Since the Russian Internet service provider withdrew responsibility for kontrafakta.

The Supreme Arbitration Court (IAC) ruled that copyright holders should not make claims to the providers, hosting, and directly to the site owners. This Kommersant daily on Wednesday, December 24.
According to the publication, the Supreme Arbitration Court had questioned the possibility of Internet service providers liable for posting on their servers kontrafakta. Now the courts in each case to determine who owns the site, and whether the provider can control the content of the site.
Before the bureau examined the EAC, in its first practice on the responsibility of the hosting provider for posting on the Internet of pirated products. The suit was brought to a hosting provider CJSC Masterhost. On his website server is located zaycev.net, where you can download songs for free. The site says that "all the music on the server is presented solely for trial listening." The dispute arose from the fact that zaycev.net songs have been posted to the music of Eugene Krylatova "Winged swing" and "far from perfect" and "Alexander" from the movie "Moscow does not believe in tears," wrote the music to which Sergei Nikitin.
The lawsuit has submitted in February 2007, Ltd. "The content and the right", which received the 2005 treaty with the composers the exclusive right to use the songs. The plaintiff demanded to recover from "Masterhosta" 200 rubles compensation.
The Moscow Arbitration Court in Moscow in November 2007 rejected the claim. The court concluded that the owner of the resource is zaycev.net LLC "Label", to which the claim is not presented. A Masterhost ", according to the court, provides its subscribers with only technical services, data transmission on the Internet and has no control over the content of information stored, published or distributed subscriber using the services provided."
However, the Arbitration Court of Appeal in February 2008 decided to recover from the "Masterhosta" 140 rubles compensation. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the counterfeit materials were on the server Masterhosta ", which was itself to publish information on the Internet. The ordinance states that "Masterhost" have not proved that the "Label" paid for technical services, the very same "Label" to find it was not possible.
In May 2008, of Cassation upheld the decision of the arbitral appellate court upheld.
December 23, the Bureau of you sent the case to a new consideration in the Moscow arbitration. According to the judges of IAC, formerly the courts have not yet determined who actually owns the site zaycev.net.
Kommersant said that the recent judicial community has proposed to recover damages or compensation, even with innocent violators, which could unwittingly be the same providers. The situation appeared in the ruling the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the EAC, on the intellectual property rights. Discussion ruling plenum scheduled for 15 January 2009.
Experts interviewed by the publication, believes that following the decision of IAC practice providers to justice regardless of their guilt can not arise.
"Each time the Court will have to sort out whether the provider had a technical ability to control the content posted on its server," - explained Deputy Director General of Law and consultation "Paul Monaco. A director of Mediamir (owns videohostingom smotri.com) Mikhail Gurevich argues that monitor placed on the hosting of content is almost impossible: "This will have to hire an army of moderators, who will check every piece." In addition, according to Gurevich, the moderators of the site are often unable to determine who owns the rights to certain content.
With regard to international practice, in October, an expert on copyright Andrei Mironov told "Lente.ru, which overseas common practice of applying the provisions of" Safe harbour "(" Safe Harbor ") regarding the providers or owners of the site with content created and uploaded users. The law gives the owners of the resource opportunity not to be responsible for the violations, which they did not commit. However, the provider would be liable if it had been notified of copyright infringement, but it has not taken to eliminate it.
Recall, in October this year VGTRK holding company filed a suit to Vkontakte.ru Mail.ru and the deployment of video without permission. Later, holding Mail.ru concluded with a settlement agreement.