Showing posts with label Rogier Creemers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rogier Creemers. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

China's Influence On Non-Trade Concerns In International Economic Law

Maastricht University, Faculty of Law
Professor Paolo Farah organised with a grant from China-EU School of Law (CESL) in Beijing three conferences on China and Non-trade Issues. The first was held at the University of Turin (November 23-24, 2011), the second at Tsinghua University and the third was hosted by the Faculty of Law of the Maastricht University, the Netherlands, January 19-20, 2012.
Hall of fame at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law
The papers of the speakers presented will be collected in a book edited by Professor Farah called "China's Influence on Non-Trade Concerns in International Economic Law", will be published by Ashgate Publishing (UK), forthcoming in 2012. Beside the English version, there will be an Italian, Hungarian and Chinese version of the book, thanks to the CESL in Beijing.

Law scholars at Faculty of Law, Maastricht University
Professor Farah describes what non-trade concerns of international trade are and why they are of crucial importance: "Both public opinion and policy makers fear that international trade, in particular a further liberalization thereof, may undermine or jeopardize policies and measures on a wide variety of issues, for example, the protection of the environment and a sustainable development, good governance, cultural rights, labour rights, public health, social welfare, national security, food safety, access to knowledge, consumer interests and animal welfare." The list is not exhaustive and includes intellectual property rights.

Professor Paolo Farah
This author had the honour to present his paper 'Rise and Demise of U.S. Social Media in China' at the last conference hosted by the Faculty of Law of the Maastricht University. It is about how U.S. social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were cloned by Chinese social media sites, RenRen, Sina Weibo and Youku, then blocked from China, and then the Chinese clones got funding in the U.S. at the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ.

Speakers from right to left
Professor Anselm Kamperman Sanders, Arianna Broggiato, Danny Friedmann, Rogier Creemers
On January 19, the programme for experts included:
Professor Farah of the University of Turin and visiting scholar of Harvard Law School (East Asian Studies) and Professor Thomas Christiansen of Maastricht University, Political Science Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, discussed the EU External Action toward China on Non-Trade Concerns in International Economic Law.
Professor Thomas Christiansen
Sergi Corbalán, Executive Director of the Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO) in Brussels, was talking about fair trade and the new EU policies on Corporate Social Responsibility and Development.

Sergi Corbalán
Benjamin Barton of King's College of London, gave a presentation about the EU, China and international development.
Benjamin Barton
Professor Anselm Kamperman Sanders of the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University gave a presentation on China-EU Relations in the Field of Intellectual Property Law. He is not only Intellectual Property Law, Director of the Advanced Masters Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management (IPKM LLM/MSc), and Academic Director of the Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation (IGIR), but also Director of the Annual Intellectual Property Law School and IP Seminar of the Institute for European Studies of Macau (IEEM), Macau SAR, China.

Professor Anselm Kamperman Sanders
Arianna Broggiato, BIOGOV UNit, Université Catholique de Louvain, Centre for the Philosophy of Law (CPDR) talked about Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge at the Crossroads of Intellectual Property and the Environmental Regime.


Rogier Creemers, who made a transfer from Maastricht University to the Centre of Socio-Legal Studies at Oxford University presented his paper called Cultural Products and the WTO: China's Domestic Censorship and Media Control Policies. Rogier has an interesting blog called China Copyright and Media.

Rogier Creemers
On January 20, the programme focused on public health, product and food safety and consumer protection. Lukasz Gruszczynski of the Law Institute of the Polish Academy of Science talked about product safety in the framework of the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.
Lukasz Gruszczynski
Denise Prevost of Faculty of Law of the Maastricht University discussed her paper Health Protection Measures as Barriers to EU Exports to China in the framework of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
Denise Prevost
Enrico Bonadio of the Law School of the City University of London presented his paper on Plain Packaging of Cigarettes and Public Health under the TRIPs Agreement.

Enrico Bonadio
Paolo Vergano of FratiniVergano European Laywers in Brussels gave a Practitioner's Perspective on Specific Non-Trade Concerns in the Areas of Food Safety and Consumer Protection: A Comparative Analysis of WTO Notifications.

Paolo Vergano
Lorenzo di Masi presented his paper on The Protection of Public Health and Food Safety in East Asia Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs): ASEAN and China.

Lorenzo di Masi
Maastricht city on the banks of the Maas
continue reading ...

Thursday, August 25, 2011

List of 100 Western Songs Must Be Removed By September 15, 2011

Tania Branigan reports about newly banned list of 100 Western songs that are not approved by the Ministry of Culture. All links to these songs must be removed by music websites in China by September 15th, 2011. The reason: because they allegedly have never been submitted for approval.

