Law "On the Internet" - a cursory analysis
So, the Russian-speaking Internet community was again thrilled: the legislators again took up the pen and began to invent a new draft law directly related to the regulation of the Russian-speaking segment of the worldwide network. Almost all publications are teeming with news on this topic, and their printed colleagues did not stand aside. The effect of the latest news is comparable with the introduction of a registry of banned sites, but now it is much more relevant and concerns not only those who, in principle, should understand that sooner or later they will be “engaged” (for example, you can talk for a long time about how free to be Wikipedia, but in itself the openness of such projects is always balancing on the verge), but also those who have already believed that they will not be the last ones to do. This is the law “On the Internet” and I would like to try to clarify what it is and what it threatens to ordinary users. I want to immediately note that as a source I will indicate mainly copyright.ru. I do not set goals to promote this resource and generally have nothing to do with it - it's just the most convenient way for him to find the necessary information on this topic.
The current full title of the draft law is “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in order to stop the infringement of copyright and related rights in information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, but I will call it briefly“ On the Internet ” . It should be immediately noted that attempts to refine the subject of intellectual property are made regularly, and often they always cause quite tough debates. For example, in 2012, quite a bit of noise was made by the bill №47538-6 "On Amendments to the first, second, third and fourth parts of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation". As for our today's “client,” the first conversations about him began last year, saying that the Internet began to play such a significant role that it was time to restore order. Initially, the amendments were planned to be issued as a separate law, and to formulate in it issues such as cybercrime, but over time, such an idea was abandoned - it was decided to simply amend the Civil Code and focus primarily on copyright and related rights. If we talk about the format of the introduced norms, then the correctness of the decision is obvious: copyrights themselves are already too complicated, and highlighting the particular manifestation of “work” with them into a separate law would be completely stupid. Such things themselves can not exist - they somehow have to work together with many other norms. It’s not just because the law “On Copyright and Related Rights” was included in the Civil Code.
The first more or less clear details about the law began to appear in January 2013, at the same time the first draft of the law was published, the essence of which was the obligation of the site owners to take at the request of the copyright holder or the provider’s notification a number of measures, including the removal of illegally placed objects of intellectual rights, blocking access through Internet to the object of intellectual rights, etc. The responsibility was provided for fines ranging from 3 thousand to 5 thousand rubles with confiscation of technical means or without for individuals and up to 500 thousand rubles for legal entities. The project was recognized unsuccessful and sent for revision. In February, it became clear that it was worth waiting for the new “outbreak” in the spring, and at the same time that the co-author, perhaps even the key, of the bill is Robert Schlegel, who, for a moment, was the author of the never adopted bill “On the responsibility of funds managers for slanderous materials. " At the same time, they started talking about some kind of “favorable business environment and legal platform for interaction between the state and society,” although at that time it was already clear that the concept of “interaction” when it comes to draft laws is an extremely amorphous thing.
')
It is important to note here that, in parallel with this bill, the initiative of a number of rightholders regarding the creation of a registry of “pirated” sites, like the Roskomnadzor’s “black list,” which I mentioned above, was progressing. It is worth noting that such ideas were visited by the minds of various people, but the latter was noted by the chairman of the Coordination Council for the Protection of Intellectual Property. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this initiative was also discussed in the framework of the draft law under consideration, but by itself “exists” separately from it and, due to a number of circumstances, is unlikely to be brought to its logical conclusion.
But what will change the law? In fact, they decided to throw everything at once here. In particular, just the other day the issue of creating a state interactive registry of intellectual property for the digital sphere was discussed. I will explain. This is primarily about the registry of works - programs, music, movies, etc. According to the plans of the legislators, thanks to such a register, the right holders will no longer have to independently contact the site owner - they will only need to include their copyright object into the registry, and all kinds of “vkontakte” will begin to clean up their sites themselves. Old as this world is an idea about which I have already written in my past articles: why bother with work, if you can make it so that others work for you. By the way, such a register was thought about last year, and the unsuccessful January bill was associated with it. Another rule touched search engines: they were asked to independently ensure that no pirated resources appeared in search results. It must be said that, in essence, such a duty lies with all search engines operating in the United States, but in this case the copyright holder is obliged to notify the resource that a link violates its rights. They also touched upon the issue of torrent trackers, in particular, about the responsibility of their visitors for the exchange of pirated files. In this case, it is worth noting that we are more likely to be talking more about the creators of the hands, and not about all the users in general. And "releasers", by the way, and within the framework of the current legislation can be brought to responsibility, for example, under article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
To our joy, many of these ideas have already been subjected to harsh criticism and, quite likely, will be either seriously refined or completely excluded from the bill.
