Unlicensed content is the most interesting thing in blogs. More than half of Russians do not know how to distinguish legal content from pirated content
State Duma deputies adopted draft amendments to the Civil Code,
which will allow you to fine anyone who downloads or watches it on the Internet
unlicensed content.
The State Duma on Friday adopted the law in the third and final reading,
aimed at strengthening copyright protection; relevant
changes were made to Part 4 of the Civil Code (Civil Code) of the Russian Federation. Reportedly
on the Duma website, 408 votes were cast in support of the bill aimed at tightening the fight against domestic piracy, 1 vote against.
With the adoption of amendments to Article 1273 of the Civil Code, it will now be possible to fine
everyone who downloads or consumes unlicensed content from the Internet
- even if they know nothing about its unlicensed nature.
The amendments approved by the deputies complement those contained in Article 1273
Civil Code norm on free reproduction of a work for personal purposes
with the words "if necessary". Making appropriate changes to the article
1273 now gives copyright holders the opportunity to claim
reward. However, the approved amendments do not specify under what conditions
circumstances of the work, including audio and video products,
may be reproduced for personal purposes without payment of remuneration, and if
which ones are not, reports Lenta.ru.
Because the law is general character, its effect extends
both on legal relations on the Internet and off the Internet. Applied to
the last adopted amendments mean that any user
downloading and playing content from the Internet may turn out to be
violator of the law. At the same time, according to Art. 1270 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, “record
works on electronic media, including recording in computer memory,
is also considered reproduction", and for recording into computer memory, as
known, you just need to go to the page with the content, notes
CNews.
The punishment for violating the rights of the copyright holder is serious:
a fine in the amount of 10 thousand rubles to 5 million rubles, or deprivation
freedom for up to two years.
Meanwhile, as Ruformator writes, to distinguish
pirated content from licensed on the Internet to simple
it is often impossible for the user. As an example, an online publication
gives examples of two resources - ivi.ru and Turbofilm.
Both can be seen video online about the same quality
images, but at the same time, notes Ruformator, ivi.ru, unlike
Turbofilm provides licensed content for viewing. Myself
the user, not having sufficient knowledge and skills, does not
distinguishes in in this case legally and illegally posted videos
from each other - for him it’s just videos.
The authors of the amendments to the Civil Code explain the application
new norms a necessary condition for Russia's accession to the WTO. However, how
experts note, the need is at least not obvious: WTO members
are different states - Sweden, which is very loyal to
pirates and France, where downloading unlicensed content can
lose the right to go online.
However, as the first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on
legislation Vladimir Gruzdev on the air of one radio station, amendments
will not affect ordinary users, but only those using the content in
commercial purposes.
"Certainly,
this will not affect ordinary people, this will concern violators,
system violators, people who are engaged in this business, because
that it really became a business. This, of course, will not be about
that if you suddenly record any program, then tomorrow you will
will be imprisoned,” REGNUM quotes the deputy chairman as saying.
However
A number of the largest Internet companies do not share the official’s opinion. So
as according to Google representative Anna Zabrovskaya, which cites
Vedomosti newspaper, wording
“if necessary” is too vague, opening up opportunities for
abuse and for unjustified pressure on users, which
may negatively affect the development of the entire Runet.
The deputy director also agrees with her Russian Association electronic
communications Sergey Grebennikov. In his opinion, it is necessary that
The Supreme Court clarified how the combination “with
necessary", otherwise people will simply be afraid to access resources,
at the risk of being sued by the copyright holder.
More than half of Internet users in Russia (55%) cannot distinguish legal content from illegal, 30% of sociologists surveyed distinguish pirated content from legal content, 15% found it difficult to answer.
Such data as reported "Russian newspaper", were obtained during the new research, conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) together with the magazine "Internet in numbers" .
The inability to distinguish “good” content from “bad”, sociologists believe, is due to the blurring of the concept of “legal” on the Internet and the lack of clear criteria for distinguishing between the two.
The main criterion for legal content, according to 27% of respondents, is its high quality. 24% are confident that the legality of content is indicated by the fee charged for access to it. 9% believe that legal content is that which becomes available after registration on a particular resource, 6% rely on intuition. 5% of respondents pay attention to warnings about copyright protection in links to authorship.
24% of Russians who took part in the survey are willing to pay for legal content. In their opinion, for a fee they will receive music or video more High Quality(29%) will take care of their safety (20%). 11% expressed their willingness to pay for content out of respect for the work of the authors.
In turn, those who are not willing to pay for legal content explain their decision by the high cost of content (40%) and the lack of difference between legal or pirated content, or simply an unwillingness to pay (18%).
