Slashdot Mirror
China Concerned About Internal Copyright Infringers
sfled writes "Audience members at a recent movie preview had ID card numbers stamped on their theater tickets, were videotaped entering the lobby, and had to part with cellphones, watches, lighters, etc. as they passed through a metal detector. Why the big fuss? Because China's movie makers, artists and other creators of intellectual property are finally realizing that China's content-piracy industry doesn't just target imported movies, music, etc. Story at The New York Times, "free" registration, etc..."
I'm not sure why the above is insightful -- what is the link between pirating American movies and stifling Chinese creativity? I'm not sure whether them cracking down on piracy of American movies would have any effect whatsoever on their own "fledgling media."
Money which you don't have in the first place canot be lost or stolen.
The most that happened is that a few CEOs and executives didn't take home a bonus because the revenue for that year was slightly lower.
If they only enforce the laws for domestic films, then what is going to stop the average Chinaman from going to pirate an American movie instead?
Dude, Chinaman isn't the proper nomenclature; Asian-American, please.
Nothing would stop the "average Chinaman" from pirating an American movie. However, many artistic Chinamen would then have free access to examples of creative works from which to draw their own inspiration, thereby spurring their own creative industry. Once the industry developed sufficiently to become popular internationally, China would then have an incentive to honour other countries' intellectual property rights in exchange for having its own honoured overseas.
The canonical example of this is of course the United States itself, as original copyright was given specifically to only domestic works. The law changed only when prominent American authors, such as Mark Twain and Noah Webster, complained that their works were being pirated in Britain. This movement didn't rise until after years of American pirating of British works. The penny versions of Dickens didn't draw Americans away from domestic literature, but rather inspired it.
You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
Yeah I'm sure we'd all be much better off economically if Hollywood billionaires were a few billion dollars richer. In any case, the idea that piracy in China represents "theft of billions" from American companies is pretty ridiculous since it assumes the people who buy pirated videos there would pay much higher prices for the "real thing." Probably a few of them would but I doubt you'd see billions if piracy in China suddenly stopped.
This is been covered many, many times before, but:
1. If I pirate a movie I gain a movie (surprise!). Net change in company's revenue: 0.
2. I don't buy or pirate movie. I gain no movie, and company gets nothing.
3. I steal a physical copy (DVD) from company. Net gain for me: 1 movie. Net loss to company: cost of producing said DVD.
4. I buy the movie. I get a movie. They get my money.
Pirating (not that I endorse it) only causes a real loss if you would buy it if you couldn't get it illegally.
Google Partner Link
I swear, it takes all of 60 seconds effort - why can't submitters/editors include the Google partner link as well as the reg-required one!
Janie took my gun...
Now the average, urban, Chinese person (who has a yearly income of about $800) can stop buying cheap pirated movies and can, instead, spend a week's wages to buy a commercial video. That is, provided he/she was not planning to squander that money on food, clothing, or shelter.
Those living in rural areas, where the per-capita income is about 1/3 that will just have to sell a family member into slavery if they really want that video.
Maybe before whining about the evil Chinese pirating videos and software, you should consider what their incomes are compared to ours.
November 1, 2002
The Pinch of Piracy Wakes China Up on Copyright Issue
By JOSEPH KAHN
SHENZHEN, China, Oct. 30 -- When the members of the preview audience showed up at China's fanciest new movie theater here this week, they were treated to much more than just the first look at Zhang Yimou's big-budget martial-arts film, "Hero."
Viewers had identity card numbers inscribed on their tickets. They were videotaped as they entered the theater's foyer. They handed over all cellphones, watches, lighters, car keys, necklaces and pens and put them in storage. Before taking their seats, they passed through a metal detector. Then they got a welcoming address.
"We are showing this preview for your enjoyment tonight," announced Jiang Wei, an executive with the film's Chinese distribution company. "I plead with you to support our industry. Please do not make illegal copies of this film."
Anyone in China who makes movies, writes books, develops software or sings songs for a living knows that popularity is barely half the challenge; such people must also fight intellectual piracy.
In a country where more than 90 percent of the movies, music and software are illegal copies sold for a fraction of the original price, Chinese artists have begun to join big foreign interests like Microsoft and AOL Time Warner to protest China's seemingly limitless capacity to make cheap knockoffs.
