That’s the whole mechanism. And how do you feel about the idea of ​​expanding the scope of this mechanism to content, that is, to books, films and music? In the field of copyright, compulsory licenses as such have not been use for one simple reason: unlike patent law, it protects the form of the work, not the essence. In patent law, you cannot bypass the claims.  write your own better one; if you weren’t allowe to publish a book, find another one no less interesting. But now we are face with an unprecedentd situation when the right of ownership is use to seize entire layers of works of literature, art, and culture.

Thus, the main meaning

Intellectual property is violate – to promote the development of the cultural and technological sphere. Under such conditions, a compulsory license to copyright objects no longer seems unreasonable. The appearance of such a norm in the legislation  will be able to solve the problem of content circulation, as this is a kind of “landing” of licenses Pitcairn Islands B2B List without prejudice to the commercial interests of the copyright holder. Another important clarification: the introduction of the possibility of obtaining a compulsory license in the legislation does not mean that any content will automatically be “grounde” on the territory of the Russian Feeration.

There must be someone

But about a court decision that will be applie in each individual case. Let’s take a look at a specific example. Imagine a digital platform expects a certain amount of screenings of certain films, it has a distribution plan. Or, say, the theater has investe in staging a play Mobile Lead base on a work by a foreign copyright holder, scenery has been made, costumes have been orderd. And then suddenly the license is revoke. Accordingly, the one who investe in the platform, in the purchase of content or in the preparation of the performance, to put it mildly, “flies by.