
Secondly, if the mediator provides the possibility of placing the material in the information and telecommunications network, then he is not responsible:
- if he did not know and should not have known that the use of the corresponding result of intellectual activity or means of individualization contained in such material is illegal
- if, in the event of receipt in writing of a copyright holder's copyright violation statement indicating the website page and / or the network address on the Internet on which such material is posted, he took necessary and sufficient measures to stop the violation of intellectual property rights in a timely manner
The concept is quite broad, but it is quite logical to assume that the intermediary transferring the material is a provider, and offering accommodation is, in fact, websites, including social networks, and also probably hosting (he, however, can be will refer to the first group). Hence the conditions for non-liability. It is quite reasonable that if a provider only “runs” through itself files that violate intellectual property rights, then it was silly to hold them accountable - everything is clear. But with the mediator, providing the opportunity, all smarter. In fact, this part of the law is extremely useful to both parties, because it essentially establishes the obligation of the copyright holder to warn websites without fail that they are posting illegal materials. Another thing is also important: now the inscriptions on the sites “all materials are placed by visitors, the administration is not responsible for them” and the clauses in the rules prohibiting the placement of illegal materials really make sense. True, right up until the right holder contacts the site: in case of refusal to cooperate with him, the site will be considered a malicious violator with all the consequences.
It is worth noting that this procedure is inherently not new. In one form or another, it has been used for quite some time. The same rutracker quite actively closes the distribution of the appeal holders. At the same time, the law finally fixed the process, which, in my opinion, first of all struck precisely against the right holders, and more precisely, against their unscrupulous representatives, who speculate on their rights. As is known, always win those who know how to find a compromise solution. As for the sites, this part of them concerns the entire law, as all other actions of the right holders will be associated with the norms set forth in the amendments to the Civil Code.
Results Sites have a legislative way to protect themselves from the attacks of rights holders, but with a number of conditions. If you bring them under the realities of ordinary life, then in fact the resource should be able, on the one hand, to confirm the fact that the placement of materials takes place without the participation of the administration, that is, it is not possible to check whether such material is illegal, and, on the other hand, has accepted all the necessary measures when contacting the copyright holder, that is, deleted the page of your site, links to it, etc. In this case, in principle, there is no need for interim measures themselves, because the conflict has been resolved. The main question here is the following: whether the right holders should poke their nose to the site owners in each individual case or once the wording “you have a movie like this - it violates our rights” will be enough. In my opinion, here again, judicial practice will be important, since the law itself, as usual, does not provide extremely clear and precise wording.
And now, when we have finally eliminated all impatient, I would like to present my vision of the situation. In my opinion, as is typical of the network environment, the meaning of the law is greatly inflated. Remember what kipish raised the law "protecting children from the Internet"? And the result? Several large sites were blocked, then access to them was reopened. Traditionally, I started Wikipedia and, in fact, everything - the interest in the law was gone, and the RuNet did not stop its existence. In our case, the situation is slightly different, but on the whole, everything is exactly the same: the majority of the disgruntled even the law itself did not read. No, of course, I am in a sense even proud of the Internet community for the fact that it is ready to assert its rights. But! When you are dissatisfied with something, you should at least sort out the question (and I hope that at least a little helped in this). And even if the law is expanded and programs and music are added to it, all the same, its main purpose will remain first of all those sites that have always been under attack - torrents, version cards, etc. Moreover, it’s far from being a fact that any major sites will be subject to blocking in the near future, and if they also cooperate with the right holders ... And even more far-fetched, the version that the Internet will be subject to strict censorship seems to me to be far-fetched. Even without going into the meaning of the word “censorship” (although it actually has a completely different meaning than the majority puts into it), I want to note that the other question is much more important: is the Internet community so big now that such laws really played an important role? Practice has shown that only a relatively small group of people had a serious “resistance”. Several dozens came to the notorious meeting. For most, the topic remained just a reason to write a few comments on the site. At least for now. Well, wait and see.
