The National Copyright Administration has released the text of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (draft amendment) and solicited suggestions and comments from the public. Some well-known musicians have challenged Article 46 of the document, which provides for the "unauthorized use of recorded works by copyright owners." Some also expressed disappointment with Article 69, which states that websites "shall not undertake any obligation to censor information relating to copyright or related rights."
According to the 21st Century Business Herald
Copyright protection in China has always been weak, and pirated books and audio and video products have always appeared in people's lives, and now two more have been added - telecom operators and the Internet. People can access unauthorized works almost at will, pirates can make huge profits, and genuine copyright owners complain, but there is little they can do. The cost of defending rights is too high.
That's why the copyright law needs to be amended. It's just that some of the draft's provisions are disappointing. According to Article 46, the recording works can be used without permission after three months, and Article 69, the website does not bear the obligation to review copyright information, which in fact further reduces the rights of copyright owners and reduces the responsibility of infringers. Especially the website, the safe haven of exemption has been further expanded, and it can almost be "the people do not raise the official." In fact, it's a step backwards.
Some people analyze that this is the result of the balance of interests, indicating that the copyright law is also taking care of the interests of the Internet industry. If so, it only proves that the experts who wrote the law are on the wrong track. Copyright law should only protect the interests of copyright owners, why bother to protect the interests of infringers?
Websites can go public, they can get venture capital, they can charge users and advertisers, and they can make a lot of money. However, all this should be based on a certain amount of browsing clicks, and the data of browsing clicks will be built on the basis of content. However, a large amount of content on some websites, including text, music and videos, is simply obtained without authorization, and once someone accuses them, they either play the flag of "resource sharing" or play silly, saying that they do not know that they are not authorized, hiding in havens, and repeatedly escape responsibility. IT is not too much to say that the extraordinary wealth of some in the IT industry has been built on the theft and exploitation of millions of copyright holders.
The Internet industry is an emerging industry, the lack of law before excused, now amend the law, should have carried out further constraints, did not expect such a result, make the weak weaker, very difficult to understand. In this revised draft, although there is a clear and detailed concept, although the amount of compensation for infringement has been increased, although the intervention of administrative forces has been emphasized, but to the key place, there is such a strange provision, how can we not let the creator chill?
One can only imagine the consequences for copyright owners who do not receive further protection. Music companies (and perhaps publishing companies) find it difficult to operate, and works are used "without permission" at low prices or even for free, with impunity for a sentence where the author cannot be found or a sentence is not known to be infringing. Copyright owners can not get the minimum remuneration and can not live smoothly through labor. Over time, there will be fewer originators, and the number and quality of work may decrease. The final impact is bound to be the audience of the work, but also affect the website. But the consequences are likely to be obscured by immediate interests. Now some people in the IT industry believe in "technology first" and despise "content is king", which is somewhat related to this.
A law, what it encourages, what it prohibits, who it benefits, and whether it can be implemented, all need to be carefully considered by experts. At least one thing should be understood that the purpose of the new law is to make people's behavior clearer and simpler, rather than making things more confusing and complicated.