Dekuzu Posts

Russian Ministry of Communication can change its mind in relation to non-contractual collective management in Russia if the collective management organisation will work transparently. If there will be drastic positive changes good for right holders and if they mention it and speak out about, in that case changes in Mincom’s project are possible. According to Alexey Volin, deputy of Russian minister of communication, right holders don’t understand how royalties are distributed among them. The purpose of mincom’s project is to distribute collected royalties among right holders, but not to spend them as CMO’s operational costs. It would be right to reduce percentage the CMO leaves for itself. Volin could arrange about “greater transparency” with Russian Union of right holders (RSP) and All-Russian Organisation of Intellectual Property (VOIS).

In first case Moscow city court refused to consider appeal against permanent blocking of rutracker.org. This court affirmed decision against Dreamtorrent Corp., protecting exclusive rights in literary works. Person did not agree with permanent blocking and filed appeal. The court did not find reasons to consider this appeal. According to article 320 of Russian code of civil procedures decisions, affirmed by court of first instance, can be appealed under relevant rules. Only the party of case (claimant and defendant) or other persons participating in case have right to appeal court decision. Also appeal can be filed by person, even if such person did not participate in case, if the issue in relation to rights or obligations of such person has been resolved by the court in such case. Person, which filed appeal against permanent blocking of RuTracker.org, is not person participating in case. In a court decision of 9.10.2015 the issue in relation to rights or obligation of such natural person has been not resolved by the court. Therefore, under item 4, part 1 of article 135 of Russian code of civil procedures the court returns the appeal back to the person, who have made it, if such person does not have authority to file it.

Russian Union of Right holders (RSP) believes Hewlett-Packard owes almost 114 million Russian roubles. According to document preliminary sitting of the court will be on 19.02.2016.

Roskomnadzor has proposed to provide blocking of pirate resources on mobile equipment and pirate content in app stores. Some resources provide mobile versions of their web-sites which in certain circumstances allow users to circumvent blocking thanks to technical features of such mobile versions – believes Zharov, chief of Roskomnadzor. He proposed to form working group in order to develop proposition how it is better to fight pirate content on mobile devices.

The purpose of new system is monitoring and detection of illegal content in internet media. Currently this system works in test mode in 19 regions of Russia. During 2016 it must be implemented in all regions. This system automatically collects and analyses content of all internet media and detects content, which infringes Russian legislation. Analytical core of this system is in the general radio frequency center. Declared intention is to make a quality of internet media within the territory of Russian Federation better. System also analyses comments and forums, but does not monitor entire internet due to financial reasons – not enough funds for this global purpose.

As Aleksandr Zharov stated, about 15 most popular torrent trackers due to right holders’ endeavours are included in list for permanent blocking. Decisions to block sites are appealed. But he believes these sites will be blocked in 2016. According to statistical data 95% of citizens don’t use tools to circumvent blocking of websites, therefore their traffic will significantly down.

Draft law about right “to be forgotten” passed second reading in state duma. Maximum penalties for search engines were reduced. Now it is planned to impose one million roubles penalty instead of originally planned three millions.

Territorial restrictions and geo-blocking: digital content (copyright) (official)

Barriers to cross-border access to online content are often based on the territoriality of copyright and on licencing practices. In the audiovisual sector for example, copyright licences are generally awarded for national territories on an exclusive basis. As a result, an online content service in one member state may not be able to legally deliver the content to a consumer in another member state. Even when right holders hold the rights for all territories or when service providers are granted multi-territorial licences, they can decide to distribute the content on a territorial basis, thus segmenting the market. Therefore, business decisions also play a significant role in the limited availability of content across borders.

In its complaint to Constitutional court of Russian Federation “Nokia” ltd. asked the court to admit as contradicted to Constitution of Russian Federation, including to article 4 (part 2), 6 (part 2), 8, 15 (part 1), 19 (parts 1 and 2), 34 (part 1), 55 part 3) and 115 (part 1), a following legal provisions:

item 1 of article 1245 “Remuneration for free reproduction of phonograms and audiovisual works for private purposes” of Russian Civil code;

Your browser does not support the video element.