According to Ms Braningan the list is based on the 2009 directive to tackle poor taste and vulgar content. Not sure whether she means the Some Opinions Concerning Stimulating Our Country's Audiovisual Industry's Healthy and Orderly Growth published by the General Administration for the Press and Publication (GAPP) on July 20, 2009 and translated by my scholarly friend Rogier Creemers of China Copyright and Media. In the opinions the GAPP makes clear that it abhors "audiovisual products with vulgar and even sexual content  drifting into the market".

Lady Gaga leads the blacklisted one hundred, since she was mentioned six times in the list. Also banned are songs from Katy Perry, Britney Spears.Interestingly enough also relatively old songs were on the list, including the 1998 song "I want it that way", from the Backstreet Boys. Read Ms Branigan's article for The Guardian here.
continue reading ...

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Sunday Specialty: SARFT Knows Watching Time-travelling Is Bad

Photo Danny Friedmann
星期日 = Sunday: Time-travelling not allowed. Not even by taxi.
The State Administration for Radio Film and TV (SARFT) came up with the Notice Concerning the Nationwide Television Drama Shooting Filing Announcement for March 2011.

"In the recent few months, the general situation of reporting and filing of programmes nationwide is good, but we have also discovered some incorrect creation sprouting: individual supernatural dramas and time-travel dramas reported for filing, have compiled myths as they please, the plots are strange and bizarre, techniques are absurd, and they even play up feudal superstition, determinism, samsara and reincarnation, value orientations are ambiguous, and they lack a positive ideological sense."
SARFT knows what content "lacks a positive ideological sense" and what "value orientations are ambiguous". No more watching 'Back to the Future'. Now I am also becoming curious about SARFT's take on the positive ideological way we best should watch drama. Is time-shifting ok? Read SARFT's complete notice on Rogier Creemers' excellent China Copyright and Media here.

Time-travelling cannot completely excluded theoretically, at least according to Tom Weiler and Chui Man Ho. These physicists think that the Large Hadron Collider could be sending matter back in time. Read Science Daily of March 16, here.
continue reading ...

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Featured Blog of the Week: China Media News

Torsten Weise, who is based in Berlin, translates headlines and news of Chinese media on media into English on this interesting blog called China Media News, which he started in May 2010. Mr Weise gives advice to publishers (Weise Verlagsberatung) that want to be active on the Chinese market. Those interested into media and the protection and enforcement of copyright in China could benefit from reading his blog, next to the always excellent Danwei.com by Jeremy Goldkorn in Beijing and superniche blog about copyright in China site of my friend Rogier Creemer, China Copyright and Media, straight from Maastricht Univerity.
continue reading ...

Friday, June 18, 2010

China Copyright and Media Looks At the Law of China's Entertainment Media

IP Dragon's friend Rogier Creemers has started a great website called 'China Copyright and Media, Looking at the Law of China's Entertainment Media', see here.

For this field of study it includes many relevant laws, regulations and rules, from the State Council of the National People's Congress, Central Committee, Supreme People's Court, Public Security Bureau (PSB), State Administration for Radio Film and Television (SARFT), General Administration for Press and Publications (GAPP), State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), etc.

The database is in "beta", but it is already very interesting.
So check it out: China Copyright and Media.
continue reading ...

Monday, March 15, 2010

Declaration of Copyright Self-Regulation of the Chinese Internet Sector

About 100 websites, among others Sohu, Baidu and Youku have signed a declaration of copyright self-regulation. Rogier Creemers translated the declaration. Thank you.

Declaration of Copyright Self-Regulation of the Chinese Internet Sector

In order to safeguard copyright and related right holders' lawful rights and interest, stimulate the healthy development of the Internet industry, safeguard social and public interests, the representatives of the Internet sector make the following declaration of self-regulation to society:

I, Internet enterprises shall undertake their obligations to society, earnestly respect and propagate State propaganda laws and related policies, resist activities of piracy and copyright infringement, safeguard the lawful rights and interests of copyright holders, safeguard the healthy order of the Internet sector.

II, Persisting in the principle of first obtaining authorization and only then using works, not disseminating in any way works without authorization from the copyright holder.

III, Strengthening supervision and management of internet users uploading works, prompting users that they may not upload works of others, preventing third parties from using information network platforms of a certain work unit to engage in unlawful activities of copyright infringement.

IV, Vigorously adopting technological steps conform to generally acknowledged industry standards, preventing the occurrence of infringing activities. Works listed in administrative copyright management entity notices or in notices of the implementing organ of this Declaration as not being permitted to be uploaded without authorization, technological measures shall be taken to restrict users from uploading; technological measures shall be taken to restrict users from uploading video works in their period of movie theatre screening, and hot broadcasting.