The local effort is not going to solve the problem right away. The United States trade representative's office grouped China with Paraguay and Ukraine this spring as among the worst copyright violators in the world.
Still, the tone has changed. Throughout the 1990's, intellectual property was mainly seen as a trade dispute pitting the wealthy West against the developing East. It's now also a domestic struggle, with local stars complaining that they get little fortune from their own fame.
"After the release, we often have only three days before the pirate copies hit the market," said Mr. Jiang of New Pictures distributors, which handles Mr. Zhang's movie releases in China. "The industry can't survive that."
The belt-and-suspenders security procedures during the limited release of "Hero" at New South Country Cinema here, just across the border from Hong Kong, were aimed at protecting what China's film industry hopes will be the biggest martial arts sensation since "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." The movie, with an all-star cast led by Jet Li, cost $30 million, making it China's most expensive film production to date. Beijing will submit it to the Oscars as a candidate for best foreign-language film. Miramax, a division of Disney, has bought the international rights.
Security guards heightened the drama at the theater. They ordered people to leave behind jewelry and pens to protect against "needlepoint" digital camcorders, though varying descriptions of how such devices worked sounded more like something Q made for 007 in a James Bond movie than a common pirate's tool. Uniformed policemen roamed the aisles during the film. A few sat in front of the screen and watched the audience with what appeared to be night-vision binoculars.
The intense scrutiny prompted a few complaints, but also some sympathy.
"Zhang Yimou is not about to go hungry," said Zhu Dazhong, a 48-year-old Shenzhen retailer who saw the preview. "But if he makes a good movie, people should pay a little money to see it. The quality of the pirate copies stinks anyway."
China's creative industry has been hit hard by the failure to enforce copyright laws. Artists and their lawyers say piracy has worsened since China joined the World Trade Organization late last year and pledged to meet international standards for protecting intellectual property.
"The Touch," an action-adventure film, was a recent casualty. At the release of the film in Shanghai in August, Michelle Yeoh, who produced and starred in it, boasted about how bodyguards protected the original film reels. When the show moved from theater to theater, Ms. Yeoh said at the premiere, the reels were to travel separately so pirates who got their hands on one reel could not copy the whole film.
Nonetheless, DVD copies were available on the black market four days after the nationwide release that month, and ticket sales slid fast.
A popular folk music group, Yi Ren Zhi Zao, or Made by Yi, had an even shorter run with its latest CD. A pirated disc made from a tape released early hit the market before the authentic version was in stores.
There are now 41 pirated versions of the album, said Zhou Yaping, who runs the group's production company, based in Beijing. He said many were sold openly in top department stores. The legal CD has a 1.2 percent market share, he said.
"Our hard work and money were stolen and sold cheap," Mr. Zhou said.
Foreigners have hardly been spared. Microsoft's latest operating system, Windows XP, was selling for 32 yuan, less than $4, in the back alleys of Beijing's technology district before Microsoft formally released the $180 legal version for the China market earlier this year.
What is presented as the fifth installment of the Harry Potter series, "Harry Potter and the Leopard Walk Up to Dragon," has already reached Chinese bookstores. Though the cover attributes the book to J. K. Rowling, the British author, her publisher says the official version -- its title and subject matter will be different -- will not be available until next year. The Chinese edition is an inventive fake.
Altogether, the International Intellectual Property Alliance estimates that Chinese piracy costs foreign companies about $2 billion a year, or roughly a quarter of the total global losses attributed to copyright violations.
But while Chinese copyright holders probably do not lose as much money, local outrage generates more publicity than foreign pressure. A flurry of domestic lawsuits has attracted regular attention.
The country's two leading Internet portals, Sohu.com and Sina.com, sued each other, each accusing the other of stealing content. Mr. Zhou, of Yi Ren Zhi Zao, sued Chinese factories for manufacturing the illegal CD's. He won damages of 300,000 yuan, about $36,300, in a Beijing court.
Even the Buddhist monks of the famed Shaolin Temple have joined the fight. The temple pioneered Shaolin boxing, which evolved into kung fu. It has sought to trademark its name and has flung lawsuits against companies that use Shaolin as a brand, including one maker of canned pork.
Whether the lawsuits and publicity will slow the piracy remains to be seen.
The government has sought to demonstrate that it is finally taking the matter seriously. In August, the state-run China Daily tallied the exact number of pirated video and audio discs, 43.45 million, that had been destroyed in a crackdown so far this year.
