According to RBC Internet companies at the meeting in MinCom considered the idea of single registry of rights in content for its usage in internet. Among the participants at the meeting were internet companies, right holders and representatives of Mincom and Ministry of economic development. There was no representative of Ministry of culture who did not only uphold the Russian “internet tax” but also formulate it in writing. Participants decided to develop idea in working groups and make from this idea a draft law.
This option would entail the creation of a new legal act (internal market legal basis) which sets out absolute territorial restriction in copyright licence contracts (or in contracts on the transfer or the assignment of rights) may be null and void because of its effect on the free movement of services.
As reported RBC, negative opinion on Global License conception was presented by the deputy of Minister of Communication Alexey Volin. Volin named idea of Global…
Copyright law is relevant for UGC both because UGC creators are themselves potential holders of rights in a new work and because UGC can result from the re-use of pre-existing works protected by copyright. It should be noted that, while no precise definition of UGC has yet been established, the mere sharing of existing copyright protected content (“file-sharing”) does not constitute the creation of a new work. Nor does it imply a transformative use. UGC creators should be able to claim and exercise their rights as creators if they wish to, and they should understand the rules that apply to works that include parts of works that are the fruit of others’ creativity and investment. Right holders in pre-existing works should also be able to exercise their rights, as for any other use of their work.
No policy intervention. This option would consist in relying on the market to improve the availability of content online, on Member States to take full advantage of the total policy space available under the InfoSoc and other Directives, and on the courts, and notably the CJEU, to clarify provisions of the Directives relevant to the development of new uses and services.
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.
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”).