The problem of access to a work can be solved by a compulsory license. To obtain it, it will be necessary to go to court and prove the groundlessness of the actions of the copyright holder. And the right holder still has the opportunity to prove that he intends to provide access to the work, but perhaps in some other way. By the way, this measure will also work in favor of foreign copyright holders, since decisions taken by them for political reasons often do not correspond to their own commercial interests. And so the owners of the rights to the content will be able to continue to receive money from our market. How does the presidential decree “ obligations to certain foreign copyright holders” correlate with this, which allows settlements with foreign copyright holders in rubles?
Of course, these decisions should be
Considered as a set of measures, because it is one thing to obtain the right to use, and another to fulfill obligations. And this applies not only to a compulsory license, but also to a huge number of existing agreements with foreign copyright Papua New Guinea B2B List holders. That is, settlement in rubles solves the problem of fulfilling obligations under all types of license agreements in situations where, for some reason, it became impossible to pay. Judging by your words, the introduction of a compulsory license is beneficial for Russian streaming platforms.
Then why are Russian video services
First, I would not generalize. Personally, I have not heard anything like this from any real representative of the video service. This private opinion was expresse by Alexey Byrdin, representing the Internet Video Association. In my opinion, such statements are either a kind of PR action, or the result of a delusion. Or maybe a too narrow view of the Mobile Lead scope of copyright. The appearance of a norm in the law cannot be considere the legalization of piracy, just as it cannot be considere that its appearance will automatically affect at least one of the market participants.