V, Measures such as deletion of corresponding information, cessation of service, etc. will be taken to users violating service agreements, do not listen to advice, and engage in multiple infringing activities in order to stop them, and the corresponding competent authorities will be notified.

VI, Earnestly dealing with notification of copyright and corresponding copyright holders, guaranteeing that within 24 hours, steps are taken to delete or should corresponding information according to the law.

VII, Vigorously developing applied copyright authentication and claim systems, providing convenient passages for copyright holders in claiming copyright and authorizing.

VIII, Vigorously communicating with copyright holders and related industry associations, together researching the establishment of convenient work authorization application systems under an information network environment, stimulating the lawful dissemination of works.

IX, Vigorously coordinating with administrative copyright management entities' daily supervision and administrative enforcement investigation, safeguarding a desirable network copyright protection order.

X, Establishing Internet sector information common assistance systems, preventing malicious lawsuits and unfair competition activities, maintaining healthy Internet sector development.

But will it work?
What do you think will be the influence of the declaration?
continue reading ...

Thursday, March 04, 2010

China's New Article 4 Copyright Law: Censored Works Are Copyrighted Too

How would China change its article 4 Copyright Law after the panel decision in the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement (DS 362) case determined that that provision was not compatible with China's obligations under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works?


IP Dragon's friend Rogier Creemers sheds light on the matter:


"Following the Panel Report in the China - Intellectual Property Rights case (DS 362), the Chinese Copyright Law has been slightly revised. Article 4, which was deemed to deny copyright to certain classes of rights holders in violation of China's obligations under TRIPs and the Berne Convention, has been updated from:

Works the publication or distribution of which is prohibited by law shall not be protected by this Law.
Copyright owners, in exercising their copyright, shall not violate the Constitution or laws or prejudice the public interests.
第四条 依法禁止出版、传播的作品,不受本法保护。
著作权人行使著作权,不得违反宪法和法律,不得损害公共利益。

to:

Copyright holders, when exercising their copyright, may not violate the Constitution and laws, and may not damage the public interest. The State implements supervision and management over publishing and dissemination according to the law.
著作权人行使著作权,不得违反宪法和法律,不得损害公共利益。国家对作品的出版、传播依法进行监督管理。

This update removes the provision containing copyright denial, while the added sentence makes clear that nonetheless, the censorship process remains unaffected."

Unexpectedly a new article 26 Copyright Law

Creemers writes:

"At the same time, a new Article 26 was added to the Law, stipulating:

Where copyrights are used as collateral, the pledgor and pledgee register the pledge with the State Council administrative copyright management entity.
以著作权出质的,由出质人和质权人向国务院著作权行政管理部门办理出质登记。

The use of copyright as collateral had already been regulated since 1996 through administrative registration, but this addition strengthens the legal position of such transactions."

Thank you Rogier.
IP Dragon: About article 4 Copyright Law, it says on the one hand that works are protected by copyright even if they are censored, but that censored works may not be disseminated. The great advantage for copyright holders is that they can file a lawsuit against copyright infringers so in principle they can obtain an injunction and/or damages. Before, holders of censored works were totally dependent on the efficacy of the Public Security Bureau in stopping any dissemination of their works.
The revisions will be effective as of April 1, 2010. This is for real, and has probably nothing to do with April Fool's Day, which is celebrated in China too.
continue reading ...

Friday, January 15, 2010

Rogier Creemers' Take on Google in China

IP Dragon's esteemed friend Rogier Creemers is doing a PhD at the University of Maastricht on copyright and media control in China. Below is a guest column of Mr Creemers on Google in China:

"By now, most in the blogosphere already know about Google's announcement to possibly leave China, which may have some very interesting consequences and repercussions in the months to come. However, the case certainly goes way beyond the rhetoric about free speech and censorship. I believe it to be linked with both business and political issues, as well as the earlier Google Books case in China.

