What changes has the legislator prepared for us in the upcoming amendments to the Civil Code? Before entering into noisy debates before the rygoths , I suggest reading the text of these amendments in the original source , without succumbing to the provocations of the opposing parties - the copywriters and the anti-pirate. Of which the latter are no better than the first, for they in every way speculate on a popular, painful topic and plunge ignorant people into panic.

So read

FEDERAL LAW ON MAKING AMENDMENTS TO PART FOURTH OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

( , 2006, N 52, . 5496) :

')

Article 1229

It was:

5. , , , , .
, .

It became:

1) 5 1229 :
"5. , , , , .
, , , , , , .
, , .
, , , .
, .";

Comment:
The expansion of the norm is intended to protect the legitimate interests of third parties that may be violated as a result of the exercise of the right to protection of intellectual property. For example, the restriction of the rights of the patent holder under Art. 1362 . This provision provides software market participants with an effective tool to combat software patents and patent trolls, which may never appear in Russia, including because of this norm. The amendment also strengthens the protection of public interests in the monopolistic areas of intellectual activity, allowing the monopolists to disclose proprietary formats.

Article 1273

It was:

, :

It became:

2) 1273:
:
"1. , :";
2 :
"2. , , , , 1245 .";

Comment:
The institution of necessity mentioned in paragraph 1 requires enforcement comments from the Supreme Court, since criteria for assessing the need and its very essence is not disclosed.

The second paragraph establishes the obligation to make deductions in favor of the right holders on the part of manufacturers and importers of equipment and material carriers that are technically suitable for playing audio and video products. Thus, additional costs will be incurred by manufacturers of computers, flash drives, mobile phones and other equipment, the main purpose of which is not the reproduction of these works.

Deductions are not made directly to holders, authors and performers, but to collection organizations whose competence is collective management of rights, such as RW . This norm strengthens the positions of these organizations, which many lawyers and rightholders, mostly foreign ones, doubted the legality of their existence.

Article 1299

It was:

3. , 2 , 1301 , , .

It became:

3) 3 1299 ", , " ;

Comment:
The amendment is aimed at strengthening the legislative protection of technical means of copyright protection. Hacking or other disruption of such tools will be recognized as a violation in any case, whether it is copying the contents of a legally acquired DVD to a hard disk of a computer or removing the DRM protection from a file purchased from an online store. Using HASP emulators unconditionally becomes illegal.

However, subject to the non-violation of the work of the TSZ, a person who lawfully owns a copy of the program retains all the rights that it had before. Including the right to free reproduction ( art. 1280 )

Article 1483

It was:

9. , :
1) ( 1492) , , , , , ;
2) ( 19), ( 1 1265) , , ;
3) , , , .

It became:

5) 3 9 1483 " ," ;

Comment:
Thus, a domain name registered by a third party will not be able to prevent the registration of a trademark that is identical to this domain. It should be noted that such a rule did not exist in the civil law of other countries and its appearance was greeted by jurists with bewilderment. With the entry into force of the above amendment, this strange innovation is abolished.

It should be noted that the domain owner’s rights are preserved and the amendment does not allow the domain to be reversed, since ownership of it arose before the identical trademark was registered.

In general, the content of the amendments complies with generally accepted norms of international law enshrined in the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, eng. TRIPS). The draconian traits attributed to these norms by individual bloggers are nothing more than an exaggeration. Before the United States, with their truly marasmic Digital Millenium Copiright Act, we still have a long way to go.

There were not considered two amendments relating to patent protection and places of origin of goods, as not relevant to the subject of Habr.