Laws and projects that will change the face of Russian IT. Part I
I make this publication, because after the previous questions a lot has arisen: for different people and for different reasons. This post is intended primarily:
1. Violation of communication secrets
Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation reads ..., however, everyone who respects himself first and foremost, a citizen, should know or at least understand what this rule is talking about. And here - several projects at once, which, as I see it, violate its essence.
')
I noticed that many people express one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction with these innovations as a comparison of the opportunities of citizens who are constantly curtailed and public authorities, which, on the contrary, only increase in volume, that is, the more open a society becomes for the state, the more closed it becomes for the latter the first .
2. Copyright and absurdity
I will say right away that I am a beginning publicist and understand perfectly well what it means to distribute on a torrent a book in which you have invested, time, even money. Perhaps for beginners and unknown authors in this even more good than harm. And yet - the absurdity that modern defenders of copyright reach, goes beyond all possible limits.
And sometimes - in very interesting manifestations.
So, for example, a significant date will come soon: 01.07.17, to which we will return again and again. So: “according to the amendments made by the Federal Law of 01.05.2017 No. 87- to the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 149-“ On Information, Information Technologies and on Information Protection ”, from July 1, 2017 on the owners audiovisual services on the Internet will be assigned the following duties to control the content distributed by them: ".
One of the last cases from p. 3 can be called this : “Match TV” won the first trial against Sports.ru in a claim on fragments of matches of the FNL. I note that in fact we are talking about fragments of matches, which are affectionately, but in English manner called highlights. I see it as strange, but dura lex ... However, more and more people think that "just a fool." And in this sense, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with its innovations of recent years - just brings a clear line.
Interesting, by the way, are the criteria for how different, say, YouTube's online cinema is:
I think the work of this law will be very interesting when the services of the http://bitrad.io format are fully operational. More precisely, they already exist, but there will be another conversation about them.
And yes: all IRs should be registered with Roskomnadzor. I think the analogy with the implementation of the Federal Law No. 152 “On Personal Data” is obvious?
But copyright research does not stop at such research.
For example, there is a draft Federal Law N 198171-7 “On Amendments to Article 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”. In particular, “according to the draft law, if the rights to the relevant results or means of individualization belong to one rightholder, the total amount of compensation for violation of the rights to them, taking into account the nature and consequences of the violation, may be reduced by the court below the limits established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ... bill retained a general rule that if one action violated the right to a few of the results of intellectual activity or means of individualization, to determine the amount of compensation tsya court for each improperly used means or the result. "
Why quoted this law? Yes, because art. 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in Russia was developed for quite a long time, but in the end it was never brought to any intelligible formulations.
And in this I see a global trend that can be described simply: on the one hand, in the Russian Federation, public opinion is increasingly not taken into account when drafting a law, but only in certain circles (as a rule, these are monopolistic lobbying projects or simply major players ). As a result, almost all projects have a bad legal technique, a low level of implementation at the level of law enforcement, and a complicated procedure for proving in court proceedings.
Let me explain the example below.
3. Online ticket offices - absurd on absurdity and absurdity chases
First - a short educational program
In my opinion, the problem of this law is that it, like, for example, the Yarovaya-Ozerov law, was accepted to “replenish the treasury”, and only then they thought what would happen after taking such strange measures. And this is the second aspect of lobbying: where the opportunity to see money here and now is seen - the industry is regulated much faster, but at the same time a) the community also remains in incomprehension and b) the legal technique goes not just to the second, but around tenth plan.
As a result, we get that in 2018 the simplified taxation system (UTII, patent, etc.) will essentially not be needed? Small business, in the regions in the first place, will have to work from July 01, 1717 with one more financial, and most importantly - organizational burden, and the tax itself should give a deferment to thousands of “overdue”. Why? Because physically, so much equipment, technical capacity, and even specialists are not in Russia today.
From the same category - just above the law: the norms contained in the creation of Irina-Alexei-Nadezhda-Victor were postponed more than once. Initially, even the dates of 2019-2023 sounded. But the main thing is that no one likes it: neither operators nor citizens. A reasonable question arises: what about art. 3 of the Constitution? However, at the present time it does not interest even the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, what to speak about others.