Even more ridiculous was the situation with the interaction of legislators and the community. Initially, the project was developed, to put it mildly, by persons who understand little what the Internet itself is. And only on May 29, it became known that it was decided to start interacting with individuals directly related to the industry - Yandex, Google and others. It has to be said that, directly or indirectly, this has already had its fruits: at the moment, the paragraphs obliging sites, in particular search engines, have been deleted from the bill, without any notice from copyright holders, rubbing links to pirated sites themselves.
But the most interesting to me personally is the comparison of the bill with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - the very law that everyone remembers when it comes to regulation of copyright in the United States. In a certain way, the law “On the Internet” can be correlated with the DMCA, but it is hardly worth calling it an analogue. First of all, for the reason that the State Act provides for not only the responsibility of the persons placing content, but also the obligations of persons requiring the removal of data that they believe are illegal. In particular, for unlawful demands, you can get a “return” in the form of a lawsuit. Nothing like this in our case is not yet provided. By the way, YouTube, for example, does not work in the format provided by the DMCA. Results on the face: almost every month there are notes about how, for muffled reasons, another video was deleted and another channel was blocked.
And, of course, it was not done without those who decided to play on the law. For example, State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin stated that he advocates a gradual, evolutionary growth of legal culture with a focus on international experience in this area and does not approve of hard decisions in this matter. Of course, the opinion of Mr. Naryshkin in this case is purely personal in nature and it is hardly worth saying that this person is able to drastically change the bill. Moreover, it is unlikely that the speaker has more experience in this matter than representatives of the same Yandex.
What about my personal opinion on the law? In a sense, all ideas are useful in themselves. They allow you to study in detail the current legislation, see the holes in it, try to find solutions. Another thing is how the study will be processed. You can fight mosquitoes with fumitox and newspaper convolutions, or you can burn out the whole house with napalm. It seems that the result as a whole and so and so achieved, but the effect of it is different.
The current full title of the draft law is “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in order to stop the infringement of copyright and related rights in information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, but I will call it briefly“ On the Internet ” . It should be immediately noted that attempts to refine the subject of intellectual property are made regularly, and often they always cause quite tough debates. For example, in 2012, quite a bit of noise was made by the bill №47538-6 "On Amendments to the first, second, third and fourth parts of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation". As for our today's “client,” the first conversations about him began last year, saying that the Internet began to play such a significant role that it was time to restore order. Initially, the amendments were planned to be issued as a separate law, and to formulate in it issues such as cybercrime, but over time, such an idea was abandoned - it was decided to simply amend the Civil Code and focus primarily on copyright and related rights. If we talk about the format of the introduced norms, then the correctness of the decision is obvious: copyrights themselves are already too complicated, and highlighting the particular manifestation of “work” with them into a separate law would be completely stupid. Such things themselves can not exist - they somehow have to work together with many other norms. It’s not just because the law “On Copyright and Related Rights” was included in the Civil Code.
The first more or less clear details about the law began to appear in January 2013, at the same time the first draft of the law was published, the essence of which was the obligation of the site owners to take at the request of the copyright holder or the provider’s notification a number of measures, including the removal of illegally placed objects of intellectual rights, blocking access through Internet to the object of intellectual rights, etc. The responsibility was provided for fines ranging from 3 thousand to 5 thousand rubles with confiscation of technical means or without for individuals and up to 500 thousand rubles for legal entities. The project was recognized unsuccessful and sent for revision. In February, it became clear that it was worth waiting for the new “outbreak” in the spring, and at the same time that the co-author, perhaps even the key, of the bill is Robert Schlegel, who, for a moment, was the author of the never adopted bill “On the responsibility of funds managers for slanderous materials. " At the same time, they started talking about some kind of “favorable business environment and legal platform for interaction between the state and society,” although at that time it was already clear that the concept of “interaction” when it comes to draft laws is an extremely amorphous thing.
