This article is devoted to the study of the legal foundations of a transhumanist society. For the analysis, we selected the Charter of Transhuman Rights and the Transhumanist Bill of Rights. These visionary regulations are the joint development result by philosophers and legal scholars to streamline public relations related to the technological improvement of a person. The objectives of this work embrace the identification of approaches to the legal regulation of transhumanism, the legal qualification of the charter's and bill's norms, and the comprehension of their most important provisions.
The article is dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Russian Mass Media Law, adopted on December 27, 1991. This Law is proposed to be considered as innovative, which laid the foundation for a number of innovations in national legal science and legislative practice. Among these innovations are: the author's nature of drafting, consolidation of the thesaurus of the Law in a separate article of the Law, the establishment of a cumulative liability mechanism, etc.Over the next three decades, the Law has undergone numerous changes that have predetermined law enforcement practice. The article analyzes the trends of the ongoing transformation: the expansion of the concept of abuse of freedom of the media, expansion of diversity of types of mass media, etc. As part of considering the future prospects of the Law, the need is revealed to bring it into terminological compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Civil and other codes, to eliminate legal and logical defects formed in the process of its creation and subsequent adjustment.The necessity of the Law transformation into the Mass Communications Law is substantiated.
The modern stage of development of creativity is characterized by an increase in the manufacturability of this type of activity. The art of making popular music fits into this trend, highlighting its advantages and disadvantages most vividly. The peculiarity of popular music production is the repetition of standard expressive means, which have proven to be attractive. The copying of popular fragments and spectacular musical techniques became widespread, resulting in the formation of sound remix culture. Against this background, the number of disputes over the boundaries of legal borrowing of musical material has increased in the courts of the world. In the media sphere, examples of unlawful appropriation of fragments from popular songs that violate the rights of their composers, performers, and producers of phonograms are discussed. To resolve such disputes, specialized procedures have been developed in the world, the results of which are criticized. This article discusses various approaches to the legal qualification of copying musical material. The phenomenon of the formation of musical standards, repetitive elements, techniques, and clichés, which are proposed to be classified as unguarded musical ideas at the doctrinal level, is investigated. The methods used to establish copyright infringement, to identify the facts of unlawful appropriation of musical material, and significant similarity of works are analyzed. Our attention is drawn to the test of the unique quality of a musical work and its justification from the point of view of the principles of copyright. To make decisions on music copying cases, we propose to use data on the quantitative ratio of protected and unprotected material in the compared works, as well as on the sources of borrowing that can be obtained using computer music recognition tools.
The Covid-19 pandemic is forcing universities to switch to remote teaching, which not only has obvious advantages, but also poses serious threats in the conditions of the use of new information and communication technologies. Remote teaching guarantees no protection of any intellectual property items including the ones that belong to teachers acting as authors, as well as the works made for hire for universities. This also applies to the works created using the artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The establishment of the national system of legal regulation of public relations involving the creation and use of AI technologies requires comprehensive research, primarily in law and ethics. It will be possible to address the problem of algorithmization of intellectual activity avoiding robotization of the human creative process only through collaborative fundamental research.
Collisions between various methods of protecting intellectual property objects are relevant to the current scientific, theoretical and practical issues. The emergence of such collisions is due to the norms of the Russian legislation, which permits the cumulative protection of the same result of intellectual activity in the regime of a trademark, industrial design, copyright and others. This paper deals with generalized reviews of court practice. A different approach to collisions involving objects of copyright is proposed - proceeding from the materiality of borrowing from the copyright protected work.
The article examines the conceptual foundations of administrative amnesty as an institution of Russian Administrative law. The history of its origin, development and stagnation is revealed, the place of administrative amnesty among other types of amnesty is substantiated: criminal, migration, tax. Proposals are being formulated to consolidate the basic provisions of the administrative amnesty in the new Code on Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The article "The concept of "political activity” in Russian Law" is devoted to the discussion of controversial issues of modern Russian legislation on certain categories of legal entities and individuals, for whom participation in political activity on the territory of the Russian Federation is a mandatory feature. The concept of political activity is analyzed in relation to such subjects of public relations as political parties, public associations pursuing political goals, other non-profit as well as non-governmental organizations, foreign media, etc.
Handbook on Media Self-Regulation. 10th issue. From the «Third» Collegium to the «fourth». Renewal of objectives, permanence of goals and values. Edited by Ph.D. in social sciences Y.V. Kazakov and Doctor of Law prof. M.A. Fedotov. Moscow: UNESCO Creative Center, 2020.320 p. The tenth edition of the Handbook on Media Self-Regulation contains decisions made by the Public Collegium in 2019 – 2020, decisions of territorial collegiums on complaints against the press and materials of the annual conference of the Collegium (May 2020), within which the last meeting of the «Third» Collegium (2015 – 2020) was held and the results of the elections to the «Fourth» Collegium (2020 – 2025) were announced. The book contains a section dedicated to two innovative developments of the Collegium: the «new media standard», which was transformed into draft recommendations for a blogger, and the «media ethical mediation» model. The section «Reference materials and documents» includes lists of members of the new composition of the two Chambers of the Collegium and lists of organizations that took part in the elections of 2020, as well as regulatory and guiding documents of the Collegium itself, Russian and international journalistic unions, as well as two documents of the international network of media organizations SelfRegulation (SOMS), in which Russia is represented by the Public Press Complaints Collegium. The book will be helpful for journalists, editors, media industry figures, representatives of online media, bloggers, as well as tutors and students of journalism and law faculties. A special category of potential addressees of the publication is made up of those citizens and representatives of those organizations who, finding themselves offended by the publication, will choose an effective method for resolving an information dispute, but not destroying the foundations of freedom of speech in Russia and strengthening civil control over the media: an appeal to the institution of media self-regulation represented by a specific Russian self- and coregulation body – Public Press Complaints Collegium.