And in conclusion, a little humor:
Prospect Publishing requires MTS to block access to the online version of the book he has published (Vedomosti.ru, 07/09/2013). The publishing house Prospect demanded that MTS "as soon as possible" eliminate violations of its exclusive rights to the work "History of Russia", the text of which was published by one of the sites. The author of the letter, Sergey Grachev, writes that in early July, the publishing house had already turned to MTS with such a request, but was refused. Meanwhile, he recalls, on August 1, 2013, the law on the protection of intellectual property on the Internet comes into force. This law, in particular, introduces the concept of “information intermediary” into the Civil Code: these are telecom operators and hosting providers, who have the obligation to block access to illegal materials at the request of the copyright holders. Thus, MTS from August 1 will be responsible for the violation of intellectual rights on the Internet, concludes Grachev. The publishing address of the publishing house is surprising both in essence and in that it is directed to the telecom operator, and only one, says the head of the strategic development department of the Russian Association of Electronic Communications, Irina Levova (VimpelCom and Megafon have not received such letters from the copyright holders representatives). The rightholder threatens the responsibility of a person who is not related to the case, but only provides communication services - there is a free interpretation of the recently adopted law, she says. Following this logic, and mail sending photocopies of book pages, should pay fines to the publisher instead of a citizen who copies and sends these pages to friends.
As we see, the law did not even bother to read some copyright holders.
Everything written above is based on the author’s vision and interpretation of the law. The opinion voiced in this article does not claim to be true, although it is based on a detailed analysis. Any assumptions made may turn out to be erroneous, as the author does not have the opportunity to influence the state and judicial authorities, as well as the views and beliefs of this or that judge.
PS Taking advantage of the moment, I want to say hello to all those responsible readers of Habr who find errors in my articles. Thanks for their help. And since I am a man by nature lazy and thoroughly several times I do not like rereading texts, you are welcome in a personal. If you find something - write, and I will definitely correct the error.
So, today we will talk about the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of July 2, 2013 N 187-FZ, Moscow “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Protection of Intellectual Rights in Information and Telecommunication Networks”. As in most cases, the law itself is virtual. No, he, of course, exists and “did not seem to you,” but his main task is to amend other laws. And since, at least at the time of this writing, the changes have not yet been incorporated into most of the online databases of legislation, I suggest reading the text of the amendments themselves .
The following legal acts of the Russian Federation were changed:
- Arbitration Procedure Code
- Code of Civil Procedure
- Federal Law "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection"
- Civil Code
Court cases
The arbitration procedural code in this case does not interest us - the changes to it are minimal and concern the elimination of disputable situations with jurisdiction of cases. But the Civil Procedure Code has made quite serious changes, if we consider them in the framework of the issue of protection of intellectual property. Firstly, the Moscow City Court will be the first instance for the consideration of intellectual property protection issues, but only if preliminary security measures have been taken on them. So far with one important clarification: if we are talking about movies. But, as many already know, there will be a discussion on this issue in the future and, quite possibly, the list of intellectual property will be expanded. What is a "preliminary security measures"? Speaking in simple human language, interim measures in the domestic legal process are measures designed to ensure that the defendant could not in any way affect the object or take the action that the lawsuit relates to and thereby eliminate the evidence, reducing the provable damage, etc. P. Such measures, for example, can be imposed on the defendant’s apartment and then he will not be able to sell it to anyone on an urgent basis. Simply put, they are needed to ensure that the plaintiff does not stay with his nose. Very correct rate, if you think about it. Here and within our question, if you think about it, restricting access to the site as part of interim measures is primarily intended as a means to ensure that “the pirate did nothing with the site.” This is if in theory. In practice, this is a great way to simply shut down the site at least until the end of the trial.
')
An application for preliminary security is filed before the claim and is considered by the court. By the way, it may not be accepted. Interim measures, if anything, must be proportionate to the lawsuit, and therefore it will not be possible to demand that the Polintern be blocked immediately. I also want to note that the applicant is traditionally responsible for such interim measures - they are provided for in paragraph 9 of Article 144.1. So, to those who are already rubbing their hands in the hope of strangling competitors, I would recommend at first how to think.
