Freedom is worse than unfreedom
Background:  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  .
In the photo Dmitry Medvedev June 23, 2011 from the office of RIA Novosti uploads to Wikipedia for use on Wikipedia a photo under a free license. By the way, it seems that in this way Medvedev agreed with the CC license agreement and concluded it, and not just simple, but copyleft.
On February 5, 2012, a draft amendments to the civil code was published on the Portal of Russian Private Law , in which much was not taken into account.
Stanislav Kozlovskyreported that “the bill was in the Ministry of Economic Development, where they rewrote the first part. They didn’t touch the fourth part at all. ” “Accordingly, they published a version of the Civil Code, where the fourth part is no different from the monstrous April version. Although the fourth part already had instructions of the President, a working group worked in the Ministry of Communications, the Private Law Center worked, etc. Now, because of this, a terrible scandal has arisen and the fourth part is urgently rewritten before being sent to the Duma. They promised to take into account the amendments of VM-RU and RAEC. ”, He said.
2 months have passed. On April 2, Dmitry Medvedev introduced a bill on amendments to the Civil Code and certain legislative acts to the State Duma.
Well, let's see what was rewritten in the end and what was taken into account. To do this, compare my favoritesproposals from Wikimedia RU and RAEC with the text of the draft law published on the website of the State Duma.
The proposal to amend paragraph 2 of Article 1228 and to provide an opportunity to limit non-property rights - Medvedev has not been taken into account.
The proposal to amend paragraph 3 of Article 1229 and to enable it to manage its share in the exclusive right - Medvedev has not been taken into account.
Proposals for humanization under paragraph 6 of the ill-fated article 1233 (introduction of a sovereign suspicious alternative to public licenses) - Medvedev has not been taken into account. Left a monstrous option.
The proposal to make paragraph 2 of Article 1235 an explicit indication of the possibility of concluding contracts via the Internet is not taken into account by Medvedev.
The proposal under paragraph 1 of Article 1246 (on interest rates) - Medvedev is not taken into account.
The proposal under paragraph 4 of Article 1250 (on liability for violation of AP) - Medvedev is not taken into account.
Proposal for clause 2 of article 1260 (remove the site definition out of place) - Medvedev has not taken into account.
The proposal under paragraph 1 of Article 1266 (to enable the author to authorize a change in his work) - Medvedev has not been taken into account.
Proposal for clause 2 of Article 1269 (to revoke the right of withdrawal in connection agreements) - Medvedev has not been taken into account.
Proposal for paragraph 1 of Article 1273 (on electronic books) - Medvedev is not taken into account.
Proposal for Article 1276 (expansion of freedom of panorama) - Medvedev is not taken into account.
The proposal for clauses 3, 4 of Article 1286 (on the procedure for concluding contracts) - Medvedev has not been taken into account.
I did not check a couple of amendments of a clarifying nature.
So ... what is it? Flood and spam with the same bills? Maybe they didn’t even think about starting editing? (which is likely) So are they going to consider the proposals? Will they be corrected in the State Duma? In one reading? Because they already write that the deputies were so seized in one place that there will be practically no 2nd and 3rd. Um ... And when this bill here will be published unchanged as a law and will come into force, they will also say that it has been lying somewhere all this time, where we did not know about it and we will quickly fix it?
Everything, nothing more I will not write again give better links to the entire pre-history, where everything is said:
 ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , ,  ,  , 
Well, RBC news and discussions on the final amendments made to the State Duma:
But we still have freedom of panorama in the bill, though only for buildings.