Amending Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information” and Other Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Concerning Putting in Order Information Exchange Using Information and Telecommunication Networks
(1) The law requires that bloggers (owners of sites with more than 3000 daily visitors) refrain from using their blog for illegal activities, ensure correctness of published information, disclose their contact details, and comply with all applicable laws (electoral, mass media, privacy, defamation etc.). (2) Roscomnadzor is authorized to maintain a register of bloggers and request from hosting providers, bloggers and any 3rd parties any information that is required for the purpose of maintaining the register. (3) The law also introduces a concept of “organizers of distribution of information” (ODI), which are defined as those who “enable the receipt, transmission, delivery and/or processing of electronic messages of Internet users.” The definition is quite broad and may well apply to all types of intermediaries. (4)...
(1) The Law introduces new Article 15.3 to the Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection” (see below), which sets out the conditions for blocking access to a web site that contains calls for unauthorized protest actions or extremist activities. (2) According to the Law, Roskomnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecommunication, Information Technologies and Mass Communications), upon receiving an order from the Prosecutor General’s Office, can request that: (i) telecom operators block access for their users to this site with an immediate effect, and (ii) hosting provider of the site notifies the site owner of the alleged violation urging to remove the content.
Amending Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Concerning the Questions of Protection of Intellectual Rights in Information and Telecommunication Networks
(1) The law sought to strengthen the protection of motion pictures online and introduced amendments to the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure Code, and the Federal Law No. 149-FZ of July 27, 2006 “On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information.” It also introduced a general framework for intermediary liability for IP infringements (see more on art. 1253.1 of the Civil Code above). (2) Under amended art. 26 of the Civil Procedural Code, the Moscow city court, as a court of first instance, has an exclusive jurisdiction to consider cases related to violation of IP rights to motion pictures on the Internet, and can issue preliminary injunctions at the request of a right holder before a legal suit is filed. (3) Roscomnadzor is mandated to enforce such...
The Roskomnadzor is an administrative body competent to request telecoms operators to block access to website featuring content that violate miscellaneous pieces of legislation (see above) and competent to keep a special registry ("blacklist") where to add website that violate the law.
On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development and Other Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation
(1) Positioned as means for the protection of children from harmful content that contains information about drug usage, advocates suicide or describes suicide methods, or contain child pornography, the law created a unified register of web sites that contain such information. The register is administered by the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications (Roscomnadzor). The law introduced a blocking mechanism of such sites (by adding a new article 15.1 to the Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information”): Upon identifying a site with illegal content, Roskomnadzor informs the website's owner and a respective hosting provider; If the content is not removed within three days, the website is then added to the register, which...
At the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.
In this case, Kontent I Pravo claimed that its rights to copyright objects, uploaded by third parties on the website that was hosted on servers provided by Masterhost, were violated. Masterhost argued that it only provided web hosting services and thus should not be liable for mere storage and transmission of the content. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterhost reasoning that a provider should not be liable if it does not initiate the transmission or modify the content.