4. Commodity aggregators - the continuation of the banquet
I’ll start, perhaps, with the main thing: “representatives of the Internet business have already proposed to adjust the procedure, terms and conditions for the return of the prepayment for the goods, they also ask that the aggregator at least twice consider the user’s requirements. Yes, and the term "commodity aggregators" also raised questions. " For users, at first glance, this law is positive. But, as I already wrote , only at first glance.
After all, in fact it is:
And note that I, as a lawyer, do not say that it is not necessary to regulate new areas, but they need to be adjusted according to the mind. Especially - in the sphere of it, where, of course, technology is ahead of the regulatory framework.
Here are some basic principles that will help optimize this process:
At the same time, according to market observations from 2007 to 2017, that is - for 10 years, I can say that: in Russia there is a very large gray segment of the economy, which is surprising with the current form of the simplified tax system at 6% (or even at 1% , as it was, for example, in Chechnya, or as it is with the "income-minus-expenses" in case of losses). After nat. persons, say, when selling goods or services, also pay% aggregators. But then they pay for the conclusion. Or, for example, take the cryptosphere - there exchange offices take up to 10-15%, which in principle is higher than taxes. Why is that? Because having paid the state once a person is not sure: what if something is done wrong? Is something listed a day later? Something new that we don’t know ...
At the same time, every year more and more people appear in the it-sector (and not only), who are sure that “nothing can be changed”. Globally - it is possible and yes, but locally - no, and the critical number of locales always leads to the creation of special zones, however, again, this may sound in Russian. On the other hand, the state needs to understand that today an alternative, global economy is being formed and, therefore, opposition to such trends as openness and decentralization can end very badly.
I think, for the time being, I’ll dwell on this, since the main message of the article is to show that, in fact, we don’t use even today any of the possibilities that exist when developing complex bills (and simple ones).
PS In the end - an appeal to those who read it: if you know projects that are worthy of attention, write below. I will try to study and discuss: at least we can attract attention (as was the case with the laws on Bitcoin) and prevent the black trends from being realized.
UPD. Very much about VPN & TOR from Roskomnadzor.
- To help novice colleagues who are just starting their way into it-jurisprudence (the name is very conditional);
- Tell those who work in IT, what and when they are waiting;
- Leave an online note about what I think about this here and now, in 2017. or even earlier;
- To acquaint the apologists of "strict state regulation" with a different view of law, which is the link between managers and the governed;
- Tell subscribers (of which there are not many) and regular readers (there are already a few hundred) about how I see positive opportunities in the lawmaking of the it sector.
1. Violation of communication secrets
Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation reads ..., however, everyone who respects himself first and foremost, a citizen, should know or at least understand what this rule is talking about. And here - several projects at once, which, as I see it, violate its essence.
')
- Roskomnadzor’s locks, the material can be found here , here and, of course, on the Roskomvobroda website
- VPN / TOR / Proxy restriction;
- And also the law, which has already passed the first reading (quickly, as always) - “about messengers”.
I noticed that many people express one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction with these innovations as a comparison of the opportunities of citizens who are constantly curtailed and public authorities, which, on the contrary, only increase in volume, that is, the more open a society becomes for the state, the more closed it becomes for the latter the first .
2. Copyright and absurdity
I will say right away that I am a beginning publicist and understand perfectly well what it means to distribute on a torrent a book in which you have invested, time, even money. Perhaps for beginners and unknown authors in this even more good than harm. And yet - the absurdity that modern defenders of copyright reach, goes beyond all possible limits.
And sometimes - in very interesting manifestations.
So, for example, a significant date will come soon: 01.07.17, to which we will return again and again. So: “according to the amendments made by the Federal Law of 01.05.2017 No. 87- to the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 149-“ On Information, Information Technologies and on Information Protection ”, from July 1, 2017 on the owners audiovisual services on the Internet will be assigned the following duties to control the content distributed by them: ".
