Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
One famous Russian writer once has said: the rigor of the Russian law is diminished by their disregard. It should be added at the end “at all levels”. In 2017 in Russia it has been adopted a law on online video services. It is very rigorous. For example, if Netflix would like to operate in Russia it has to receive governmental approval. But the situation is not simple for Russian legal system and very lucky for Netflix, YouTube and similar services.
Comments closed
A few major Russian media companies – Gazprom Media, National Media Group and The First Channel – have taken off their online broadcastings from main page of Russian search engine Yandex’s due to piracy accusations. Media companies not alone in their concerns. Not so long time ago right holders in entertainment content have accused Yandex of piracy.
Comments closed
Russian Federal Antitrust Service (FAS) develops fifth set of laws for antitrust regulation in digital markets. FAS has determined what is monopoly in Russian internet – in order to be considered as monopoly the market share of “interchangeable services” must be more than 35%. But there is still no clarity what is market of “interchangeable services”.
Comments closed
The council on the development of the digital economy has proposed to guarantee the net neutrality by law. Under net neutrality the council understands the principle when internet providers are obliged to provide internet traffic from any web-resource (social network, online cinema etc.) without any limits or priority. Internet providers claim such law could negatively affect their business, including by way of excluding revenues from “tariff maneuvers”.
Comments closedRussian deputies believe they know how to improve the development of national film- and tv-show-making. They proposed to exclude any competition between Russian movies and tv shows and foreign – exclude foreign entertainment products from Russian television.
Comments closedThe media landscape has shifted dramatically in less than a decade. Instead of sitting in front of the family TV, millions of Europeans, especially young people, watch content online, on demand and on different mobile devices.
Comments closedRussian constitutional court has prohibited application of the similar sanctions for parallel import and for selling of counterfeits. One Russian company PAG has concluded state contract for supply to medical institution a special paper under Sony mark for ultrasound scan. Such paper Russian company has acquired from Poland company and imported to Russia. The customs has seized the paper under the order of commercial court of Kaliningrad province.
Comments closed
One company – Mars Incorporated – has registered the trademark for cat food in EU. The production of this company is sold and available in many markets, including Russian market. But this company is not only one trading cat food in Russia. There is also Russian company from Borisoglebsk town. This company also sells cat food in Russia. The ways of these companies in Russian market have crossed thanks to their trademarks.
Comments closedSony/ATV respectfully submits that the Consent Decrees should clarify, whether by amendment or otherwise, that each copyright owner (i.e., a music publisher) may, in its discretion, designate particular types of users or uses that the owner will authorize ASCAP or BMI (as the case may be) to include in their respective collective licenses, with the copyright owners exclusively reserving the right for themselves to license such rights to all other users or uses. ASCAP and BMI also should be required, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to accept these limited grants of public performance rights from copyright owners.
Comments closed
One Russian publishing house has registered a trademark depicting a Russian letter “Ф” in the form of globe. The sign means that the schoolbook complies with federal state educational standards. This publishing house has filed against another Russian publishing house for trademark infringement. The plaintiff asserted defendant marketed approximately 600 types of production (about 5 mln copies) with plaintiff’s image, depicting on cover, substantially similar to plaintiff’s trademark.
Comments closed