Contradicts the constitution and aims to restrict the industry, says Roman Lukyanov from Semenov & Pevzner about the bill to regulate the video game market
Today, December 12, a bill was submitted to the State Duma titled "On the Activities of Developing and Distributing Video Games in the Russian Federation." We asked Roman Lukyanov, managing partner of the legal firm Semenov&Pevzner, to share his opinion on the project.
Roman Lukyanov
It's not entirely clear why this bill is needed at all.
Let's go through its contentious points.
Article 1 of the bill declares that it "defines the legal bases for the activities of developing and distributing video games in the Russian Federation and establishes limitations on these activities to protect the morals, rights, and legitimate interests of citizens."
The fact is, a video game is a result of intellectual activity. As of today, I'm not aware of any other intellectual property object for which a separate federal law has been written to "establish the order of creation and distribution." This wording contradicts the freedom of creativity, which is enshrined and protected by Article 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Let's move on.
The bill positions itself as aimed at supporting the industry, but its subject actually suggests otherwise—that it is aimed at restricting the industry.
Look, according to Article 3 of the bill, there are only three directions of state activity in regulating video games:
- determining support measures for development;
- establishing distribution requirements;
- supervising distribution.
It is crucial that the terminological framework in Article 4 is extremely raw.
Just as an example:
“Video game – a program for electronic computing machines, created in artistic, educational, animated, or other forms based on a creative plan, reproducing images, sounds, united by a plot, determined, among other things, by user actions.”
Firstly, only a small number of games are pure electronic computing machines. The vast majority of video games are multimedia products.
Secondly, the logical series apparently proposed for some future classification lacks uniformity: “artistic, educational, animated” is like saying “white, cold, deep.”
Thirdly, the term suggests that all games have a plot; here are two questions—does everything without a plot cease to be games? And second, what plot can an electronic computing machine have?
Overall, the same situation applies to every term in the text. For example, it is stated that “game property is a set of electronic data.” I think experts in civil law will be very surprised by such an interpretation.
Again, although the bill seemingly supports the industry, it is almost entirely devoted to a detailed description of restrictions. It stipulates:
- requirements for game distribution;
- requirements for game distributors;
- requirements for user identification;
- requirements for informing users about the game;
- requirements for expertise;
- and so on.
Meanwhile, most of what the bill proposes to regulate is either already governed by the more general provisions of other federal laws (the Federal Law "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection," the Federal Law "On Personal Data," etc.) or copied from similar norms aimed at regulating specific subjects (ORI, ABC, etc.).
Less than 10% of the text is actually related to industry support. Essentially, it’s one article fixing the forms of support:
- full or partial financing of video game development, other financial support;
- organization of training for video game development specialists, support for educational programs in specialties related to video game development;
- conducting scientific and analytical research on video game issues;
- providing tax and fee benefits to organizations involved in video game development in accordance with tax and fee legislation.
What do I want to say after getting acquainted with the bill?
In my personal opinion, the current version of the bill does not align with the goals of the Federal Law "On the Development of the Creative Industries in the Russian Federation" (to come into force on February 5, 2025). By the way, this Federal Law has an entire chapter dedicated to measures of state support for creative industries, which is much broader in content than what is found in this bill.
The bill either duplicates provisions of other already adopted federal laws, at times contradicts their content, contains a vague terminological framework, and essentially just creates additional barriers for the development of an industry that, frankly speaking, is not in its best shape. In any case, this bill, let's say, is unlikely to help the industry.
Just for comparison. In Korea, the Game Industry Promotion Act has existed since 2013. It contains 48 extensive articles (compared to our 13) along with various appendices. I think it is no secret how well the Korean game development industry is doing. So, just for comparison, here is how the subject of this law is formulated: the goal of the law is to promote the development of the national economy and improve the quality of cultural life of the people by developing the gaming industry and establishing a healthy gaming culture for the people by creating the foundations for the gaming industry and regulating issues related to the use of gaming products. I don't want to draw any conclusions, but it seems that such a goal is qualitatively more beneficial than "defining the foundation of activities and limiting activities for game development and distribution."