- compliance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation governing the distribution of mass information;
- preventing the use of the site in order to commit criminal acts, disclosure of legally protected secrets, dissemination of extremist materials, materials containing foul language, etc .;
- preventing the distribution of TV channels or television programs that are not registered in accordance with the law on mass media;
- installation of special software for determining the number of users of an information resource.
One of the last cases from p. 3 can be called this : “Match TV” won the first trial against Sports.ru in a claim on fragments of matches of the FNL. I note that in fact we are talking about fragments of matches, which are affectionately, but in English manner called highlights. I see it as strange, but dura lex ... However, more and more people think that "just a fool." And in this sense, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with its innovations of recent years - just brings a clear line.
Interesting, by the way, are the criteria for how different, say, YouTube's online cinema is:
- the presence on the information resource (RR) of the functionality of placing, deleting and (or) editing by the user of the audiovisual works placed by him on the basis of a public user agreement;
- the presence on the information resource of audiovisual works posted by persons who are not its owners , on the basis of a public user agreement;
- placement and distribution of films, including films, television films, television channels, television programs under contracts with their respective owners is not the main service of an information resource.
I think the work of this law will be very interesting when the services of the http://bitrad.io format are fully operational. More precisely, they already exist, but there will be another conversation about them.
And yes: all IRs should be registered with Roskomnadzor. I think the analogy with the implementation of the Federal Law No. 152 “On Personal Data” is obvious?
But copyright research does not stop at such research.
For example, there is a draft Federal Law N 198171-7 “On Amendments to Article 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”. In particular, “according to the draft law, if the rights to the relevant results or means of individualization belong to one rightholder, the total amount of compensation for violation of the rights to them, taking into account the nature and consequences of the violation, may be reduced by the court below the limits established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ... bill retained a general rule that if one action violated the right to a few of the results of intellectual activity or means of individualization, to determine the amount of compensation tsya court for each improperly used means or the result. "
Why quoted this law? Yes, because art. 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in Russia was developed for quite a long time, but in the end it was never brought to any intelligible formulations.
And in this I see a global trend that can be described simply: on the one hand, in the Russian Federation, public opinion is increasingly not taken into account when drafting a law, but only in certain circles (as a rule, these are monopolistic lobbying projects or simply major players ). As a result, almost all projects have a bad legal technique, a low level of implementation at the level of law enforcement, and a complicated procedure for proving in court proceedings.
Let me explain the example below.
3. Online ticket offices - absurd on absurdity and absurdity chases
First - a short educational program
- General understanding of the "need" of online cash registers
- Online cash registers and aggregators
- New type of cash registers and first results
In my opinion, the problem of this law is that it, like, for example, the Yarovaya-Ozerov law, was accepted to “replenish the treasury”, and only then they thought what would happen after taking such strange measures. And this is the second aspect of lobbying: where the opportunity to see money here and now is seen - the industry is regulated much faster, but at the same time a) the community also remains in incomprehension and b) the legal technique goes not just to the second, but around tenth plan.
As a result, we get that in 2018 the simplified taxation system (UTII, patent, etc.) will essentially not be needed? Small business, in the regions in the first place, will have to work from July 01, 1717 with one more financial, and most importantly - organizational burden, and the tax itself should give a deferment to thousands of “overdue”. Why? Because physically, so much equipment, technical capacity, and even specialists are not in Russia today.
From the same category - just above the law: the norms contained in the creation of Irina-Alexei-Nadezhda-Victor were postponed more than once. Initially, even the dates of 2019-2023 sounded. But the main thing is that no one likes it: neither operators nor citizens. A reasonable question arises: what about art. 3 of the Constitution? However, at the present time it does not interest even the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, what to speak about others.
4. Commodity aggregators - the continuation of the banquet
I’ll start, perhaps, with the main thing: “representatives of the Internet business have already proposed to adjust the procedure, terms and conditions for the return of the prepayment for the goods, they also ask that the aggregator at least twice consider the user’s requirements. Yes, and the term "commodity aggregators" also raised questions. " For users, at first glance, this law is positive. But, as I already wrote , only at first glance.