To start with, this decision taken by Google most certainly is a business decision, rather than a purely ethical decision. Going into China was a business decision as well, even if it led to some bad PR in the West. So what could lead Google into making this decision? Essentially, I believe that there was a sort of implicit deal between Google and the Chinese government: you let us operate in China, and we will obey by your censoring rules. Since then, however, Google has diversified from being a search engine into many other branches, such as maps, document processing, calendar services, etc. Many of these services based on the idea of Internet-based "cloud computing", which means that the user's data are no longer primarily stored on a hard drive in his computer, but the Internet, to be easily accessible from any computer in the world. It is planning to take this a step further through the Google Phone and the Chrome OS. Crucially, the viability of this business model depends on the trust that users have in the security of their data storage. If China - and the nature and sophistication of the attack against Google's and other companies' data centres suggests that the government might be involved to some extent - is perceived as attacking Google, Google must be seen to retaliate against China. Moreover, a number of the aforementioned services have been temporarily or permanently blocked in China. Whether this is about censorship-related control or a bid to make local competition much more attractive, the fact of the matter remains that Google has not had an easy time doing business in China.Additionally, the recent uproar concerning Google Books in China also did not help in this. While an argument can be made that Google Books could be legal under Chinese copyright legislation, it seems that this case was used by China, long pressured by the West to improve their intellectual property enforcement, to finally retaliate against a Western company perceived to violate Chinese IP. In the end, Google seems to say that if the Chinese government does not honour their part of the deal, Google will also not keep up theirs. And they say it loudly and clearly, hence their public announcement about stopping their censoring, and if told to leave China, they will.

Which brings us nicely to the political side of things. By making their case so clearly and public, Google has effectively put their plight very high on the American foreign relations and trade agenda.Apart from the whole discussion about market access for foreign enterprises on the Chinese Internet - remembering that China lost a WTO case about market access for foreign enterprises in the field of media only weeks ago - the cyber-spying allegations may go on to weigh heavily in Sino-Western relations, especially alongside other matters such as the environment, intellectual property or currency valuation. These all signal a shift in Chinese foreign relations attitude. Wherein the past, China tried to keep a low profile, and emphasize the peaceful nature of its rise, it now seems to care a lot less about antagonizing its trading partners, leading some to call it "the beginning of China's Bush-Cheney era". The question seems to be whether and how China wants to integrate into the global system, of which the Internet is an integral part. A number of Chinese Internet users decried that this is China withdrawing from the world, rather than Google from China. Tangentially, Internet storage and communication security will be increasingly crucial in tomorrow's business environment. China's control of the Internet also blocks out some companies' VPN (Virtual Private Network) systems. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first cases pop up where data is compromised because of this.

And where does this lead us where free speech is concerned? The bottom line is simple. In order to maintain its grasp of power, the Party needs to control the media, in order to legitimize their position and fragment dissent in China. This is probably the reason to attack Chinese human rights activists' e-mail accounts to begin with. It also needs to control the flow of information abroad, wary of what happened in Iran, when pictures and films of anti-government protests were rapidly spread through social media. Therefore, any system wherein the Party has less than complete final control over the content of the Internet, or at least of web sites based in China, will be unacceptable. If Google puts its money where its mouth is, it will therefore leave China. In the short run, China's network environment will be severely impoverished. But if this case might lead to Chinese concessions in other trade-related areas, or to foreign investment in China decreasing, it might also have repercussions that other important legitimizing factor of the Communist Party: China's speedy economic growth. To undoubtedly be continued."

Guest column written by Rogier Creemers, PhD Cand. University of Maastricht
continue reading ...

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Creemers' Summary Of And Comments On DS363

Rogier Creemers of the University of Maastricht summarised 491 pages of the panel report on DS363: China - Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Product, and gave some comments, see here.


continue reading ...

Monday, June 08, 2009

Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules (2009)

The Administrative Punishment Rules for Copyright Infringement were recently updated and will take effect June 15, 2009. Rogier Creemers, Ph.D. Researcher at Maastricht University (the Netherlands) who already obtained a Master's degree in Sinology from the University of Leuven (Belgium), sent me an email with these rules translated by him into English.

In addition Mr Creemers gives some highlights of the rules:
"- the regulations now include guidelines and a legal basis on how to deal with on-line piracy;
- the "grave circumstances" threshold present in Article 31 have been drastically lowered, and no distinction is made anymore between individual acts and work unit acts;
- the 2003 version predominantly attacted "infringing duplications" (fuzhipin). This has been changed in these rules (except in Art. 19), and replaced by "infringing products" which are defined as infringing duplications and works passed off as signed by another person (Art. 41)."

Thank you Rogier for this splendid translation.

Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rule

The National Copyright Administration of the People’s Republic of China decrees

No. 6

The “Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules”, were passed in the 1st department meeting of the National Copyright Administration on 21 April 2009, and will take effect on 15 June 2009.

Translatation: Rogier Creemers

National Copyright Administration Director: Liu Binjie

7 May 2009

Article 1: In order to standardise the administrative punishment actions of the administrative management entities for copyright, protect the lawful rights of citizens, legal persons and other groups, according to the "Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter abbreviated as "Administrative Punishment Law", the "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter abbreviated as "Copyright Law" and other relevant laws, administrative regulations, these rules are established.