The book is devoted to the history of one of the main national human rights institutions in modern Russia - the Council of the President of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights and the preceding Commission on Human Rights of the President of the Russian Federation. Detailed interviews with the chairmen of the Commission and the Council - Sergey Kovalev, Vladimir Kartaschkin, Ella Pamfilova and Mikhail Fedotov - as well as with Council's members extended reader to get a complete picture of the organization and activities of this unique advisory body for the head of state, the essence of human rights activities, and the difficult path of domestic civil society development. The book is addressed primarily to human rights defenders, civil society activists, heads of NGOs, researchers in the field of social sciences, professors, graduate students and students of humanitarian faculties and universities.
The article provides a brief outline of the history of the development and the adoption of the first law in Russian history which had proclaimed and guaranteed freedom of the media, had banned censorship and had secured the rights and obligations of the journalists, including the so-called “relative immunity” of journalists and editors from the responsibility for the content of mass media. The article also analyzes the practice of applying this law and its significance for the formation of the Russian legislation on the mass media.
The article is based on the thesis that the unifi ed tradition of parliamentarism perception has not
decisively formed in Russia so far, as well as the unifi ed pattern of the interaction of the people’s representative body with the executive authorities. The splitting of the model into at least three different ones can be viewed as the result of the country contemporary political history with the not quite successful attempts of the constitutional reform. The author examines some of the key events of the last stage of this reform. Its results are assessed form the point of view of the condition of the representative body. The author tries to show the constitutional grounds for the Parliament “weakness” as per the Constitution of 1993. The author also reviews the legislative practice of the last two decades, in particular the evolution of the law on the Accounts Chamber and parliamentary investigations. Special attention in the article is paid to certain historical analogies: according to the author “the Monarchy of the 3d of June”, - the political regime that existed approximately from the end of 1907 and until the beginning of 1917, - can be viewed as prototype of the modern pattern of interaction between the executive authorities and the Parliament. The author also examines the possibility of supplementing the constitutional law with a number of more effi cient institutions of parliamentary control.
The article is dedicated to the research of legal aspects of human personality digitization. The issue of virtual individuals’ legal status depending on the scenario of their existence is considered. The role of copyrighted objects that are involved in the process of digitization of human consciousness are revealed. Particular attention is paid to the problem that arises at the moment of preparation for the digitization of person based on a physical predecessor. The problem of independence and security of virtual personalities from the point of view of copyright issues is analyzed. There are formulated conditions for the licensing of proprietary software and free software, ensuring the proper degree of independence and security of the digitized person. A proposal is made to develop a specialized license for proprietary software which is created for brains digitization. The analysis of licenses of free software and open source software for regulation of relations between the customer and the provider of brain emulation services has been performed.
The confrontation between the free media and the state, represented by its institutions, is a problem not only in modern Russia, but also in other countries. Somewhere this confrontation is long-term, systemic in nature, somewhere there are isolated, but nevertheless, acute conflicts. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on complaints brought by journalists and the media on violations of article 10 of the Convention are not only a remarkable illustration of such conflicts, but also reminder for national courts to ensure freedom of the media in accordance with domestic legislation and international obligations assumed by States. In the case of Skudaeva v. Russia, we can see a clearly defined legal position of the ECtHR in application of article 10 of the Convention regarding freedom of expression of opinion of a journalist, assessing actions of the authorities. In its judgment, the European Court stressed that national courts should seek a balance between freedom of speech and freedom of the media, on the one hand, and the right of a public person to the protection of honor and dignity, on the other hand. The court also recalled the importance of distinguishing between information on facts and the journalist's value judgments in connection with the possibility of further evaluation of the journalist's statements in terms of reliability. The court pointed to the need for increased tolerance of public persons to criticism, stressing that the activities of officials can and should be criticized. The Court also noted that the restriction of freedom of expression is permissible, but in all cases must be justified by national courts in accordance with the principles and standards of article 10 of the Convention. In fact, the European Court has pointed out to national courts that it is inadmissible to prejudge the circumstances of a case in which a public person acts as a plaintiff, especially if he or she has public powers. In such disputes, the courts should be mindful of the role of the media in a democratic society, and if a journalist raised a socially significant issue by criticizing the authorities, the courts should take the part of him or her, despite the fact that the authorities might feel derogated.