The author analyzed the changes in the legal regulation of the institution of one-time monetary compensation for infringement of copyright and (or) related rights. The legal nature of the new compensation, its significance for judicial protection of infringed copyright and related rights has been studied; the latest case law on the application of compensation and its calculation was studied and analyzed. The article focuses on the problematic aspects of determining and proving the amount of compensation. Conclusions are made about the imperfection of the new legislative provisions, their terminological and substantive shortcomings that create problems in practice. The author emphasizes that the "new" compensation should be considered as losses in the form of lost profits, which are recovered many times over. This indicates the presence of penalty elements of this sanction. The determination of the amount of compensation should be based on the principles of proving the amount of damages. For this reason, "new" compensation cannot perform the function of simplified protection of copyright and (or) related rights. Thus, it lost its original significance as an alternative method of protection. The author believes that the establishment of a multiple amount of compensation depending on the form of guilt of the offender is not inherent in the institution of civil liability. This approach requires the development of a clear design for intentional and negligent copyright or related infringement. The author argues that the lack of uniform understanding and application of the new category of compensation requires improvement of regulatory wording. The conclusions offer recommendations for resolving inconsistencies in regulations.
The relevance of the scientific article is due to the changes made to copyright legislation, which established a multiple size of civil liability for violation of copyright and related rights. Such responsibility is atypical for civil law, since it provides for the dependence of its size on the form of guilt of the offender. In the doctrine of civil law and jurisprudence, the presumption of guilt in committing a civil offense is traditionally applied. At the same time, the measures of responsibility are aimed at full compensation for the harm caused, regardless of the form of guilt. Therefore, in civil law there is no normative definition of the forms of guilt. At the same time, in cases on the protection of copyright and related rights, the issue of proving the form of the offender's guilt acquires special significance. This is necessary to establish the basis for civil liability and its size. For this purpose, based on the study of scientific approaches to understanding the category of guilt, the author of the article formulated criteria for establishing a careless form of guilt in violation of copyright and related rights; the signs indicating the absence of guilt in the actions of the offender have been identified; the characterization of intent when committing a violation of these rights is given. The behavior of the violator, which is deliberately aimed at violating the rights of the copyright holder or deliberately ignoring his rights in order to achieve goals useful for himself, should be defined as guilt in the form of intent. The attitude of the subject to the harm caused to the copyright holder is legally unimportant. Intent should be established with respect to the behavior of the subject at the time of the violation, and not after its completion. The application of the criteria for the form of guilt proposed in the article is aimed at solving practical problems in law enforcement
The relevance of the scientific article is due to the changes made to copyright legislation, which established a multiple size of civil liability for violation of copyright and related rights. Such responsibility is atypical for civil law, since it provides for the dependence of its size on the form of guilt of the offender. In the doctrine of civil law and jurisprudence, the presumption of guilt in committing a civil offense is traditionally applied. At the same time, the measures of responsibility are aimed at full compensation for the harm caused, regardless of the form of guilt. Therefore, in civil law there is no normative definition of the forms of guilt. At the same time, in cases on the protection of copyright and related rights, the issue of proving the form of the offender's guilt acquires special significance. This is necessary to establish the basis for civil liability and its size. For this purpose, based on the study of scientific approaches to understanding the category of guilt, the author of the article formulated criteria for establishing a careless form of guilt in violation of copyright and related rights; the signs indicating the absence of guilt in the actions of the offender have been identified; the characterization of intent when committing a violation of these rights is given. The behavior of the violator, which is deliberately aimed at violating the rights of the copyright holder or deliberately ignoring his rights in order to achieve goals useful for himself, should be defined as guilt in the form of intent. The attitude of the subject to the harm caused to the copyright holder is legally unimportant. Intent should be established with respect to the behavior of the subject at the time of the violation, and not after its completion. The application of the criteria for the form of guilt proposed in the article is aimed at solving practical problems in law enforcement ; В статье россмотрены вопросы применения новелл авторско-правового законодательства, которые предусматривают кратный размер гражданско-правовой ответственности за нарушения авторских и смежных прав, что зависит от формы вины нарушителя. Проблема установления форм вины связана с отсутствием в гражданском законодательстве их нормативного определения, поскольку в доктрине гражданского права и судебной практике традиционно применяется принцип презумпции вины в совершении гражданского правонарушения. С целью разрешения указанной проблематики на основе исследования научных подходов к пониманию категории вины сформулированы критерии для установления неосторожной формы вины при нарушении авторских и смежных прав; определены признаки, свидетельствующие об отсутствии вины в действиях нарушителя; дана характеристика умысла при совершении нарушения указанных прав. Применение предложенных критериев направлено на решение практических задач в правоприменительной деятельности ; У статті розглянуто питання застосування новел авторсько-правового законодавства, які передбачають кратний розмір цивільно-правової відповідальності за порушення авторських і суміжних прав, що залежить від форми вини порушника. Проблема встановлення форм вини пов'язана з відсутністю в цивільному законодавстві їх нормативного визначення, адже в доктрині цивільного права та судовій практиці усталено застосовується принцип презумпції вини у вчиненні цивільного правопорушення. З метою вирішення означеної проблематики на основі дослідження наукових підходів до розуміння категорії вини сформульовано критерії для встановлення необережної форми вини при порушенні авторських і суміжних прав; визначено ознаки, що свідчать про відсутність вини в діях порушника; надано характеристику умислу при вчиненні порушення зазначених прав. Застосування запропонованих критеріїв спрямовано на вирішення практичних завдань в правозастосовчій діяльності