')
It is important to note here that, in parallel with this bill, the initiative of a number of rightholders regarding the creation of a registry of “pirated” sites, like the Roskomnadzor’s “black list,” which I mentioned above, was progressing. It is worth noting that such ideas were visited by the minds of various people, but the latter was noted by the chairman of the Coordination Council for the Protection of Intellectual Property. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this initiative was also discussed in the framework of the draft law under consideration, but by itself “exists” separately from it and, due to a number of circumstances, is unlikely to be brought to its logical conclusion.
But what will change the law? In fact, they decided to throw everything at once here. In particular, just the other day the issue of creating a state interactive registry of intellectual property for the digital sphere was discussed. I will explain. This is primarily about the registry of works - programs, music, movies, etc. According to the plans of the legislators, thanks to such a register, the right holders will no longer have to independently contact the site owner - they will only need to include their copyright object into the registry, and all kinds of “vkontakte” will begin to clean up their sites themselves. Old as this world is an idea about which I have already written in my past articles: why bother with work, if you can make it so that others work for you. By the way, such a register was thought about last year, and the unsuccessful January bill was associated with it. Another rule touched search engines: they were asked to independently ensure that no pirated resources appeared in search results. It must be said that, in essence, such a duty lies with all search engines operating in the United States, but in this case the copyright holder is obliged to notify the resource that a link violates its rights. They also touched upon the issue of torrent trackers, in particular, about the responsibility of their visitors for the exchange of pirated files. In this case, it is worth noting that we are more likely to be talking more about the creators of the hands, and not about all the users in general. And "releasers", by the way, and within the framework of the current legislation can be brought to responsibility, for example, under article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
To our joy, many of these ideas have already been subjected to harsh criticism and, quite likely, will be either seriously refined or completely excluded from the bill.
Even more ridiculous was the situation with the interaction of legislators and the community. Initially, the project was developed, to put it mildly, by persons who understand little what the Internet itself is. And only on May 29, it became known that it was decided to start interacting with individuals directly related to the industry - Yandex, Google and others. It has to be said that, directly or indirectly, this has already had its fruits: at the moment, the paragraphs obliging sites, in particular search engines, have been deleted from the bill, without any notice from copyright holders, rubbing links to pirated sites themselves.
But the most interesting to me personally is the comparison of the bill with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - the very law that everyone remembers when it comes to regulation of copyright in the United States. In a certain way, the law “On the Internet” can be correlated with the DMCA, but it is hardly worth calling it an analogue. First of all, for the reason that the State Act provides for not only the responsibility of the persons placing content, but also the obligations of persons requiring the removal of data that they believe are illegal. In particular, for unlawful demands, you can get a “return” in the form of a lawsuit. Nothing like this in our case is not yet provided. By the way, YouTube, for example, does not work in the format provided by the DMCA. Results on the face: almost every month there are notes about how, for muffled reasons, another video was deleted and another channel was blocked.
And, of course, it was not done without those who decided to play on the law. For example, State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin stated that he advocates a gradual, evolutionary growth of legal culture with a focus on international experience in this area and does not approve of hard decisions in this matter. Of course, the opinion of Mr. Naryshkin in this case is purely personal in nature and it is hardly worth saying that this person is able to drastically change the bill. Moreover, it is unlikely that the speaker has more experience in this matter than representatives of the same Yandex.
What about my personal opinion on the law? In a sense, all ideas are useful in themselves. They allow you to study in detail the current legislation, see the holes in it, try to find solutions. Another thing is how the study will be processed. You can fight mosquitoes with fumitox and newspaper convolutions, or you can burn out the whole house with napalm. It seems that the result as a whole and so and so achieved, but the effect of it is different.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/284824/
All Articles