Nevertheless, the authors of the study console us, 24% are willing to actually pay to view or download information - in absolute numbers this is approximately 13 million people. This is enough to create a large-scale market for paid content on the Internet.
Pirate downloading of resources from the Internet has become the norm of life for Russians
69% of Russians with Internet access are users of free online resources, and only 9% consider downloading films, music and other content on the Internet a crime. These are the results of a survey conducted by the Recruiting Portal Research Center SuperJob.ru .
However, Russians do not use free online resources to supplement their home collection of films and music because they want to annoy the state or take away hard-earned money from musicians, directors and producers. The reason is simple - it's free.
“We pay 1,300 rubles for the Internet. If you also pay for online resources, it will be too expensive”; “I only use them”; “If you look at it, these resources are not free, since you have to pay for traffic and electricity”; “Very profitable and convenient,” respondents comment.
Only those who don't know how to download don't download. And the government is to blame
Among fans of downloading free content men are more common (71% versus 68% among women). It is not surprising that our young fellow citizens under 25 years of age use such resources more often than others (78% versus 29% among Russians over 55 years of age).
31% of Russians do not use torrent trackers. Most of them either don’t know how to do it or don’t find the time to search necessary resources: “There is not enough knowledge to do this”; "I don't have time for this."
Crime free receipt Only 10% of Russians consider content from the Internet. Moreover, among users of torrent trackers there are 9%, while among those who do not use these services it is already 15%.
It is noteworthy that men more often than women believe that free download information on the Internet is a crime (12% and 8%, respectively), although they predominate among users of torrent trackers.
And even those who are confident in the criminal nature of such actions still call the main violators not the visitors of free online resources, but the state and government.
“Product prices are high, which is why people have to look for other ways to listen to music and watch movies”; "But I also think that getting people to the point where they can't buy licensed programs and films are also a crime”; “I don’t download, but I understand people who do it for profit,” they comment.
A program is being introduced in Russia that prevents downloading pirated films or music from the Internet.
A Russian company specializing in anti-piracy software has entered into an agreement with the Association of Television and Film Producers of Russia to create technology to combat pirates on torrent networks. As stated, by September 2011, copyright defenders will be able to block Runet users’ access to free movies, music and programs from the Internet. It is planned to paralyze pirate distributions using fake torrent clients. However, those who love the free dissemination of information will have an answer to this, experts believe.
The startup company Internet Content LLC, as part of its Pirate Pay project, will release for commercial sale a product that allows copyright holders to independently block the illegal distribution of copyrighted content on torrent networks or set their own price for its “distribution,” reports "Russian newspaper" .
The Pirate Pay project, the first mention of which appeared in mid-2010, is, according to its creators, “a unique solution in global practice to combat the spread of unlicensed content on the Internet.” In March of this year, the development company received a grant in the amount of 100 thousand dollars (about 3 million rubles) from the Microsoft investment fund, created in collaboration with the Skolkovo Foundation.
According to the company's general director Andrey Klimenko, some Russian and foreign copyright holders have already become interested in the product. "This is an independent project that we are developing on our own", he explained to reporters.
Unlike others existing models in the fight against web piracy, which involves tracking, prosecuting and punishing distributors of counterfeit content, Pirate Pay is focused on “preventative blocking” of existing illegal content and copyright protection for newly emerging content of all kinds: films, music, software, etc.
The essence of the technology is that special set technical means will allow the copyright holder to block access to his own film or music by creating large quantity"fake" participants in the file-sharing network.
They, communicating with real participants, will send them information about where the films and music they are interested in are located - but links will be given to pages with legal, that is paid content. The user can pay for and receive content for viewing or listening in a variety of ways.
Pirate Pay, according to its creators, will allow copyright holders to “enter into dialogue with all tracker owners, offering to effectively jointly distribute legal content.”
At the same time, for ordinary users, almost nothing will change externally. When the user wants to download the desired protected movie from a torrent tracker, he will see a “pay” button. If he doesn't pay, he won't be able to download the movie.
For copyright holders, copyright protection during film distribution will cost 300 thousand rubles per week, copyright protection for “small forms” - from 30 thousand rubles per week. Development Commission software will be up to 15% of the content sale price. How much will it cost to download a new blockbuster? to a simple user file-sharing networks are not yet known.
Pirates are ready for an arms race
Experts, however, doubt that online piracy will be stopped technical means, notes "Rossiyskaya Gazeta".
Firstly, distributors of illegal content, sadly enough, are one step ahead, and for almost every action related to copyright protection on the Internet, an “antidote” is immediately found.
