NNM-Club is at risk of blocking and preparing for it, while Rutor and Opensharing are illegally held in the Registry


On August 30, the Moscow City Court issued 2 decisions on the security blocking of the major NoNaMe Club Internet portal .
Both applications were submitted on behalf of Central Partnership Sales House LLC, which so far has not yet filed a claim under 187-FZ to any resource.

And now, through the usual "stars" in the text of the decisions, the links to the new goal of the so-called copyright holders:

Заявление ООО «Централ Партнершип Сейлз Хаус» о принятии предварительных обеспечительных мер , направленных на обеспечение защиты прав лицензиата, полученных им на основании исключительной лицензии, на аудиовизуальные произведения: «Легнда №17», «Легенды о круге», «Марафон», «Пять невест», «О чем молчат девушки», «Ликвидация» , размещенные на сайте информационно — телекоммуникационной сети «Интернет» *** – удовлетворить.

Обязать Федеральную службу по надзору в сфере связи , информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций и иных лиц прекратить создание технических условий , обеспечивающих размещение, распространение и иное использование аудиовизуальных произведений: «Легнда №17», «Легенды о круге», «Марафон», «Пять невест», «О чем молчат девушки», «Ликвидация» на сайте информационно-телекоммуникационной сети «Интернет» *** .
Установить процессуальный срок продолжительностью пятнадцать дней со дня вынесения настоящего определения для подачи ООО «Централ Партнершип Сейлз Хаус» искового заявления по требованию, в связи с которым судом приняты меры по обеспечению имущественных интересов заявителя.

A number of points should be noted:
1) It is not clear why, in relation to nnm-club, 2 similar carbon-copy decisions were made, containing the same errors.
2) How do you like the decision of the court, for example, an indication of which movie: “Le gn da 17”? In this form, this name was indicated 4 times in one text.
3) The Moscow City Court’s definition contains a link to a domain nnm-club.ru , but this is just a redirect to the current domain of the nnm-club portal:
According to the fact that the Moscow City Court made a decision, a wide discussion on what to do next began on the NoNaMe Club portal .
And magically, the July topic “ Preparing for site blocking ” appeared again on the main page , the heading of which gives explanations about 8 ways to bypass the block.
Although there is no official position from the portal yet, but I think this is a direct hint.

Similar topics were created on those resources that are already in the Roskomnadzor Blocking Registry: Rutor.org provides explanations about the " Recommended Methods for Bypassing Lockouts ", and the Opensharing.org resource also operates in the same way .
Also, I remind you that the latter clarified his official position on Habré

Again I want to draw the attention of Roskomnadzor that the term of interim measures for blocking begins from the moment a court makes a determination, i.e. in this case, with respect to NNM-Club - from August 30. And no matter what day the regulator will add this Internet resource to his Register, on September 14 he will have to exclude it from blocking if the copyright holder does not file a full-fledged lawsuit.

I also remind you that the deadlines for interim measures for those resources that are currently being blocked ( Rutor.Org and Opensharing.org ) have long expired (August 21 and 27, respectively), but they continue to be in the Register, which is sent by the operator to restrict access to resources.

Roskomnadzor still does not provide clarification on this score and ignores a clear definition of court decisions in accordance with the standards 187-FZ.
The facts of filing lawsuits by the plaintiffs-owners are not established. At least, the Moscow City Court does not provide information on this on its resource , neither in the GAS "Justice" , nor in the system of arbitration cases, these claims do not appear.

Based on:
" New Destination" anti-piracy "law - NNM-Club ",
" Why is not removed the interim lock? "
Preparing for blocking sites ”,
Information on blocking ”,
Blocking under anti-piracy law! ”,
Official position
PS If someone can provide information about filing claims from copyright holders to any of the above resources - then we will post information about it.

Only registered users can participate in the survey. Please come in.

What do you think, how should Internet resources do after decisions made by the Moscow City Court to block

  • 11.1% Must delete contentious content and links to it and no longer take any other public actions 303
  • 29.2% Must remove content, but at the same time try to challenge the decisions of the Moscow City Court and the actions of Roskomnadzor 797
  • 21.8% Must delete content, but at the same time provide users with information on how to bypass locks 595
  • 8.5% They should not delete content and they should not take any other public actions 233
  • 25.4% They should not delete content and at the same time try to challenge the decisions of the Moscow City Court and the actions of Roskomnadzor 693
  • 46.8% They should not delete content and at the same time provide users with information on how to bypass locks 1277
  • 2.6% Other, I'll tell you how to resolve the situation. 70