Article 2: The National Copyright Agency as well as the relevant entities within local governments enjoying copyright enforcement rights (hereinafter abbreviated as copyright administrative management entities), in the statutory scope of their official powers, implement punishment actions against unlawful acts as listed in these rules. If other laws or regulations provide otherwise, those provisions shall be followed.

Article 3: Unlawful acts as named in these rules refers to:

(1) Infringing acts as listed in Article 47 of the Copyright Law, which at the same time damage public interest;

(2) Infringing acts as listed un Article 24 of the "Regulations on Computer Software Protection", which at the same time damage public interest;
(3)
Infringing acts as listed under Article 18 of the "Regulations on the Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights" if they damage the public interest at the same time; infringing acts as listed under Articles 19 and 25;
(4)
Acts requiring administrative punishment under the provisions of Articles 41 and 44 of the "Regulations on Collective Management of Copyright;

(5) Unlawful copyright acts, which should receive administrative punishment under the provisions of other laws, regulations and rules.

Article 4: Concerning unlawful acts as listed in these rules, the copyright management administrative entities may, in accordance with the law, order cessation of the infringing activity, and mete out the following administrative punishments:

(1) warnings;
(2) fines;
(3) confiscation of illicit profits;
(4) confiscation of infringing products;
(5) confiscation of equipment for installing and stockpiling infringing products;
(6) confiscating of materials, tools and equipment mainly used in producing infringing products;
(7) other administrative punishments under the provisions of laws, administrative rules and regulations.

Chapter 2: Jurisdiction and application

Article 5: The unlawful acts as listed in these rules will be investigated and prosecuted by the copyright administrative management entities of the locality of the infringing act, the locality of the manifestation of the result of infringement, the locality of the storage of infringing products or the locality of lawful sealing or detaining. Except if other laws or regulations provide otherwise.

Investigation and prosecution of unlawful acts of infringements of dissemination rights over information networks will be the responsibility of the copyright administrative management entity of the location of the infringer, the location of the network service machines and other equipment effecting the infringing activity or the location of registry of the website. 

Article 6: The National Copyright Agency may investigate and prosecute unlawful acts of significant influence in the entire country, as well as other unlawful acts it considers it should investigate and prosecute. Local copyright administrative management entities are responsible for investigation and prosecution of unlawful acts occurring in the area under their jurisdiction.

Article 7: When two or more local copyright administrative management entities have jurisdiction over the same unlawful act, the copyright administrative management unit who was first in filing the case is responsible for investigation and prosecution of the unlawful act.

If disputes between local copyright administrative management entities occur because of jurisdiction, or if jurisdiction is not specified, a compromise solution will be worked out by both parties in the dispute; if a compromise solution cannot be reached, their common copyright administrative management entity of one level higher will be petitioned to assign jurisdiction, their common copyright administrative management entity of one level higher may also directly assign jurisdiction.

Higher level copyright administrative management entities may, if this is necessary, deal with cases of significant influence in the jurisdiction of lower level copyright administrative management entities, they may also hand over cases in their jurisdiction to lower level copyright administrative management entities to deal with; if lower level copyright administrative management entities believe that the case details of cases in their jurisdiction are significant or complex, and need to be dealt with by higher level copyright administrative management entities, they may petition the copyright administrative entity of one level higher to deal with the case.

Article 8: Unlawful acts found out, investigated and prosecuted by copyright administrative management entities, if suspected to constitute a crime under the provisions of the criminal laws of our country, should be transferred by that copyright administrative management entity to the judiciary in accordance with the "Regulations on Administrative Enforcement Bodies' Transfer of Suspected Criminal Cases".

Article 9: The period of effectiveness of administrative punishments issued by copyright administrative management entities is two years, calculation starting from the date of occurrence of the unlawful act. If the unlawful act is of successive or continuous nature, calculation will start from the ending of the unlawful act. If infringing products are still being distributed, or dissemination on a website still continues, it shall be considered as still continuing unlawful acts.

If unlawful acts are not found out within two years, they will no more be punished administratively. Except when other laws provide otherwise.

Chapter 3: Punishment procedure

Article 10: Apart from circumstances in which the Administrative Punishment Law provides the use of the simplified procedure, administrative copyright punishment shall use the normal procedure provided in the Administrative Punishment Law.

Article 11: The copyright administrative management entity using the normal procedure to investigate and prosecute unlawful acts, should register the case.

Towards unlawful acts as outlined in these rules, copyright administrative management entities may by themselves decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution, or can decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution based on materials transferred from relevant entities, they may also decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution based on the written request or report of persons of which the rights were infringed, persons concerned, or other insiders.