But back to the measures themselves. In case of their satisfaction, the court issues a special preliminary execution list. It is issued to the applicant and, in the event of an application from him, is transferred to ROSCOMNADZOR to block the site. The applicant himself has 15 days to file a claim. Well, to be perfectly precise, it takes as much as 2 months to consider the claim itself. True, if you look at the letter of the law. In fact, things sometimes drag on for a year, or even more.
Results This part of the law seems the most unpleasant. The application for interim measures is filed without notifying the respondent, which means that it can formally lead to the site being blocked even without grounds for this (but that is “formal” - I will explain this in the second part of the article). In fact, the court requires confirmation of the validity of the claimant’s claims. In our case, it is likely that the courts will require confirmation of a violation of rights (in the law it sounds like this: documents confirming the fact of using objects of exclusive rights in information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet), which according to the established practice are notarial inspection acts. This, firstly, should exclude frankly baseless "assaults", and, secondly, if you understand thoroughly, cancels the very essence of interim measures, since the need to use them, due to the presence of already completed evidence, disappears. In the latter case, a rather interesting legal conflict arises, which, however, did not prevent the adoption of this part of the law. In any case, at the moment it is too early to make any assumptions, as there is no practice in the framework of the issue under consideration.
Well, for a snack:
The Moscow City Court refused to consider the first complaint on the anti-piracy law (lenta.ru, August 01, 2013). The judge refused, since the film company did not provide evidence that the rights to the films indicated in the complaint belong to her. In addition, Sam Klebanov, who filed the complaint, did not provide documents, from which it would follow that he is the general director and president of the company, stressed Usacheva.
The Moscow City Court refused to block three sites (lenta.ru, 02 August 2013). We are talking about complaints to the websites of the closed online cinema "Turbofilm" and the open torrent tracker Rutor. A statement to these sites was made by Now, which asked to close access to the five foreign films featured on these sites. Now, which provides the entertainment video-portal Future Now, is a part of the TNT group of companies owned by Gazprom-Media holding. In the second case, the Moscow City Court refused to consider the appeal due to improper execution of the document. In particular, the applicant company did not provide the necessary data about its CEO.
As they say, and the men did not know!
What is the registry?
The second part of the Merleson Ballet is the amendments to the Federal Law No. 149 “On Information ...”. It concerns the registry and the procedure for restricting access to sites. In many ways, it intersects with the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, but it must be considered separately. She is considering the procedure for blocking the site on the basis of a judicial act, which, as we have already established, can be a writ of execution issued as a statement of interim measures, as well as an effective decision on the case itself, and, apparently, for lawmakers interim measures they are significantly higher in importance, since the emphasis is on them.
If you look at the procedure as briefly as possible, the scheme appears as follows: the right holder applies to ROSKOMNADZOR, which in turn sends the hosting order to transfer to the site owner the requirements to take measures to remove such information, and then the hosting sends the requirements to the site owner. The deadline for the last action is one working day. Accordingly, in case of ignoring the requirements, the site should be included in the "black list". The important point of this procedure is that the consequences in the form of inclusion in the registry can occur both as a result of inactivity of the site owner and hosting. In general, the moment with the notification of the final person in this list is the most problematic, especially considering the unreliability of the method of communication, which, most likely, will be e-mail. There is also a procedure for excluding a resource from the registry.
Everything else, I immediately had a rather interesting question. The blocking procedure is described quite fully and provides for notification of the site owners themselves, which makes the procedure for taking interim measures, which I wrote about above, is completely comical. A person suspected of a violation of rights is not only informed that they are going to sue him, but also offer to eliminate the circumstances of such a violation. The only thing I can assume in this case is reasonable is that I myself am a fool in this situation and simply do not understand something. However, the dry letters of the law mean the opposite.