But at a huge electronics bazaar in Shenzhen, not far from the movie theater that showed Zhang Yimou's premiere, vendors offered a cornucopia of China's latest releases for about a dollar each. "Together," the latest Chen Kaige film, which hit local movie houses in late September, was for sale in the top-quality DVD-9 format.
Legitimate DVD movies cost at least five times that much, and few were on sale at the bazaar. First-run movie tickets in China go for 30 to 50 yuan, about $4 to $6, depending on the show and the quality of the cinema.
"Hero" was not available on the black market -- yet. But Mr. Jiang, of the distribution company, said that despite the extensive security, he was still nervous.
"I won't be at ease until Nov. 4 or 5," he said. "If they managed to pirate it, it will be out by then for sure."
I was waiting for the inevitable Chinese people don't care about piracy, everything from fake watches to Windows are available in the streets of Hong Kong.
Does it not seem weird that most people here defend KaZaA et al as an opportunity to distribute material, but point an angry finger when Chinese people make copies of US films?
Just because they steal with a camera, and you steal with software doesn't make you any less of a pirate.
So lets get off the anti-Asian rants and show a bit of consistency. Either both are bad, or both are a chance for artists to reach an audience they otherwise would not.
Of course, IMHO they are both pretty insidious.
Has the intellectual moral high-ground stopped me downloading? Umm....I best not answer that.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
Yeah... every time I go into any Oriental grocery store, there is always the ubiquitous rack of video tapes with hand-drawn titles in Mandarin or Cantonese, sometimes even Hangul-Ma (but that's Korean, so never mind that). So, if I want to, I can buy pirated copies of mainland Chinese movies for like 3-5 bucks down at the corner grocery where I by my red bean buns and udong. And, I've been able to do this for at least the last three years. And China JUST noticed?
Voodoo Girl is the bomb!
3rd - depriving of profit is not "stealing"- it's depriving of profit.
Points 1 and 2 are right on, but I have to disagree with the above.
Our society gives authors and creators a sort of 'implied contract'; they create, and we grant them copyright. Sure, no one signs anything, but none of us signed the constitution (which grants copyright authority to Congress) either. There are certain social obligations that everyone is bound to, whether or no they agree. In effect, you (through your legal institutions) have promised copyright, and in return the author has created something. Once the goods have been delivered, you are at least somewhat obligated to fulfill your side of the deal. Breaking this social contract is slightly different than merely depriving a corporation of profit. You can't give the author back their lost effort. On the other hand, I deprive McDonalds of profit every time I drive by their shitty restaurant and thank god that I'm not stopping.
Why are the loudest voices against "piracy" so often also the most shameless of pirates themselves? If you think piracy is so bad, here's the place to start: don't do it! A much better solution than supporting more laws that affect us all. It reminds me of drug addicts who support tougher drug laws in order to control their own behavior.
This is a movie PREVIEW, and normally security is indeed stricter at such events, just like here in the US.
Yet, once the movie hits the theaters as a actual release to the masses, forget about "security". Heck, we don't even have such "security" here in the US. And most pirate jobs are inside ones (the guy in the projection booth himself is the one doing the camcorder recording). With the corruption in China, one can only expect such things to be even more prevalent. And once a single copy gets out, that's all it takes.
George W. Bush
President, United States of America
It seems that despite almost no support on slashdot of any other intellectual property protection scheme, when it's the Chinese pirating American stuff it's a horrible crime. But when it's Americans pirating anyone else's works, including those by other Americans, it's something that should be protected. Make up your goddamn minds people! I personally think that the United States government has it's collective head up it's ass, but the premise for copyright is very well intentioned: give the producer of a work a temporary monopoly for their contribution to society. Back on topic... when you can honestly say that you support the MPAA, RIAA, and every other four letter organisation ending in AA it'll be fair for you to say that the Chinese pirates are wrong, but for the moment I suspect that most of the people posting about the evils of China are guilty of the same crime they are condemning.
E pluribus unum
I attended this screening in Shenzhen and did not notice any of the security measures reported in the article.
I had to hand over my mobile phone but that was it.
I didn't see anyone openly vidcaming the movie, but pirate DVD copies of Hero are readily available in Shenzhen, Shanghai and Beijing for about 7 Chinese yuan (US$0.80).
A dream is good. A plan is better.