Article 12: The requesting person applying for the filing of a case for investigation and prosecution on the basis of unlawful acts as listed in these rules, should submit a letter of application, proof or rights, infringed goods (or products) as well as other evidence.

The letter of application should illustrate the name and surname (or organization name) and address of the party as well as the main facts and reasons for application for filing a case for investigation and prosecution.

If the requesting person entrusts a procurator to apply, the procurator should show a trust deed.

Article 13: The copyright administrative management entities should within 15 days of receiving all written request materials decide whether or not to accept and hear a case and inform the requesting person. If acceptance and hearing would not be granted, reasons should be informed in written form.

Article 14: At the time of filing of a case, a case file examination and approval form should be filled out, at the same time the relevant materials, including written request or report materials; the relevant materials of a case transferred by a higher level copyright administrative management entity or a relevant entity, the inspection reports of law enforcement officers etc. should be enclosed, and examined and approved by the responsible person of this entity, two or more case-handling staff are to be appointed to carry out investigation and processing.

If case-handling staff is concerned with the cases, they should withdraw themselves, if they do not withdraw, the parties may request their withdrawal. Withdrawal of case-handling staff must be examined and approved by the responsible person of this entity. The withdrawal of a responsible person should be examined and approved by the People's Government of this level.

Article 15: When law enforcement officers in the process of enforcement find out that unlawful acts are in the process of being committed, and if the circumstances are so critical that there is not time to file a case, they may take the following measures:

(1) Cease or correct the unlawful acts

(2) Put infringing products and materials, tools, equipment etc. used mainly for unlawful acts in advance registered storage

(3) Gather and collect other relevant evidence.

Law enforcement officers should promptly report relevant circumstances and materials to the copyright administrative management entity in charge, and conduct case filing formalities within seven days of discovery of the circumstances.

Art. 16: After the filing of the case, the case-handling staff should promptly carry out investigations, and demand the person with statutory burden of proof to put his proof within the time limit appointed by the copyright administrative management entities.

The case-handling staff, when collecting evidence, may adopt the following means to collect and gather relevant evidence:

(1) Consulting, duplication of document records, account books and other written materials relevant to the suspected unlawful acts;

(2) Collect samples of evidence of suspected infringing products;

(3) Put suspected infringing products, equipment for installing and stockpiling infringing products; suspected infringing websites and web pages, suspected infringing website service machines and materials, tools and equipment mainly used in unlawful acts in advance registered storage.

Art. 17: The case-handling staff should, during enforcement, show to the party or relevant persons their administrative enforcement credentials issued by the National Copyright Administration or local People's Government.

Art. 18: Evidence collected during the handling of the case include:

(1) documented evidence;

(2) material evidence;

(3) witness testimonies;

(4) audiovisual material;

(5) statements of the parties;

(6) authenticated conclusions

(7) records of spot inspections and checks

Article 19: Copyright-related manuscripts, master copies, lawful publications, work registry certificates, copyright contract registry certificates, proof provided by authentication organs, contracts of acquisition of rights, as well as infringing reproductions obtained by way of ordering, buying on the spot etc., by the parties or their entrusted persons and acquired objects, invoices etc, may act as evidence.

Art. 20: When the case-handling staff sample and collect evidence, and put relevant evidence in advance registered storage, they should have the party present. Concerning relevant goods, they should issue on the spot a double duplicate of a manufacturing statement, which should, after it is signed or stamped by the case-handling staff and the party, given respectively by the party and the case-handling staff to the local copyright administrative management entity for preservation. If the party is not present or refuses to sign or stamp, this circumstances shall be noted by two or more case-handling staff.

Article 21: When putting relevant evidence in advance registered storage, case-handling staff should obtain permission from the responsible person of this entity, and should hand over to the party an evidence advanced storage notice. The party or relevant person may not transfer or destroy relevant evidence during the period of evidence storage.

Evidence in advance registered storage, should be sealed with advanced registered storage strips of the copyright administrative management entity, and preserved on the spot by the party. If evidence in advance registered storage really needs to be moved to another location, it may be moved to a suitable location for storage. If the circumstances are so critical that there is no time to perform the formalities provided in these rules, the case-handling staff may adopt advance measures, and afterwards promptly complete formalities.

Art. 22 (Steps after advanced registered storage) Concerning evidence in advanced registered storage, one of the listed decisions should be made within 7 days of handing over the evidence advanced registered storage notice:

(1) If authentication is needed, it should be delivered for authentication;

(2) If unlawful facts are established, and if confiscation should happen, the confiscation procedure should occur according to law;

(3) If transfer to a relevant entity is necessary, the case together with the evidence will be transferred to the relevant entity;

(4) If unlawful facts are not established, or if confiscation should not happen according to the law, measures should be taken to release registered storage;

(5) Other related statutory measures.