By the way, if we talk about the registry itself, then the way it functions is determined by ROSCOMNADZOR itself. Since August 1, the site nap.rkn.gov.ru has started its work, where you can familiarize yourself with the main documents on the basis of which the registry is valid, and check whether this or that site is blocked. The complete list of blocked resources is not presented by tradition. But I caught the eye of a rather interesting inscription: to submit an application, you must be authorized through the ESIA (it is also an electronic government). Thus, one more element is embedded in the procedure - registration on the state-owned portal. True, it is already optional: it seems to me that the document flow between the court and ROSCOMNADZOR will nevertheless be more simplified (do not forget that the writ of execution can also be transmitted by the court itself).
Results As we see, the site blocking system works only in one case: if the right holder has a court decision. There is no extrajudicial blocking about which, for some reason unknown to me, many websites write, there is no trace. Yes, the law is full of holes, but these holes are currently working in both directions, and if from the side of sites they consist in the absence of a proper warning mechanism for owners and limited possibilities of their protection, then right holders are already faced with a formidable force - the judicial system of the Russian Federation which, as is known, is a separate branch of power and can, at its own discretion, interpret laws. And without a court it is impossible to add something to the register. At the same time, again, the question that worried many is removed: that someone will not understand trying to close sites. The Moscow City Court has dispelled these doubts, not letting in not only those who did not have title documents, but even those who forgot to bring the decision on the appointment of the general director.
All the rest
And now let's move on to the Civil Code, which we left for sweets. Here, however, the changes are the least odious and have, as usual, a supporting role: they fix the general system of law introduced by law 187, and also establish the order of pre-trial communication of sites and right holders. In particular, the amendments to the Civil Code introduce the concept of the so-called information mediator. The definition of such an intermediary is rather long and confused, but much more important is what the intermediary is not responsible for.
First, if the intermediary transmits the material in the information and telecommunications network, it is not responsible:
- if he is not the initiator of the transfer of material and does not determine the recipient of the specified material
- if it does not change the specified material in the provision of communication services, except for changes made to ensure the technological process of transfer of material
- if he did not know and should not have known that the use of the relevant result of intellectual activity or means of individualization by the person who initiated the transfer of material containing the corresponding result of intellectual activity or means of individualization is illegal
Secondly, if the mediator provides the possibility of placing the material in the information and telecommunications network, then he is not responsible:
- if he did not know and should not have known that the use of the corresponding result of intellectual activity or means of individualization contained in such material is illegal
- if, in the event of receipt in writing of a copyright holder's copyright violation statement indicating the website page and / or the network address on the Internet on which such material is posted, he took necessary and sufficient measures to stop the violation of intellectual property rights in a timely manner
The concept is quite broad, but it is quite logical to assume that the intermediary transferring the material is a provider, and offering accommodation is, in fact, websites, including social networks, and also probably hosting (he, however, can be will refer to the first group). Hence the conditions for non-liability. It is quite reasonable that if a provider only “runs” through itself files that violate intellectual property rights, then it was silly to hold them accountable - everything is clear. But with the mediator, providing the opportunity, all smarter. In fact, this part of the law is extremely useful to both parties, because it essentially establishes the obligation of the copyright holder to warn websites without fail that they are posting illegal materials. Another thing is also important: now the inscriptions on the sites “all materials are placed by visitors, the administration is not responsible for them” and the clauses in the rules prohibiting the placement of illegal materials really make sense. True, right up until the right holder contacts the site: in case of refusal to cooperate with him, the site will be considered a malicious violator with all the consequences.
It is worth noting that this procedure is inherently not new. In one form or another, it has been used for quite some time. The same rutracker quite actively closes the distribution of the appeal holders. At the same time, the law finally fixed the process, which, in my opinion, first of all struck precisely against the right holders, and more precisely, against their unscrupulous representatives, who speculate on their rights. As is known, always win those who know how to find a compromise solution. As for the sites, this part of them concerns the entire law, as all other actions of the right holders will be associated with the norms set forth in the amendments to the Civil Code.
