June 16, 2017 at 06:26Laws and projects that will change the face of Russian IT. Part I
I’m doing this publication, because after the previous questions a lot has arisen: among different people and for different reasons. This post is intended primarily:
1. Violation of the secrecy of communication
Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation reads ... however, everyone who respects himself first of all, a citizen, must know, or at least understand, what exactly this norm says. And here are several projects at once, which, as I see it, violate its essence.
I noticed that many express one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction with these innovations as a comparison of the capabilities of citizens who are constantly being cut back and public authorities, which, on the contrary, only increase in volume, that is, the more open society becomes to the state, the more closed it becomes to the latter first thing .
2. Copyright and absurdity
I will say right away that I am a novice publicist and I understand perfectly well what it means to distribute on a torrent the book in which you invested, effort, time, even money. Perhaps for beginners and unknown authors this is even more good than harm. And yet - the absurdity that modern copyright advocates have reached goes beyond all possible limits.
And sometimes - in very interesting manifestations.
So, for example, a significant date will soon come: 07/01/17, to which we will return more than once. So: “according to the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 01.05.2017 No. 87-ФЗ to the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 149-ФЗ“ On Information, Information Technologies and the Protection of Information, ”from July 1, 2017 on owners Audiovisual services on the Internet will have the following responsibilities to control the content they distribute: ".
One of the last cases from paragraph 3 can be called this : “Match TV” won the first trial against Sports.ru in a lawsuit about fragments of FNL matches. I note that in this case we are talking about fragments of matches that are affectionately, but in the English manner, called highlights. It seems strange to me, but dura lex ... However, more and more people believe that "just a fool." And in this sense, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with its innovations of recent years - just draws a clear line.
Interesting, by the way, are the criteria of how, say, an online movie theater from YouTube is different:
I think the work of this law will be very interesting when the services of the http://bitrad.io format are fully operational . More precisely, they already exist, but there will still be a separate discussion about them.
And yes: all IR must be registered with Roskomnadzor. I think the analogy with the implementation of Federal Law No. 152 “On Personal Data” is obvious?
But copyright research does not stop at such research.
So, for example, there is a draft Federal Law N 198171-7 “On Amending Article 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”. In particular, “according to the bill, if the rights to the corresponding results or means of individualization belong to one copyright holder, the total amount of compensation for violation of rights to them, taking into account the nature and consequences of the violation, can be reduced by the court below the limits established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ... Moreover, in bill retained a general rule that if one action violated the rights of a few results of intellectual activity or means of individualization, the amount of compensation to determine tsya court for each improperly used results or means. "
Why quoted this law? Yes, because Art. 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was developed for quite some time, but in the end it was not brought to any intelligible wording.
And in this I see a global trend that can be described simply: on the one hand, the opinion of the public is increasingly not taken into account in the Russian Federation when drafting a particular law, but only in separate circles (as a rule, these are monopolies lobbying for these same projects or simply major players ) As a result, almost all projects have poor legal equipment, a low level of implementation at the level of law enforcement, and a complex procedure for proving in a trial.
I will explain the example below.
3. Online booking offices - absurdity on absurdity and absurdity drives before
- a short educational program
In my opinion, the problem of this law is that it, like, for example, the law of Yarovaya-Ozerov, was adopted in order to “replenish the treasury,” and only then they thought about what would happen after such strange measures were taken. And this is the second aspect of lobbying: where the opportunity for money is seen here-and-now, the industry is being regulated much faster, but a) the community also remains misunderstood and b) the legal technique goes not just to the second, but to about tenth plan.
As a result, we get that in 2018 simplified tax systems (UTII, patent, etc.) will essentially not be needed? Small business, in the regions in the first place, will have to work already from 01.07.17 with another financial, and most importantly, organizational burden, and the tax itself should already give a delay to thousands of “overdue” ones. Why? Because physically there is so much equipment, technical capacity, and even specialists in Russia today.
From the same category - just the law is higher: the norms contained in the creation of Irina-Alexei-Nadezhda-Victor were postponed more than once. Initially, even the dates 2019-2023 sounded. But the main thing is that nobody likes him: neither operators, nor citizens. A reasonable question arises: what about Art. 3 of the Constitution? However, at present, even the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not interested in this, what can we say about others.
