Social networks attract users with help of content. You can sign up to certain social network and enjoy with other users or community, similar to you, with content, sometimes original or very interesting. Why people use social networks? They can communicate with a phone or at personal meeting. They consume content, discover something new and spent their time with a meaning.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Social networks also are interested in users\u2019 content. Without content you, as a social network, will stay without audience and, consequently, without advertisers. Content in most cases is protected by copyright. Right holders monitor social networks but what they can really do? Block entire social networks? Require social network to monitor users\u2019 activity? It is impossible to achieve.<\/p>\n
Social networks in Russia under certain conditions are protected by some kind of safe harbor, provided in Russian law. They can be qualified as informational intermediaries (not ISP like in USA or other jurisdictions). If they \u201cjust transmit or host\u201d information, i.e. content like music, movies or images, they are not liable for copyright infringement, if such information has been posted without proper permission of relevant right holders, if they quickly react to right holder\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n
Since social networks in Russia are some kind of \u201cKlondike\u201d, where copyright infringements occurs very often, from most right holders\u2019 point of view. Right holders don\u2019t have opportunity to force social networks to monitor users\u2019 activity. Therefore they proposed to make social networks responsible for content, placed of posted without right holders permission, even if such content has been uploaded by user.<\/p>\n
Right holders believe the provisions of current Russian law should be revised in order to exclude safe harbor protection for platforms allowing users to publish or upload content, protected by copyright, without relevant permission of right holder. Russian internet companies don\u2019t like such idea. There is already provided optimal wording in law. Why to change it?<\/p>\n
It is not right \u201cto change this wording in that direction or another\u201d believes executive from Rambler company. Right holders must solve their problem in other way. They could raise media-competence of public and fight piracy at the stage when movie \u201ctravels\u201d from studio to cinema \u2013 believes<\/a> Rambler\u2019s executive.<\/p>\n Right holders also proposed to prohibit any advertisement on web-sites blocked under court order and provide liability for violation of such prohibition. If blocked web-site makes money on subscription, then payment providers must be forbidden to work with such web-site.<\/p>\n