It seems that chief of ministry of communication (mincom) works independently of his office. As reported RBC, mincom believes current Russian tax legislation is sufficient for taxation of foreign internet companies and in order to implement any new taxation mechanism first of all a definition of internet company must be given. There is even mincom’s review concernign to this issue. It was made 1st of March 2015 by order of Russian president’s assistant Igor Shchyogolev, who is author of idea to receive more taxes from these companies.
Month: April 2015
As reported RIA Novosti, Russian ministry of communication (Mincom) considers opportunity to impose more taxes on foreign companies providing their clients residing in Russia with its services. The chief of Mincom believes foreign internet companies should pay taxes at the place where the end customer resides. And it is not about Google and Apple. It should concern all foreign companies.
The current EU rules allow these institutions to carry out preservation, indexing and similar copying operations (through a “preservation exception”), to allow for consultation of materials on their premises for research or private study (based on a “consultation exception”), and, in the case of public libraries, to make physical loans (allowed by a “public lending exception”).
User Generated Content (UGC) is understood as referring to cases where a pre-existing work is taken by a user as a starting point for his/her own expression, modified or transformed in one way or another, and then made available online. It may also include the merging of two pre-existing works (“mash-ups”). The threshold may be lower than “a certain amount of creative effort”. It excludes the case of “mere upload”, where a user merely distributes on the internet (by uploading and sharing it) pre-existing works without having intervened in any way on the work. It also excludes “creation from scratch”, i.e. the case where a user creates a new work “from scratch”, without relying on a pre-existing work.
EU directives provide for a list of exceptions to rights and are at a limited level of harmonisation. In most cases, Member States are free to reflect them or not in their national legislation. This, combined with the broad formulation of many of the exceptions has resulted in rather heterogeneous implementation. An exception present in the law of a given country may not exist in a neighbouring country or be subject to very different conditions.
Legislation in force before the decision
According to Article 17 of the consolidated version of the Law on Intellectual Property (Texto Refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual; ‘TRLPI’) ‘[t]he author has exclusive rights of exploitation of his works regardless of their form and, in particular, reproduction rights …which cannot be exercised without his permission except in circumstances laid down in this Law’, and by the following articles which extend that reproduction right to other holders of intellectual property rights. Article 18 of the TRLPI specifies that reproduction means: ‘the fixation of the work on a medium which enables communication of the work and copying of the whole or part of the work’. In accordance with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, Article 31(1)(2) of the TRLPI provides that works which have already been circulated may be reproduced without the author’s permission for ‘private use by the copier without prejudice to Articles 25 and 99(a) of this Law, provided that usage of the copy is not collective or for profit’.