For example, as soon as the copyright holder blocks the distribution of a pirated file, users of the torrent network will immediately create a new one, he suggested in a conversation with "Gazeta.Ru" Sales Manager in the corporate sector of G Data Software in Russia and the CIS Alexey Demin
In addition, the effectiveness of “anti-torrent programs” can be minimized due to the emergence of dozens of new resources or the spread pirated versions films in local networks, within which users of a particular provider can create their own catalogs with information available for download.
Finally, users of “closed torrent trackers” that do not use the special DHT (Distributed Hash Table) data transfer protocol will continue to download pirated copies of movies and music.
Secondly, fighting a file already posted on the Internet is fighting the effect, not the cause. A number of experts believe that the current law enforcement practice related to the closure and prosecution of both the creators of torrent trackers and those who download pirated content is much more beneficial.
Although measures such as requirements for the removal of illegal content, as well as prosecution of violators, do not yet work in Russian conditions.
Meanwhile, the issue of protecting legal content in Russia is more serious than ever. According to experts, about 50 million copies of films are located on pirated file-sharing networks and are open for downloading.
The battle between the social network VKontakte and record companies in the first round ended in victory for the latter. The court of first instance - the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region - found VKontakte LLC guilty of violating rights intellectual property"SBA Production" and "SBA Music Publishing" (Gala Records group of companies) on compositions by the group "Infinity" and singer Maxim. The court ordered Vkontakte to pay compensation in the amount of 220,000 rubles, partially satisfying the claim. Copyright holders asked for about 1 million.
Apparently, this may be the first time that VKontakte will pay for illegal content on its servers. A lengthy trial with VGTRK, which began in 2008, ultimately ended in the cancellation of the decision to pay compensation.
VKontakte’s line of defense was based on the fact that pirated content was posted by users themselves without the knowledge of the VKontakte administration. However, the court did not heed the defense’s arguments and found the social network guilty of “reproducing and making the compositions available to the public on its website.” The specific wording of the guilty verdict will soon be published as part of the reasons for the court decision.
Deputy General Director of Gala Records Olga Kim has no doubts about the fairness of the verdict. In an interview with Vedomosti, she explained that there is a lot of unlicensed content on Vkontakte servers, and users themselves do not have the opportunity to delete it: they can only delete the link to the composition from their page, but the pirated file itself is stored on the server and is available to others.
Based on the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 6672/11 dated November 1, 2011 in the ifolder case, the owners are also responsible for unlicensed content file sharing services, and social networks, if they do not accept preventive measures against downloading illegal content, initiate its downloading themselves, create technological conditions for copyright violations, or are passive towards violations. According to Olga Kim, social network VKontakte violated all these conditions specified in the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 6672/11 dated November 1, 2011
Courts should take into account the degree of involvement of the provider in the process of transmission, storage and processing of information, the ability to control and change its content. The provider is not responsible for transmitted information, if he does not initiate its transfer, does not select the recipient of the information, does not affect its integrity, and also takes preventive measures to prevent the use of objects of exclusive rights without the consent of the copyright holder.In this regard, when considering similar cases, courts need to check: whether the provider received profit from activities related to the use of the exclusive rights of other entities, which were carried out by persons using the services of this provider; Are there any restrictions on the volume of posted information, its availability for an indefinite number of users, availability in user agreement User's responsibilities to comply with laws Russian Federation when posting content and the unconditional right of the provider to remove illegally posted content; the absence of technological conditions (programs) conducive to the violation of exclusive rights, as well as the presence of special effective programs, allowing you to prevent, track or remove posted counterfeit works.
Courts should also evaluate the actions of the provider to remove, block controversial content or the violator’s access to the site upon receipt of a notification from the copyright holder about the fact of a violation of exclusive rights, as well as in case of another opportunity to find out (including from a wide discussion in the media mass media) about the use of his Internet resource in violation of the exclusive rights of other persons. If the provider fails to take action to suppress such violations within a reasonable period of time, or in the event of his passive behavior, demonstrative and public removal from the content of the content, the court may find the provider guilty of the offense and hold him accountable.
Considering modern development Internet, such a legal position can be applied when holding owners of social and file-sharing Internet resources liable.
Alexander M.
Alexander, to answer this question, you need to deal with the hardware - copyright.
Ekaterina Miroshkina
economist
Newsletters, electronic and paper books, online courses, photographs and texts have an author. Only he can decide how to manage the results of his work.
In law
With rare exceptions, you cannot do anything with other people's courses, books, photographs and texts, unless the author expressly allows it - to you personally or to everyone. If the author has not specifically forbidden you to distribute his book, this does not mean that he has allowed you to do so. If you don't have permission, haven't purchased someone else's work, or aren't citing it according to the rules, then you're breaking the law.