I think that they think there is a difference between Chinese culture (including their films) and the hollywood pap. When using internal flights in China I have to watch Chinese films (the only time I watch them) and I am often surprised at how good they are. If I were Chinese I would be proud of the Chinese film industry. I would also want to protect it.
I do not think it is really posible to protect a film as it has to go public at some point or it serves no purpose. At some point the film will get into the hands of the ripper, he will get the first release and have it on sale as quick as the original reaches general release. He normally has Hollywood films before they are released but that is because there are more crooks in Hollywood.
The Chinese do more to combat the rippers than the Americans do, but there is less respect for IP and more of an attitude of product in China. If Hollywood would sell a good product at a fair price the rippers would be out of business.
As for the valuable creative works, they are already doing it and they know that soon Hollywood will rip their ideas off just as they have always done in the past. Like with Yojimbo = A Fistfull of Dollars and Seven Samurai = The Magnificent Seven (I know Akira Kurosawa was Japanese but the point is still true). I think the most insulting thing is that Hollywood does not even make good copies of other peoples work.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Hey, you've posted this before.
5 14 674
4 44 9517
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43066&cid=4
And, apparently you think exactly the same of India:
'http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=42305&cid=
I personally think that it's 100% off topic, and you've shared your experiances more than people care.
There are more than a billion people in China. On what basis do you consider the Chinese movie industry "fledgeling"? Is it the fact that you never see any?
I guess you probably consider the Indian movie industry as fledgeling too, for the same reasons.
I lived in and worked in Malaysia for a year. I can tell you that 80%+ of the dvds/vcds/software out there in the field are illegal copies. no question about it.
No kidding, theft has to be the most abused concept of the latter half of the twentieth century.
I'ts not just IP either. Think about what we've gone through with welfare. It took forever to get to the point that welfare moved from these welfare stores of the thirties with their dehumanizing proselytizing to food stamps to simple cash payments. Once the stigma was finally being stripped away the rhetoric immediately turned to THIEVERY! Those fucking thieving nigger bitchez is stealing frum our fragile economy. Dear Lordy, them thieving snakes are gonna kill us all!
Now nevermind that the money that disappeared from a bankruptcy like Enron could have supported hundreds of thousands of crack dependent welfare moms who could have at least been there for at home watching the kids instead of taking some menial position outside the home to gratify the expiatory fantasy of the revenge seeking TV audiance.
And nevermind the fact that the scandanvian nations are total welfare states. That's not thieving because everything is "fair" there.
Now we've gone from mothers caring for children as thievery to accessing information as thievery.
I don't believe the Chinese are sincere about this crackdown on intellectual property because the Chinese intellectual tradition is a tradition based on a surprising degree of anonymity in authorship. One can argue that this is a product of political expediency, but over so many centuries that seems to be a bit of a stretch. Moreover, many truly proud Chinese authors have historically denied their authorship because they felt it was the honorable thing to take a humble position with regards to their authorship even when there was abundant evidence attributing their work to them.
And then there's this thing about the adoption of open hardware cores and the Dragon CPU. That doesn't go well with a new hardline attitude towards intellectual property.
This is really about the movie, Hero. Producers are taking special advantage of all these special precautions cause this is supposed to be the biggest export since "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"
You will see it here in the US, and it'll make a lot of money here. This isn't for the average HK flick yet, or bad Chinese cinema...this is like a sneak preview of "The Two Towers. the US cinema showing special previews months early would probably take the same precautions...
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
Wrong. Copyrights benefit the creators of the movie/music, etc. If somebody doesn't want to altruistically create something to "benefit the people as a whole", that's their right. If they want to sell their ceration, that's their right. As soon as you start removing copyright, you're essentuially stealing from those creators, which will cause them to completely and totally stop creating. Read Atlas Shrugged. You'll get a good idea of what'll happen when the gov't says, "your intellectual property is no longer yours... it belongs to "the people".
Suddenly? No. The change came quite some time ago, under Deng Xiaoping, who was pragmatic enough to declare that "It is glorious to be rich" and that "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice". In other words, prosperity was the objective moreso than maintaining a clearly nonfunctional ideology.
So, since then, they've basically been a vaguely capitalist single-party dictatorship; there are some socialist traces left like state-owned companies, but they've been edging away from them as well as the guaranteed-employment model.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I'm not going to say you support one side or another. But I can tell you one thing -- China economy, under the Communist regime, has had double digit economic growth rates for a decade. We haven't had that. Not even with our boom in the late 90s.