Art. 23 (Entrusted investigation) When, during the process of case investigation, the copyright administrative management entities entrust other copyright administrative management entities to perform investigations on their behalf, they should issue a trust deed. The copyright administrative management entity that is entrusted should give vigorous assistance.

Art. 24 (Expert appraisal) For questions of a technical nature arising during the investigation and prosecution, the copyright administrative management entity may entrust special agencies or engage expert personnel to carry out appraisal.

Art. 25 (Investigation report) After the final stage of the investigation, the case-handling staff should submit a case investigation report, explaining whether the relevant activities violate the law or not, and putting forward suggestions for process, and relevant facts, grounds and basis, as well as including the complete evidence materials.

Art. 26 (Notification of the parties) When the copyright administrative management entity has drafted an administrative punishment decision, the person in charge of that entity should sign an issue an administrative punishment advance notice, informing the parties on the facts, grounds and basis of the drafted administrative punishment decision, as well as informing the parties on their rights of declaration, right of defence and other rights.

The administrative punishment advance notice should be delivered directly to the parties by the copyright administrative management entity, the parties should sign or stamp the delivery form. If parties refuse to sign for receipt, the situation should be noted clearly by the delivery personnel, the documents to be delivered should be left at the domicile receiving the delivery personnel, and the person in charge of the relevant entity should be informed. The copyright administrative management entity may also adopt postal delivery methods to inform the parties. If there is no way to find the parties, they may notify by public proclamation.

Article 27: If the parties wish to make a statement or a pleading, they should raise their statement or pleading, as well as the relevant facts, reasons and evidence before the copyright administrative management entity within seven days after notification of the defendant, or within 30 days of the day of issuance of the announcement. If the parties did not exercise their right statement or pleading within this period, they will be regarded as having renounced the right.

If the direct delivery method is used for notification, the day of receipt and signing of the party is used as the day of notification of the defendant, if the postal delivery method is used for notification, the day of receipt as indicated on the receipt slip is used as the day of notification of the defendant.

Article 28: The case-handling staff should fully listen to the statements and pleadings of the parties, carry out a review of the facts, reasons and evidence raised by the parties, and submit a review report.

The copyright administrative management entity may not increase punishment because of pleading by the parties.

Article 29: The responsible person of the copyright administrative management entity should carry out an examination of the case investigation report and the review report and respectively make the following processing decisions on the basis of the investigation results:

(1) if an unlawful act that should be punished administratively truly exists, administrative punishment should be meted out according to the level of the fault of the infringer, the duration of the infringement, the size of the scope of infringement, the consequence of the damage and other circumstances;

(2) if the unlawful act is trivial, administrative punishment may not be meted out;

(3) if unlawful facts are not established, no administrative punishment will be meted out;

(4) if the unlawful acts are suspected to constitute a crime, it will be transferred to the judiciary.

Relatively heavy administrative punishment will be meted out against unlawful acts of which the circumstances are complicated or which are significant, this will be decided by collective discussion of the responsible persons of the copyright administrative management entity.

Article 30: When the copyright administrative management entity decides to impose a fine, the amount of the fine will be fixed according to the provisions of Article 36 of the "Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China", Article 24 of the "Regulations for the Protection of Computer Software" and Articles 18 and 19 of the "Regulations on the Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights".

Article 31: If the circumstances of the unlawful act are grave, the copyright administrative management entity may confiscate the materials, tools and equipment etc., used mainly in producing the infringing products.

"Grave circumstances" as named in the aforementioned clause, refers to:

(1) if the illicit income amount (viz. amount of profit) is more than 2.500 yuan;
(2) if the illicit business amount of is more than 15.000 yuan;

(3) if the number of infringing products of an individual is greater than 250 volumes (discs or boxes);

(4) if one has already been found liable for copyright infringement, and again infringes copyright;

(5) if other significant influence or grave consequences result.

Article 32: If another administrative department has already fined the same one unlawful act of the party, the copyright administrative management entity may not fine it again, but may still mete out other sorts of punishment according to the provisions of Article 4 of these Rules, according to the specific circumstances.

Article 33: Before the copyright administrative management entity decides to impose relatively large fines or other administrative punishments requiring a hearing according to the provisions of laws or administrative regulations, it should notify the parties of the rights for requiring for a hearing.

