Russian governmental experts found draft amendments to law “About information, its protection and informational technologies”, considering mirrors of already blocked pirate web-site in Russia as pirate resources, not suitable for implementation of such idea in practice.
Working group under Roskomnadzor developed draft law obliging search engines to exclude reference to mirrors of blocked web-sites from search results and providing responsibility of administrative character for communication operators who don’t comply with order to block web-site. Governmental experts believe draft law in its current version cannot be adopted due to “impracticability of requirements” and “incorrectness and ambiguity” of wording. Draft is not elaborated. It must be improved: its legal and substantial aspects are not accurate and suitable developed; amendments would cause only chaos in current order. For example means of circumvention and mirror-sites are completely different things and each of them has its own legal status, but under amendments they are regulated as the one and the same thing. Definition of mirror-site is too broad.
Actually experts believe this draft law is “dangerous for business”. “Draft includes “everyday” terminology into current Russian law, this terminology is defined incorrectly from technical and legal points of view,” – conclusion states. The draft sets up criterion, under which a derivative web-site must be operated by the same person (who operated pirated web-site) or by persons affiliated with person operating or operated pirate web-site; so any web-site reproducing or copying content of blocked pirate web-site, even partially, can be considered as derivative regardless of affiliation with blocked web-site or its absence.
Experts also assessed provision regulating obligations of search engines. The draft discriminates Russian search engines against their foreign competitors, because the last are outside of Russian jurisdiction and are not obliged to delete information about pirate web-site from search results. There are also not provided procedures for right holders to address communication operators, the last don’t have opportunity to verify documents and right holders would have opportunity for abuse.