The Chinese government has been good to the majority of the people. That's why, if you go to China and research this, they are happy with their government. They remember what it was like under the US sponsored Guomingdang. To put it frankly: it sucked.
True Capitalism doesn't work in a country with 1.3 billion people. In fact, I fear for Chinese economy right now. Over the past ten years or so they have been pushing towards privitization. This has caused the great economic boom, but it has also caused the Chinese of the rural areas to be neglected by the ones in the urban areas. (Which happened less when it was the communist government running all the factories and developing all the businesses.)
So, no, opening up the economy won't help all chinese people. It may help the movie-going urban population... but that's leaving out 900 million rural inhabitants. Allow them to move into cities? It's happening right now, and it is disasterous. The Chinese government doesn't admit it, but it has millions of people in Beijing, Shanghai,Guangzhou, Chongqing, Chengdu, Xi'an, Tianjin, and other large cities who have moved from the country side and are job-less looking for work. (They they'll not find because 1) the government no longer promises jobs for everyone -- part of opening up 2) the Chinese businesses care more for profit than for social welfare -- another cause of opening up and 3) urban economies, when unregulated, can not grow at the pace that they would need to to employ everyone in China. (or even 50 percent))
So... you can argue that the economy needs to be opened up... but if you look at it economically (as opposed to your view of "right."), "opening up" the economy, entirely, will do nothing but hurt the Chinese people.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
But it's that taking away part that I fail to see when it comes to movies or software. If I, purely for the sake of discussion, download a movie from the internet, how is that stealing if, at the end, the owner still has the original?
Very simple. By doing so you are depriving the owner of income. That income is often required for the inventor to recover the investment he made in the production of the original of what you have copied. A movie these days can cost up to $100 million to produce. A new drug can cost $1 billion to bring to market. Who is going to invest that if they cannot recover their costs? By obtaining that illegal copy you are not only stealing that income from the author of the original, but you are also depriving us of future works by reducing the economic incentive to produce new inventions.
It is time that we start waking up and realizing that we as a civilization would not be where we are now had we not copied other people's invention.
And what if nobody had produced that invention in the first place? Would you have anything to copy?
The purpose of intellectual property law is to give added incentive to inventors and authors to produce new works. In the case of patent law there is the additional covenant which requires the inventor to fully disclose his invention in exchange for the patent grant.
In the grand scheme of technological progress a 20 year bar on copying an invention is insignifiact. The invention isn't going away; it will be available for copying.
In the late 1600's England realized the benefits of the social contrat of the Patent and Copyright, and made it law. The results were fabulous - man had not materially changed the way he lived since the development of agriculture. At that time the number of books that were available numbered in the thousands. Now the number is in the 100's of millions. The availability of this knowledge is due both to the copyright (encouragement of authors) and to the inventors who devised the hot metal Linotype machine, the web fed printing press and the Fourdriner paper making machine (all patented), advancing the old technology of papermaking that was essentially unchanged in the 5000 year period between the invention of paper by the Chinese and the invention of the patent in England.
Patents are by their very nature monopolistic. They go against everything that is considered "holy" in a capitalist economy.
And exactly how is that? Monopolies are a very natural outcome of a capitalistic society. This country has had a long tradition of monopolies including Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc.
The fact is that patents have a net effect of DECREASING monopolies because they put a specific time on the exclusive right of the inventor. The alternative to not having a patent system is to go back to the pre patent ways of doing things, that is protecting the technology with trade secret and licensing agreements. Trade secrets have NO period of duration. This is why some companies choose not to patent some inventions; for example the formula for Coca-Cola was never patented.
EULA's in and by themselves can't and shouldn't be able restrict my behavior after the act of purchase.
You are REALLY showing your ignorance here. EULAs are a CONTRACT between you and the software vendor. If we as a society decide that we are going to abandon contract law, pretty much all commerce becomes impossible.
Imagine somebody had patented paper hundreds of years ago and charged horrendous license fees to produce paper. It is highly arguable that such a copyright could never have been in the public interest.
FYI, A patent and a copyright are very different things, the first process of paper making was developed thousands, not hundreds of years ago, and the fact is that processes for making paper have been patented many times over the past 400 years with no apperent ill-effects.