The absence of a prohibition is not considered consent
It doesn’t matter at all where you got these courses, books or photographs. It doesn't matter whether you sold them or gave them away for free. If the rights of the author or the person to whom they belong are violated, he has the right to seek compensation under the law.
The author determines the exact amount of compensation himself, and then it is approved by the court. Many authors take advantage of this and successfully protect their rights. Judicial practice confirms that for one photograph you can easily get 10 thousand rubles or even more, let alone a book or a large mailing.
On practice
The author has the right to demand compensation from you, but in practice this does not mean that he will demand it. Copyright protection is not automatic: there are no copyright police walking around the Internet checking to see if you've stolen anything.
For example, if you shared an album with an independent music group, its participants are unlikely to have time to run around the courts with you. But if you shared an album published by a large publishing company, then its lawyers can easily identify you and start the process. Large publishing houses have entire anti-piracy departments, and getting into their monitoring is not difficult.
Nuances
Let’s look at the nuances regarding the fact that you weren’t the one who stole the work and didn’t earn anything from it.
If the copyright holder finds out that you are distributing his courses, book or using a trademark, he can go to court. You will be responsible. And then it is you who must prove that you did not violate anything. In your case this is hardly possible.
And the copyright holder must prove only that he has rights - for him this is elementary. Moreover, the presumption of authorship is implied: the author does not even have to provide documents; his name on the book or mailing site is enough.
The fact of copyright infringement, illegal distribution of books, courses, mailings, lessons and photographs is an independent violation. It doesn't matter where you got them if it's illegal. There are nuances to acting in the interests of an agent or guarantor, but this is definitely not your case. Referring to an action in someone else's interest or out of extreme necessity is also unlikely to work.
Recently, the intellectual property rights court issued a landmark decision. A woman entrepreneur wanted to help her neighbor in the store. While she was away, she sold a disk with a famous cartoon to a buyer from someone else’s department. It was test purchase, and the disc turned out to be pirated. As a result, the copyright holder demanded money not from the one who actually purchased and sold counterfeit discs, but from the one who merely transferred them to the buyer, although he did not earn anything from it.
If you bought a pirated
Interestingly, even if you pay for pirated copy or a counterfeit product and you seem to become a bona fide buyer, this will not help you evade responsibility.
Bought computer program on a pirated disc and resell it - you are breaking the law. If you find a link to a copy of the book and share it for free on the forum, you are violating it. Even if you just wanted to help and transferred something that another person illegally downloaded, you also violated copyright.
When is it possible
You can use copyrighted works for personal purposes. For example, listening to music or watching movies at a family gathering. Although only you bought the disc, your family members, friends and guests can listen to it.
It may not be personal, but in strict accordance with the law and taking into account restrictions. For example, you can sing songs without a soundtrack at a concert at school or quote other authors in informational and scientific articles. You need to quote carefully: the author may feel that his rights have been violated and he will go to court.
Using examples
Situation. You bought an online course, archived all the lessons and posted the download link to the public.
Violation or not? This is a violation of the author's rights. If he finds out, he can demand compensation from you. Which one - he will decide for himself.
Situation. You bought a book and gave it to a relative to read.
Violation or not? This is not a violation, you are using the work for personal purposes. So it is possible.
Situation. You write a book review on a topic and use quotes or screenshots from the works of other authors. Indicate the source, the name of the author, and take small excerpts from the text strictly related to the topic of the article for the article.
Violation or not? This is a quotation. You can do this without permission and not pay anything for it.
Violation or not? This is a violation. It does not matter that you received this link from a third party. And that you didn’t make money from it is also unimportant. Distributing someone else's work without the permission of the author is an independent violation, and compensation may be demanded from you.
Situation. You buy online courses, e-books, lessons from newsletters, and then sell them cheaper.
Violation or not? If they prove that you made money from this, they may fine you and even confiscate your computer. There is also criminal liability for selling counterfeit programs, books or courses on a large scale. So it's serious.
Situation. You bought the program, honestly paid money for it, and did not just download it on a closed forum. But you knew that the program or the key to it was pirated.
Violation or not? You have broken the law. Even proof of payment won't help. The only chance to avoid liability is to prove the absence of guilt. The statement that you allegedly did not know that it was counterfeit is not an argument for the court.
There are many nuances in copyright law. This is a big and complex topic. But if you buy licensed programs, pay honestly for courses, subscriptions and books, and do not help others save money by violating the rights of others, you will not be in any danger.
If you have a question about personal finance, expensive purchases or family budget, write: [email protected]. For the most interesting questions We will answer in the journal.
