Comparative Historical and Legal Analysis of Copyright Sphere Regulation

Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research


2017, Vol. 3. №2

Comparative Historical and Legal Analysis of Copyright Sphere Regulation

For citation: Khamadiarov A. A., Usmanovа L. F. 2017. “Comparative Historical and Legal Analysis of Copyright Sphere Regulation”. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 143-151. DOI: 10.21684/2411-7897-2017-3-2-143-151

About the authors:

Andrei A. Khamadiarov, Postgraduate Student, Civil Law and Process Department, Institute of State and Law, Tyumen State University;

Lyudmila F. Usmanova, Dr. Sci. (Jur.), Professor, Department of Civil Law and Procedure, Institute of State and Law, University of Tyumen;


This article aims to point out the main mistakes made by lawmakers in the copyright field during the last decade. The historical and legal comparative analysis of two similar phenomena, which had a strong impact on the copyright, is carried out in order to identify the modern condition of the legal mechanism regulating relations on intellectual results: the Internet and book printing. Its ineffectiveness is stated as a result.

It is notable that the main subject of criticism of the research is not copyright law, itself, but those ineffective ways of preventing copyright violation, which have been so strongly promoted by the legislator for decades.

Since the beginning of the electronic era, Russian lawmakers have been working tirelessly both on development of new copyright laws and on their continuous improvement. At first, the position of the legislator, expressed in the development of unique laws, aimed at protecting authors’ rights in the Internet, seems to be justified.

The ineffectiveness of the existing scheme is argued by the fact that there has not yet been a precedent of a truly effective prevention of spreading illegal content in the world practice. In other words, the sites are continued to be blocked, more and more law changes are made, but illegal content keeps to be spread. In addition, while posting such illegal controversial materials as, for example, drugs propaganda, usually does not find public support, copyright infringement has already become a cult.

Obviously senseless waste of time and resources, caused by the cumbersome archaic state mechanism, is not considered to be as a significant obstacle by the politics. The acquired experience allows stating the fact that the government is not able to impose its conditions in the Internet space. It can only “catch up” with progress.


  1. Babkin S. A. 2005. “Intellektual’naya sobstvennost’ v seti Internet” [Intellectual Property in the Internet], pp. 110-120. Moscow.
  2. VOIS. 2016. “Chto takoe intellektual’naya sobstvennost’? [What is Intellectual Property?]. VOIS, p. 3.
  3. Gavrilov E. P. 1984. “Sovetskoe avtorskoe pravo. Osnovnye polozheniya. Tendentsii razvitiya” [Soviet Copyright. Basic Provisions. Trends in Development], p. 27. Moscow: Nauka.
  4. Dzhefferson T. “‘Svet i svoboda’. Fragmenty iz knigi” [“Light and Freedom.” Fragments from the Book]. Edited by E. S. Petersen. (accessed on 1 April 2017).
  5. Zamakhina T. “Piratam razob’yut zerkala” [Pirates’ Mirrors Will Be Broken]. Rossiyskaya gazeta — Federal’nyy vypusk, no 7223 (57). (accessed on 1 April 2017).
  6. Kampaniya po reforme avtorskogo prava v tsifrovuyu epokhu “Vremya menyat’ kopirayt” [Campaign for Copyright Reform in the Digital Age “Time to Change Copyright”]. (accessed on 1 April 2017).
  7. Stallman R. “Peresmotr sistemy avtorskikh prav: obshchestvo dolzhno preobladat’” [Revision of the Copyright System: The Society Should Prevail]. (accessed on 1 April 2017).
  8. Falkvinge R., Engstrom C. 2012. The Case for Copyright Reform. The Swedish Pirate Party & Greens/EFA EP.
  9. Heckscher E. F. 1953. “Merkantilismen”, p. 159.
  10. Hoffner E. 2010. “Geschichte und Wesen des Urheberrechts”, p. 249.
  11. La Rue F. 2011. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. United Nations. General Assembly, 16 August.
  12. The Stationer’s Company. About Us. (accessed on 1 April 2017).