The paper presents an overview of the new Russian law on eHealth and analyses legal issues concerning health information exchange and personal data processing in eHealth according to the Russian legislation
As rights holders, courts, and policy makers worldwide struggle with the question of copyright infringement and the potential liability of internet service providers (ISPs) worldwide, Russia developed – and subsequently abandoned – a proposal for the creation of a global license to be imposed on ISPs which would allow for rights holders to be compensated for copyright-infringing activities carried out through those ISPs.
Russia is not the first jurisdiction to look at a global license as solution to the wide spread of copyright infringements online. By analysing the Russian proposal for a global license, this article addresses the sustainability of such a model on a wider scale by analysing the legal implications this may cause. In this context, this article will address the Russian proposal's legislative history before moving into a substantive discussion about the synergies between legal justifications and merits of a global license.
Almost two years have passed since the adoption of the governmental program “Digital Economy”. However, as the texts of draft laws relating to regulation of data —the main asset in the digital economy —show, no holistic approach to its regulation has been developed so far. Instead, a fragmentary and chaotic approach dominates, with the main goals to ‘patch’ the existing legal framework and correct some extremes in law enforcement practice. At the same time, the massive usage of data in social life creates not only new business models and innovative solutions but also new risks, which cannot be adequately mitigated by using existing legal instruments of the analogue/offline age. Therefore, there is a pressing need for development of the concept of data regulation in the digital economy, which would reflect the core principles forming the future data governance framework. This paper represents an effort to provide such principles, based on the analysis of the existing experience of other jurisdictions and discussions at various forums.
This study concerns the use of crypto-currency with specific reference to the situation in Russia. A variety of such systems exist; Bitcoin, however, is perhaps the best-known example and will be used as synonymous with the concept throughout this article. Our findings not only show how the views of Russian government bodies are formed and developed, but also sheds light on the specific innovative methods which legal entities use for development of the economy. Consideration will be given to recent developments within Russia which has been more active than many countries in seeking to clarify the status of Bitcoin and providing for the regulation of the technology.
The paper focuses on various legal-related aspects of the application of blockchain technologies in the copyright sphere. Specifically, it outlines the existing challenges for distribution of copyrighted works in the digital environment, how they can be solved with blockchain, and what associated issues need to be addressed in this regard. It is argued that blockchain can introduce long–awaited transparency in matters of copyright ownership chain; substantially mitigate risks of online piracy by enabling control over digital copy and creating a civilized market for “used” digital content. It also allows to combine the simplicity of application of creative commons/open source type of licenses with revenue streams, and thus facilitate fair compensation of authors by means of cryptocurrency payments and Smart contracts. However, these benefits do not come without a price: many new issues will need to be resolved to enable the potential of blockchain technologies. Among them are: where to store copyrighted content (on blockchain or “off-chain”) and the associated need to adjust the legal status of online intermediaries; how to find a right balance between immutable nature of blockchain records and the necessity to adjust them due to the very nature of copyright law, which assigns ownership based on a set of informal facts, not visible to the public. Blockchain as a kind of time stamping service cannot itself ensure the trustworthiness of facts, which originate “off-chain”. Much work needs to be done on the legal side: special provisions aimed at facilitating user’s trust in blockchain records and their good faith usage of copyrighted works based on them need to be introduced and transactions with cryptocurrencies have to be legalized as well as the status of Smart contracts and their legal consequences. Finally, the economics of blockchain copyright management systems need to be carefully considered in order to ensure that they will have necessary network effects. If those issues are resolved in a satisfactory way, blockchain has the potential to rewrite how the copyright industry functions and digital content is distributed.
The use of data in society has seen an exponential growth in recent years. Data science, the field of research concerned with understanding and analyzing data, aims to find ways to operationalize data so that it can be beneficially used in society, for example in health applications, urban governance or smart household devices. The legal questions that accompany the rise of new, data-driven technologies however are underexplored. This book is the first volume that seeks to map the legal implications of the emergence of data science. It discusses the possibilities and limitations imposed by the current legal framework, considers whether regulation is needed to respond to problems raised by data science, and which ethical problems occur in relation to the use of data. It also considers the emergence of Data Science and Law as a new legal discipline.
This paper presents an analysis of Russian data retention regulations. The most controversial point of the Russian data retention requirements is an obligation to keep the content of communications that is untypical for legislation of European and other countries. These regulations that oblige telecom operators and Internet communication services to store the content of communications should come into force on July 1, 2018.
The article describes in detail the main components of the data retention mechanism: the triggers for its application, its scope, exemptions and barriers to its enforcement. Attention is paid to specific principles for implementation of content retention requirements based on the concepts of proportionality, reasonableness and effectiveness.