4. Commodity aggregators - the continuation of the banquet
. Perhaps, I’ll start with the main thing: “representatives of the Internet business have already proposed adjusting the order, terms and conditions of the prepayment return on goods, they also ask that the aggregator review the user's requirement at least twice. And the term “commodity aggregators” itself also raised questions. ” For users, at first glance, this law is positive. But as I alreadywrote only at first glance.
Indeed, in fact it is:
And, mind you, I, as a lawyer, do not say that it is not necessary to regulate new areas, but they need to be regulated intelligently. Especially in the field of it, where, of course, technology is ahead of the regulatory framework.
Here are a few basic principles to help optimize this process:
Moreover, according to market observations from 2007 to 2017, that is, over 10 years, I can say that: in Russia there is a very large gray segment of the economy, which is surprising with the current form of STS in 6% (or even 1% , as it was, for example, in Chechnya, or as is the case with "income-minus-expenses" in case of losses). After all, physical. persons, say, when selling goods or services also pay aggregators%. But then they pay for the withdrawal. Or, for example, take the cryptosphere - there exchange offices charge up to 10-15%, which, in principle, is higher than taxes. Why is that? Because having paid the state once, a person remains unsure: suddenly, something is framed is not correct? Is something listed a day later? Something new that we don’t know ...
With all this, every year in the it sector (and not only) there are more and more people who are confident that “nothing can be changed”. Globally, it is possible and yes, but locally it is not, and a critical number of locales always leads to the creation of special zones, no matter how, again, this may sound in Russian. On the other hand, the state needs to understand that today an alternative, global, economy is being formed, and therefore opposition to such trends as openness and decentralization can very soon end badly.
I think for now I will dwell on this, since the main message of the article is to show that in reality we are not using today even a fraction of the possibilities that exist in the development of complex bills (and even simple ones).
PS At the end - an appeal to the read:If you know projects that are worthy of attention, write below. I’ll try to study and discuss: at least we can attract attention (as was the case with the Bitcoin laws) and prevent the most black trends from coming true.
UPD. Very much about VPN & TOR from Roskomnadzor.
- To help novice colleagues who are just starting their way in it-jurisprudence (the name is very conditional);
- To tell those who work in IT, what and when is waiting for them;
- Leave an online note about what I think about this I am here-and-now, in 2017. or even earlier;
- To acquaint the apologists of “tough state regulation” with a different view of the law, which is the connecting link between managers and managed;
- To tell subscribers (of which there are not many) and regular readers (there are already several hundred of them) about how I see positive opportunities in the law-making of the it sector.
1. Violation of the secrecy of communication
Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation reads ... however, everyone who respects himself first of all, a citizen, must know, or at least understand, what exactly this norm says. And here are several projects at once, which, as I see it, violate its essence.
- The locks of Roskomnadzor, the material can be found here , here and, of course, on the Roskomsvoboda website ;
- VPN / TOR / Proxy restriction ;
- And also the law, which has already passed the first reading (quickly, as always) - “on messengers”.
I noticed that many express one of the main reasons for dissatisfaction with these innovations as a comparison of the capabilities of citizens who are constantly being cut back and public authorities, which, on the contrary, only increase in volume, that is, the more open society becomes to the state, the more closed it becomes to the latter first thing .
2. Copyright and absurdity
I will say right away that I am a novice publicist and I understand perfectly well what it means to distribute on a torrent the book in which you invested, effort, time, even money. Perhaps for beginners and unknown authors this is even more good than harm. And yet - the absurdity that modern copyright advocates have reached goes beyond all possible limits.
And sometimes - in very interesting manifestations.
So, for example, a significant date will soon come: 07/01/17, to which we will return more than once. So: “according to the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 01.05.2017 No. 87-ФЗ to the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 149-ФЗ“ On Information, Information Technologies and the Protection of Information, ”from July 1, 2017 on owners Audiovisual services on the Internet will have the following responsibilities to control the content they distribute: ".