After all, in fact it is:
- Increase opportunities for consumer terrorism (and, believe me, Yandex.Market will not be the first on the list of attackers);
- It will create another player on the market, where there are a lot of players and, as a result, ordinary users will search for the truth even more and longer: a great example is SMS authorization and actions of cellular operators who themselves wanted to “take the whole market”, and as a result - they do not even allow ordinary customers to keep money in ordinary banks;
- Finally, this already raises many questions: what about the bulletin boards? with decentralized services? double damages (however, this question may be solved)?
And note that I, as a lawyer, do not say that it is not necessary to regulate new areas, but they need to be adjusted according to the mind. Especially - in the sphere of it, where, of course, technology is ahead of the regulatory framework.
Here are some basic principles that will help optimize this process:
- Prior to the adoption of global regulation throughout the country (do not forget that we - the Federation and the regions are very different in economic and other parameters: for example, you can take the neighboring - Irkutsk region and Buryatia or even better, Moscow and ...) should be tested in a number regions. In this case, testing should be stressful. Believe me, this helps in the development and in the right will also be useful.
- There must be a technological basis for evaluating bills (there are petitions now, but they go almost all ex post, and the format is actually ignored by the authorities: let's say, different petitions against the Spring package collected over 500,000 votes and with 109 million voters this is not so little. General the figure of 1 000 000 is comparable with whole regions: Smolensk region 813 926, Tambov region 867 229, Tver region 1 142 192, Tomsk region 764 671, Tula region 1 259 994, Tyumen region 1 052 983. And this is just a random sample. I think you should not remind what it means to Russia highlighted the opinion of one of the region (for example, in 1994)?
- Before adopting a specialized law, it is necessary to allow the market to function independently. What do we see today? I will take only two examples of obvious ones: first, we banned the cryptocurrency market with the help of a letter from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation , and then we changed our minds. But after all, essentially, for three years the market worked only in a gray-black scheme. Who was it profitable? Anyone, but not the government in the Russian Federation, because no taxes and projects that these taxes could pay, she did not receive. The second example is electronic money . Until 2012, this market lived and worked quite well (since 1998, when the WebMoney system appeared at the height of the crisis). As a result, Federal Law No. 161 was adopted in the edition that was lobbied by mobile operators and banks. But in the end: did the state. power new income? In fact, no, because small players were closed, and from large people went to cryptomonettes and foreign services. And this is a paradox: the more the public authority wants to get, tightening the nuts of the regulations, the less it gets .
- We have a lot of technology parks in the Russian Federation (although which of them function is a separate issue). So why not test a number of innovations that are controversial at least, precisely there, and even under universal control: there is a public discussion of laws (again - its development and influence is a question, and a strong question), to implement, respectively, you can and in the application layer. Moreover, Innopolis and others like it to develop, develop and once again need to develop.
At the same time, according to market observations from 2007 to 2017, that is - for 10 years, I can say that: in Russia there is a very large gray segment of the economy, which is surprising with the current form of the simplified tax system at 6% (or even at 1% , as it was, for example, in Chechnya, or as it is with the "income-minus-expenses" in case of losses). After nat. persons, say, when selling goods or services, also pay% aggregators. But then they pay for the conclusion. Or, for example, take the cryptosphere - there exchange offices take up to 10-15%, which in principle is higher than taxes. Why is that? Because having paid the state once a person is not sure: what if something is done wrong? Is something listed a day later? Something new that we don’t know ...
At the same time, every year more and more people appear in the it-sector (and not only), who are sure that “nothing can be changed”. Globally - it is possible and yes, but locally - no, and the critical number of locales always leads to the creation of special zones, however, again, this may sound in Russian. On the other hand, the state needs to understand that today an alternative, global economy is being formed and, therefore, opposition to such trends as openness and decentralization can end very badly.
I think, for the time being, I’ll dwell on this, since the main message of the article is to show that, in fact, we don’t use even today any of the possibilities that exist when developing complex bills (and simple ones).
PS In the end - an appeal to those who read it: if you know projects that are worthy of attention, write below. I will try to study and discuss: at least we can attract attention (as was the case with the laws on Bitcoin) and prevent the black trends from being realized.
UPD. Very much about VPN & TOR from Roskomnadzor.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/331028/
All Articles