Results Sites have a legislative way to protect themselves from the attacks of rights holders, but with a number of conditions. If you bring them under the realities of ordinary life, then in fact the resource should be able, on the one hand, to confirm the fact that the placement of materials takes place without the participation of the administration, that is, it is not possible to check whether such material is illegal, and, on the other hand, has accepted all the necessary measures when contacting the copyright holder, that is, deleted the page of your site, links to it, etc. In this case, in principle, there is no need for interim measures themselves, because the conflict has been resolved. The main question here is the following: whether the right holders should poke their nose to the site owners in each individual case or once the wording “you have a movie like this - it violates our rights” will be enough. In my opinion, here again, judicial practice will be important, since the law itself, as usual, does not provide extremely clear and precise wording.
Instead of conclusion
And now, when we have finally eliminated all impatient, I would like to present my vision of the situation. In my opinion, as is typical of the network environment, the meaning of the law is greatly inflated. Remember what kipish raised the law "protecting children from the Internet"? And the result? Several large sites were blocked, then access to them was reopened. Traditionally, I started Wikipedia and, in fact, everything - the interest in the law was gone, and the RuNet did not stop its existence. In our case, the situation is slightly different, but on the whole, everything is exactly the same: the majority of the disgruntled even the law itself did not read. No, of course, I am in a sense even proud of the Internet community for the fact that it is ready to assert its rights. But! When you are dissatisfied with something, you should at least sort out the question (and I hope that at least a little helped in this). And even if the law is expanded and programs and music are added to it, all the same, its main purpose will remain first of all those sites that have always been under attack - torrents, version cards, etc. Moreover, it’s far from being a fact that any major sites will be subject to blocking in the near future, and if they also cooperate with the right holders ... And even more far-fetched, the version that the Internet will be subject to strict censorship seems to me to be far-fetched. Even without going into the meaning of the word “censorship” (although it actually has a completely different meaning than the majority puts into it), I want to note that the other question is much more important: is the Internet community so big now that such laws really played an important role? Practice has shown that only a relatively small group of people had a serious “resistance”. Several dozens came to the notorious meeting. For most, the topic remained just a reason to write a few comments on the site. At least for now. Well, wait and see.
And in conclusion, a little humor:
Prospect Publishing requires MTS to block access to the online version of the book he has published (Vedomosti.ru, 07/09/2013). The publishing house Prospect demanded that MTS "as soon as possible" eliminate violations of its exclusive rights to the work "History of Russia", the text of which was published by one of the sites. The author of the letter, Sergey Grachev, writes that in early July, the publishing house had already turned to MTS with such a request, but was refused. Meanwhile, he recalls, on August 1, 2013, the law on the protection of intellectual property on the Internet comes into force. This law, in particular, introduces the concept of “information intermediary” into the Civil Code: these are telecom operators and hosting providers, who have the obligation to block access to illegal materials at the request of the copyright holders. Thus, MTS from August 1 will be responsible for the violation of intellectual rights on the Internet, concludes Grachev. The publishing address of the publishing house is surprising both in essence and in that it is directed to the telecom operator, and only one, says the head of the strategic development department of the Russian Association of Electronic Communications, Irina Levova (VimpelCom and Megafon have not received such letters from the copyright holders representatives). The rightholder threatens the responsibility of a person who is not related to the case, but only provides communication services - there is a free interpretation of the recently adopted law, she says. Following this logic, and mail sending photocopies of book pages, should pay fines to the publisher instead of a citizen who copies and sends these pages to friends.
As we see, the law did not even bother to read some copyright holders.
Everything written above is based on the author’s vision and interpretation of the law. The opinion voiced in this article does not claim to be true, although it is based on a detailed analysis. Any assumptions made may turn out to be erroneous, as the author does not have the opportunity to influence the state and judicial authorities, as well as the views and beliefs of this or that judge.
PS Taking advantage of the moment, I want to say hello to all those responsible readers of Habr who find errors in my articles. Thanks for their help. And since I am a man by nature lazy and thoroughly several times I do not like rereading texts, you are welcome in a personal. If you find something - write, and I will definitely correct the error.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/188758/
All Articles