- compliance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation governing the procedure for disseminating mass media
- preventing the use of the site for the commission of criminal offenses, the disclosure of secrets protected by law, the dissemination of extremist materials, materials containing foul language, etc .;
- preventing the distribution of television channels or television programs that are not registered in accordance with the law on the media;
- installation of special software to determine the number of users of an information resource.
One of the last cases from paragraph 3 can be called this : “Match TV” won the first trial against Sports.ru in a lawsuit about fragments of FNL matches. I note that in this case we are talking about fragments of matches that are affectionately, but in the English manner, called highlights. It seems strange to me, but dura lex ... However, more and more people believe that "just a fool." And in this sense, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with its innovations of recent years - just draws a clear line.
Interesting, by the way, are the criteria of how, say, an online movie theater from YouTube is different:
- the presence on the information resource (IR) of the functionality of placing, deleting and (or) editing by the user of the audiovisual works placed by him on the basis of a public user agreement;
- the presence on the information resource of audiovisual works posted by persons who are not its owners , on the basis of a public user agreement;
- distribution and distribution of films, including films, television films, television channels, television programs under contracts with their respective owners is not the main service of the information resource.
I think the work of this law will be very interesting when the services of the http://bitrad.io format are fully operational . More precisely, they already exist, but there will still be a separate discussion about them.
And yes: all IR must be registered with Roskomnadzor. I think the analogy with the implementation of Federal Law No. 152 “On Personal Data” is obvious?
But copyright research does not stop at such research.
So, for example, there is a draft Federal Law N 198171-7 “On Amending Article 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”. In particular, “according to the bill, if the rights to the corresponding results or means of individualization belong to one copyright holder, the total amount of compensation for violation of rights to them, taking into account the nature and consequences of the violation, can be reduced by the court below the limits established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ... Moreover, in bill retained a general rule that if one action violated the rights of a few results of intellectual activity or means of individualization, the amount of compensation to determine tsya court for each improperly used results or means. "
Why quoted this law? Yes, because Art. 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was developed for quite some time, but in the end it was not brought to any intelligible wording.
And in this I see a global trend that can be described simply: on the one hand, the opinion of the public is increasingly not taken into account in the Russian Federation when drafting a particular law, but only in separate circles (as a rule, these are monopolies lobbying for these same projects or simply major players ) As a result, almost all projects have poor legal equipment, a low level of implementation at the level of law enforcement, and a complex procedure for proving in a trial.
I will explain the example below.
3. Online booking offices - absurdity on absurdity and absurdity drives before
- a short educational program
- General understanding of the “need” of online cash desks
- Online cash registers and aggregators
- A new type of cash desk and first results
In my opinion, the problem of this law is that it, like, for example, the law of Yarovaya-Ozerov, was adopted in order to “replenish the treasury,” and only then they thought about what would happen after such strange measures were taken. And this is the second aspect of lobbying: where the opportunity for money is seen here-and-now, the industry is being regulated much faster, but a) the community also remains misunderstood and b) the legal technique goes not just to the second, but to about tenth plan.
As a result, we get that in 2018 simplified tax systems (UTII, patent, etc.) will essentially not be needed? Small business, in the regions in the first place, will have to work already from 01.07.17 with another financial, and most importantly, organizational burden, and the tax itself should already give a delay to thousands of “overdue” ones. Why? Because physically there is so much equipment, technical capacity, and even specialists in Russia today.
From the same category - just the law is higher: the norms contained in the creation of Irina-Alexei-Nadezhda-Victor were postponed more than once. Initially, even the dates 2019-2023 sounded. But the main thing is that nobody likes him: neither operators, nor citizens. A reasonable question arises: what about Art. 3 of the Constitution? However, at present, even the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not interested in this, what can we say about others.
4. Commodity aggregators - the continuation of the banquet
. Perhaps, I’ll start with the main thing: “representatives of the Internet business have already proposed adjusting the order, terms and conditions of the prepayment return on goods, they also ask that the aggregator review the user's requirement at least twice. And the term “commodity aggregators” itself also raised questions. ” For users, at first glance, this law is positive. But as I alreadywrote only at first glance.
