Official website of the President of Russia

Документ   /

The meeting took place at the Russian National Youth Library, Russia’s biggest library specifically targeting a youth audience. Mr Medvedev toured the library’s reading rooms and other departments before the meeting began.

* * *

President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev: Colleagues, we have a good opportunity today to discuss the state of affairs in the Russian section of the internet, and in the internet in general.

I don’t want to make any lengthy speeches. You all know the problems and possibilities better than anyone, all the more so as some of the internet community’s most prominent representatives are here today. I would like to hear your views, and add some comments of my own too.

As I see it, my job as President is to make hopefully the right decisions on regulating social relations in general, including in the internet. The internet is a very specific environment, however, and the minute we start talking about regulation people immediately start imagining that the state wants to get its hands on everything and establish the kinds of controls that exist only in some countries with rather specific systems. This is why before making any decisions on regulation we first have to discuss the issues very thoroughly.“The internet is a very specific environment, however, and the minute we start talking about regulation people immediately start imagining that the state wants to get its hands on everything and establish the kinds of controls that exist only in some countries with rather specific systems. This is why before making any decisions on regulation we first have to discuss the issues very thoroughly.“

”The internet is a very specific environment, however, and the minute we start talking about regulation people immediately start imagining that the state wants to get its hands on everything and establish the kinds of controls that exist only in some countries with rather specific systems. This is why before making any decisions on regulation we first have to discuss the issues very thoroughly.“

I simply want to get an idea of your views on these issues, and talk about other issues too, responsibility for published content on the internet, for example, and the very important matter of copyright, which is something I already began discussing with the people at the top. This is an issue I myself devoted a lot of study to in my undergraduate and postgraduate years, and while teaching law. I did not specialise in copyright and related rights, but as a specialist in civil law I lectured and held seminars on this subject. It is an area I am familiar with and is really extremely important for the future. The thing is, many people look at today’s developments and say they sound the death knell for copyright, while others see opportunities for taking a whole new approach to copyright, which will be regulated in completely new ways. In any case, the internet creates fantastic opportunities for the publication – and reproduction – of large volumes of information, and at the same time creates new challenges for regulating intellectual property rights. 

There are many other issues too, crime, for example, cases when the internet can be for good, and also turned into a rather sharp weapon. This is something that has been much discussed. We all realise that combating extremism, terrorism, and crime are very much relevant tasks in any case, no matter how we look at the situation.

That’s probably enough for a start. You are all well aware of these issues. If you allow, I propose that we give the floor first to those of our colleagues who want to deliver an opening message, and then we can have a free discussion of the various issues. The floor is yours.

* * *

There should be some kind of practical outcome from our meeting. I wasn’t just trying to be witty when I said that I specifically raised this issue at the G8 summit. The other G8 leaders were less interested in it than I am, for whatever reason. I stated that it was time for us to try to create the foundations for a future legal framework in this arena, for international regulation of copyright. Because the Geneva Convention and the Berne Convention are in the distant past.

* * *

”The internet creates fantastic opportunities for the publication – and reproduction – of large volumes of information, and at the same time creates new challenges for regulating intellectual property rights.“

Regarding copyright, you said it was an idea that originated from the notion of public good, of giving different people the chance to use information. I do not entirely agree.

But my understanding is shaped by my legal background. Let me remind you that the copyright model (which was later called intellectual property) was based on the model of absolute property rights, and that’s why people started using a similar term, although these are different things – a tangible medium and an intellectual product. Property rights are always based on differentiating what’s mine and what’s yours, on absolute protection from all other persons. Copyright was built on this same model. And for a certain time, this model was working, because there was a set of copyright holders. Copyright always included property rights, as you know, and non-property rights: inalienable, individual, non-property rights. When it could be used traditionally, the model worked. But as soon as electronic media and the Internet appeared, this entire theory was derailed. And now, the question comes up: is that how we should understand copyright? Because if that is how we look at it, as I said, then that’s not in the interest of public good – rather, it’s the idea of defending against all other persons. I am creating my product – it doesn’t matter how valuable or useful it is – I have written three lines (we are always given absurd examples), I have put something down on paper, and this is the copyright object. It was created and it exists. And to protect it, I do not need any government registration, as we know, in contrast to patent law and industrial property. I think that we will need to reconsider the fundamental approaches to this matter, not just the technical ones.

* * *

I am very interested to see what you will do. And if, for example, we are able to work out certain common approaches, then I would even be willing to share them at the next G8 summit. Because there’s no reason to be smug, not everything in the world is determined by us and we are not trendsetters. Unfortunately, the majority of the world’s most valuable works subject to copyright do not come from Russia – I mean, in terms of monetary value, since it is impossible to assess their real value, for obvious reasons. So they, too, need a push toward these matters.

* * *

”It was time for us to try to create the foundations for a future legal framework in this arena, for international regulation of copyright. Because the Geneva Convention and the Berne Convention are in the distant past.“

(On protecting personal data online) There are two approaches. I think that in any case, these two approaches will both remain online, competing with one another. The big challenge for a state – even the most democratic state – will still come down to controlling certain of these processes. Ultimately, nobody has eliminated the most egregious crimes that we see occurring online, including ones that are using Internet, and it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. The protective attitude, the protective principle will still be there.it was time for us to try to create the foundations for a future legal framework in this arena, for international regulation of copyright. Because the Geneva Convention and the Berne Convention are in the distant past.

On the other hand, the average individual’s goal or desire, most people’s inclination, generally leans toward maintaining their space and trying to give out as few personal data as possible. I proceed from the fact that this is natural for most people. Granted, some people seek visibility, but most of the time, they do not achieve it. Still, most people are generally inclined to want privacy. Indeed, the greatest problem is finding a balance. Naturally, I am concerned that in Russia, this balance might be thrown off in a certain direction due to our turbulent, complex history. But on the other hand, the other extreme is also dangerous. We all understand how things work and are all aware of examples of Internet use for unsavoury purposes.

How do we find that balance? First, we need to somehow seek it out. Second, this balance can only be achieved on a national scale, at least in the upcoming years. It is impossible to make it universal throughout the planet, because we are too diverse and the conditions are too different. Even if we take Russia, with all our complications and difficulties, and compare it to, say, China – these are different countries. Let’s compare another European nation – here, we will also see strong differences, at least for now. In this sense, the government will still need to find an individual answer to this matter. Incidentally, with regard to certain issues, we may not even look so bad compared to the global community, because we are not trying to regulate everything. After all, we have not reached that extreme. To be entirely honest, I can even take a small amount of credit for this, and not from my time as President (since obviously, it is easier for a President), but from the period when I was working in the Presidential Executive Office and in the Government, trying to strike down some of the more odious proclivities. The reason I bring this up is not because I think I’m all that great, but simply because this all depends enormously on the people who are making these decisions and how civilised they are.

<…>