Particular consideration is given to the comparative aspects of the Russian data retention legislation and those applying in different countries (mainly EU member states). The article focuses on the differences between the Russian and EU approaches to the question of how to strike a balance between public security interests and privacy. While the EU model of data retention is developing in the context of profound disputes on human rights protection, the Russian model is mostly concentrated on security interests and addresses mainly economic, technological aspects of its implementation.
The paper stresses that a range of factors (legal, economic and technological) needs to be taken into account for developing an optimal data retention system. Human rights guarantees play the key role in legitimization of such intrusive measures as data retention. Great attention should be paid to the procedures, precise definitions, specification of entitled authorities and the grounds for access to data, providing legal immunities and privileges, etc. Only this extensive range of legal guarantees can balance intervention effect of state surveillance and justify data retention practices.
The paper is focused on the analysis of the problems that may be driven by mass tokenization of the objects of civil law, i.e. the creation of a digital representations of such objects in the form of a record in blockchain where the value of such objects is transferred subsequently by means of disposal of such tokens, which is a subject of separate rights to it. The paper outlines two core problems, which were inspired by recent legislative activities in Belarus and Russia: 1) a possible displacement of existing legal regimes of objects of civil rights by the legal regime of the token; 2) the problem of definition of the nature of rights to token (in rem vs. ad personam) as well as remedies for their violations. Provisions of the Belarus Decree “On the development of digital economy” of 21 December 2017 and drafts of the laws on blockchain and ICO, discussed in Russian Parliament and Government were taken to illustrate these problems.
The article analyses the main trends of Standard Essential Patents in European Union.
The President of Belarus signed a Decree No. 8 of 21 December 2017 on Development of Digital Economy in Belarus. This document among other things defines the legal regime of blockchain, cryptocurrencies, tokens, mining and smart-contracts. It defines the legal status of "operators of crypto-platforms" and "operators of cryptocurrency exchanges". The Decree provides definitions, taxation, application of other legislative provisions to the transactions based on blockchain.
This commentary focuses on analysis of the blockchain/cryptocurrency related aspects of the decree, specifically on: • Sphere of its application (geographical scope and personal jurisdiction) • Terminology used • Legal status of the parties to the transactions • Peculiarities of public-law regime of transactions (taxation, currency control, AML/CFT provisions)
The paper is focused on the analysis of possible ways of improvement of existing personal data legislation in order to eliminate unreasonable barriers to the implementation of Big Data technologies in light of associated risks: data leaks, improper use of data, processing of imprecise data, and discriminatory practices. The author criticizes legislative initiatives to liberalize collection processing and aggregation of user data in social networks and other publicly available data by exempting it from the existing regulatory framework for data protection. It is argued that adequate protection of privacy rights of internet users is necessary, since user data is a continuation of personality in digital area and any non-controlled use of it by commercial companies may lead to loss of trust in online services and dictatorship of data.
The paper is focused on the analysis of the problems that may be driven by mass tokenization of the objects of civil law, i.e. creation of a digital representation of such object in the form of a record in blockchain where the value of such object is transferred subsequently by means of disposal of such token, which is a subject of separate rights to it. There are three problems outlined in the paper: 1) a possible displacement of existing legal regimes of objects of civil rights by the legal regime of the token; 2) the problem of definition of the nature of rights to token (in rem vs. in personam) as well as remedies for their violations; and 3) privacy issues associated with the growth of metadata relating to performed transactions, and resulting from mass tokenization and blockchainization of law. Provisions of the Belarus Decree “On the development of digital economy” of 21 December 2017 were taken to Illustrate the problems.
Management of intellectual property usually is very complicated task. Scheme of development of technology may serve as a very useful instrument, which may facilitate management of intellectual property substantially. In this article advantages of this instrument are discussed and main parts of this documents are described, etc.
Purpose. Rapid development of relations in the information sphere requires assurance of information security of the individual, the state and society. The adoption of the updated Doctrine of information security puts the interests of an individual at the head of legal regulation in this area, however, this legal institute still lacks of sufficient regulation in the current legislation. The article aims to examine certain aspects of information security of a person, some problems of terminology usage and classification.
Methods: methodological basis of the research constituted a set of methods of scientific knowledge: general sci- entific methods (materialistic dialectics), private scientific methods (systemic, comparative legal method, etc.). The paper investigates Russian and foreign normative legal acts, scientific works and international documents.
Results. The paper reveals crucial insufficiency in legal regulation of information security of a person. Research pays attention to the need of terminological development. Also, the paper highlights issue of interpretation of relations included into information security sphere. Author concludes that narrow technical interpretation limits the further de- velopment of the industry.
Discussion. The principles and ideas formulated in the work can be used in law-making activities in the field of in- formation security of a person, as well as subsequent development of scientific ideas about legal, ideological, techni- cal and methodological measures to ensure information security of a person.