Indeed, in fact it is:
- Increase opportunities for consumer terrorism (and, believe me, Yandex.Market will not be the first in the list of forwards);
- It will create another player in the market, where there are many players, and as a result, ordinary users will seek the truth even more and longer: an excellent example is SMS-authorization and the actions of mobile operators who themselves wanted to “pick up the whole market”, and as a result - Prevent ordinary customers from even storing money in regular banks
- Finally, this already raises many questions: what about bulletin boards? with decentralized services? double damages (however, this issue may be resolved)?
And, mind you, I, as a lawyer, do not say that it is not necessary to regulate new areas, but they need to be regulated intelligently. Especially in the field of it, where, of course, technology is ahead of the regulatory framework.
Here are a few basic principles to help optimize this process:
- Before the adoption of global regulation throughout the country (do not forget that we - the Federation and the regions are very different in economic and other parameters: for example, you can take the neighboring ones - the Irkutsk region and Buryatia, or even better Moscow and ...) testing is needed in a number regions. At the same time, testing should be stressful. Believe me, this helps in development and in law will also be useful.
- There should be a technological basis for evaluating bills (now there are petitions, but they go almost all after the fact, and the format is actually ignored by the authorities: for example, various petitions against the Yarovaya package collected over 500,000 votes and with 109 million voters this is not so small.) an indicator of 1,000,000 is comparable with entire regions: Smolensk region 813 926, Tambov region 867 229, Tver region 1 142 192, Tomsk region 764 671, Tula region 1 259 994, Tyumen region 1 052 983. And this is just a random sample. I think you should not remind what it means to Russia highlighted the opinion of one of the region (for example, in 1994)?
- Before adopting a specialized law, it is necessary to enable the market to function independently. What do we see today? I’ll take only two obvious examples: first we banned the cryptocurrency market with a letter from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation , and then we thought better of it. But in fact, for three years, the market worked only in a gray-black pattern. To whom was it profitable? Anyone, but not state power in the Russian Federation, because she received no taxes and projects that could pay these taxes. The second example is electronic money . Until 2012, this market lived and worked quite for itself (since 1998, when the WebMoney system appeared at the height of the crisis) As a result, Federal Law No. 161 was adopted in that edition, which was lobbied by mobile operators and banks. But in the end: did the state get it. power new income? In fact - no, because small players were closed, and from large people they went to crypto coins and foreign services. And this is a paradox: the more public authority wants to get by tightening the nut of standards, the less it gets .
- We have many technology parks in the Russian Federation (though which of them function is a separate issue). So why not test a number of innovations that are controversial at least there, and even under universal control: after all, there is a public discussion of laws (again, its development and influence is a question and a strong question), it can be implemented, respectively, already and at the application level. Moreover, Innopolis and others like him need to be developed, developed and once again developed.
Moreover, according to market observations from 2007 to 2017, that is, over 10 years, I can say that: in Russia there is a very large gray segment of the economy, which is surprising with the current form of STS in 6% (or even 1% , as it was, for example, in Chechnya, or as is the case with "income-minus-expenses" in case of losses). After all, physical. persons, say, when selling goods or services also pay aggregators%. But then they pay for the withdrawal. Or, for example, take the cryptosphere - there exchange offices charge up to 10-15%, which, in principle, is higher than taxes. Why is that? Because having paid the state once, a person remains unsure: suddenly, something is framed is not correct? Is something listed a day later? Something new that we don’t know ...
With all this, every year in the it sector (and not only) there are more and more people who are confident that “nothing can be changed”. Globally, it is possible and yes, but locally it is not, and a critical number of locales always leads to the creation of special zones, no matter how, again, this may sound in Russian. On the other hand, the state needs to understand that today an alternative, global, economy is being formed, and therefore opposition to such trends as openness and decentralization can very soon end badly.
I think for now I will dwell on this, since the main message of the article is to show that in reality we are not using today even a fraction of the possibilities that exist in the development of complex bills (and even simple ones).
PS At the end - an appeal to the read:If you know projects that are worthy of attention, write below. I’ll try to study and discuss: at least we can attract attention (as was the case with the Bitcoin laws) and prevent the most black trends from coming true.
UPD. Very much about VPN & TOR from Roskomnadzor.