"Relatively large fines" as named in the aforementioned clause, reference to a fine for an individual of more than 20.000 yuan, and a fine for a work unit of more than 100.000 yuan. If local rules and regulations have different criteria for a hearing, it will be conducted according to local rules and regulations.

Article 34: If the parties wish a hearing, the copyright administrative management entity should organize a hearing according to the procedures of the provisions of Article 42 of the Administrative Punishment Law. The parties do not bear the cost of organizing a hearing.

Article 35: If the copyright administrative management entity decides to mete out punishment, it should formulate an administrative punishment resolution.

If the copyright administrative management entity decides not to mete out punishment for a trivial unlawful act, it should formulate an administrative non-punishment resolution, explain the facts, reasons and basis for not meting out punishment, and serve it on the parties; if an unlawful act is not established, it should formulate an investigation result notice, and serve it on the parties.

If the copyright administrative management entity decides to transfer a case to the judiciary for processing, it should formulate a notice of transfer for a suspected criminal case, and send it timely to the judicial department having jurisdiction, together with the relevant material and evidence.

Article 36: The administrative punishment resolution should be handed over to the parties on the spot after proclamation by the copyright administrative management entity. If parties are not present, it should be sent to the parties within seven days.

Article 37: If parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment of the National Copyright Administration, an application for administrative redress may be made to the National Copyright Administration; if the parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment of a local copyright administrative management entity, an application for administrative redress may be made to the People's Government of that level of the copyright administrative management entity of one level higher.

If the parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment or the administrative redress decision, administrative action may be raised, according to the law.

Chapter 4: Execution procedures

Article 38: After the parties receive the administrative punishment resolutions, they should fulfil their obligations within the time limits of the administrative punishment resolution.

If the party’s request administrative redress, or an administrative action is raised, the administrative punishment must be fulfilled without delay. Except if laws provide otherwise.

Article 39: Confiscated infringing products should be destroyed, or should be disposed of in other suitable manners after approval of the infringed party.

When destroying infringing products, the copyright administrative management entity should appoint more than two law enforcement officers to supervise the destruction process, examine the destruction results and record the destruction.

Concerning the confiscated materials, tools and equipment etc. mainly used in producing infringing products, the copyright administrative management entity should organize a public auction according to the law or dispose of them according to the relevant national provisions.

Chapter 5: supplementary articles

Article 41: infringing products as named in these rules include infringing reproductions and works posing as signed by other persons.

Article 42: The copyright administrative management entities should set up a copyright administrative punishment statistics system according to the national regulations on statistics, and should submit yearly copyright administrative punishment statistics to the copyright administrative management entity of one level higher

Article 43: After the administrative punishment decision or reconsideration resolution is completely carried out, the copyright administrative management entity should file the case materials timely.

Materials to be put on file include: the administrative punishment resolution, the case file examination and approval form, the case investigation report, the review report, the reconsideration resolution, the records of hearings, the hearing reports, evidence material, property disposition documents as well as other relevant materials.

Article 44: The relevant legal documents touched upon in these Rules, should be made according to the relevant document forms of the National Copyright Administration.

Article 45: These Rules will take effect from 15 June 2009. The "Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules ", promulgated by the National Copyright Administration will be abolished at the same time, if these Rules should contradict with other relevant regulations promulgated before the implementation of these Rules, these Rules should be carried out.

continue reading ...

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Professor Daniel Gervais' New Book Includes: Confidential Interim Report DS 362

Who won the IPR dispute at the WTO between China and the U.S.? That was the name of my blog posting in October 2008 and gave some leaked information. But what does the official information say? According to WTO document WT/DS362/9, that can be found at the site of the WTO dedicated to DS 362 the Panel expected to issue its final report to the parties to the dispute by November 2008. After that IP Dragon understood that the final report would be ready somewhere in 2009.

I just got an email from Rogier Creemers who has recently started a PhD Research Project at Maastricht University concerning the political and legal side of copyright piracy in China, under the auspices of professor Kamperman Sanders. Sounds very interesting. Mr Creemers pointed me to 'TRIPs Agreement - Drafting History and Analysis', 3rd Edition, November 30, 2008, written by professor Daniel Gervais (Vanderbilt University Law School) in which the main conclusions of the Dispute Settlement Body confidential interim report concerning DS 362 can be found:

These conclusions look lapidary, however, they represent professor Gervais' version of the interim report, not the final report. I was already familiar with Daniel Gervais' 'TRIPs Agreement - Drafting History and Analysis, 2nd Edition and even 1st Edition (both at the excellent Library of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) and recommended by professor P. Bernt Hugenholtz). Updates of good books are important, indeed. Thank you Rogier Creemers.
continue reading ...