What has been China's reaction to institutions it does not have any grip on? Come up with new substitutes. When the Holy Seat in Rome would not listen to Beijing it came up with its own version of this church, under the auspices of the Roman Patriotic Catholic Association. China even did not mind to intervene in the reincarnation cycle of dalai lamas by selecting a parallel dalai lama, read more here. Now the Chinese government does not agree with the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the prize to Liu Xiaobo, see here. Therefore it comes with its own Confucius Peace Prize and awarded it to Lien Chan. Read more here.
Richard Kuslan of Aziabizblog has a nice article about it, see here.
I was delighted to receive the learned paper of Charles R. Stone, published in the Marquette Law Review, Vol. 92, p. 199, 2008. It is called 'What Plagiarism Was Not: Some Preliminary Observations on Classical Chinese Attitudes toward what the West Calls Intellectual Property'. It has 32 pages and I read it in just half an hour. And a splendid half hour it was. In this paper Charles makes it plausible that the classical Chinese authors expected their readers to be erudite enough to know what and when they quote and how to interpret these often substantial quotes within the rest of the text. By comparing Chinese classical texts with a legal text that includes references to Supreme Court opinions and quotations, Charles gives his readers (especially the ones with a legal education) the chance to actually experience that the process of interpreting a legal text has in a way many similarities with interpreting a Chinese classical text, which is of course only possible if you have had a classical Mandarin education. Charles explains that in such a cultural environment, heavily influenced by Confucianism, Buddhism where the classical texts were made for the initiated, and communism, a different development of looking at intellectual property was inevitable in China. Gaining power from the dharani
"The reproduction of religious texts is uniquely appealing to Buddhists because it is a tenet of that religion that the copying and distribution of its sutras is a way to receive the blessings of its founder. The Buddha, it is said, once remarked, “Whoever wishes to gain power from the dharani [charms] must write seventy-seven copies and place them in a pagoda.” The underlying “religious motivation is . . . confirmed by the earliest printings of the dharani discovered in Japan and Korea.”"
Fascinating. Thanks Charles. Using the web as a pagoda here is a chanted version of (one of) the most famous dharani the Lotus Sutra.
The Confucius Institute online has already removed the copyrighted content of China Expat that was published unauthorisedly on its site. They want to talk with China Expat in the future to see whether they can start a partnership.
IP Dragon congratulates the two parties. End good, all good.
Read the Confucius Institute online's apology at the site of China Expat here.
Josh Gartner of China Expat asks himself the following questions: Why is the Confucius Institute Online Stealing Content? Referring to the content this institute unauthorisedly copied from China Expat, well documented on the site of China Expat.
The Confucius Institute, set up by the Chinese state to promote a greater understanding of Chinese culture. So is IPR infringement promoting a greater understanding of Chinese culture, asks Gartner again. Read more here.
Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, all countries that have not been communist and have cultures that are historically steeped in Confucianism, are evidence that Confucian doctrine does not have to be an impediment to the respect of IPR enforcement.
UPDATE: The Confucius Institute online has apologised and removed China Expat's copyrighted content from its site, read more here.
