China Passes Internet Copyright Legislation

Turtlewind writes "According to the Peoples' Daily Online, the Chinese government has passed new legislation regarding copyright on the internet. As well as increasing the penalties for online infringement and forcing ISPs to remove illegal content if given written notice, the law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection". While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?"

Comments

Everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that's quite true.

Re:Everyone?

[Ithika]

Agreed. The poster assumes an awful lot in his blurb. No, we weren't all hanging around on the edge of our seats until China implemented stronger IP laws. In fact, I don't think anything has been further from my mind.

It has always been a good thing that poor and industrialising haven't assumed the same set of IP laws as, for example, the US. All countries doing things the same way creates an implicit assumption that that way is somehow superior. But that is not the case. China has a duty to its own citizens and not to foreign corporations. (Indeed, I don't think anyone has a duty to foreign corporations.)

This is just the first step in a Chinese implementation of the DMCA; and for all that the US isn't a very free place to live, I wouldn't like to see how transgressors are dealt with in China.

Re:Everyone?

[remembertomorrow]

A wise man once said:

All generalities are false, including this one.

Re:Everyone?

[ThePhilips]

The real question has China any will to enforce the law? Would anyone there cooperate with RIAA/MPAA as much as they do in EU/US?

No doubt many (me included) see the passed law only as a step needed to please World Trade Organization.

Re:Everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even know what IP rights are, do protocols have rights now? If the submitter meant copyright, he should have said so!

Re:Everyone?

[iminplaya]

Damn right! It's not true. Up until I saw this, I considered China to be rather progressive about IP law. But, alas, the triumph of currency rules over all. Now they're just part of the problem. The chains are getting tighter. It is attitudes like this that just takes away the remaining value of life on what is becoming a prison planet. Oh well, here's hoping that we find a way to neutralize the weapons of the prison guards. Very depressing indeed.

Re:Everyone?

[iminplaya]

Of course they will cooperate. There are great profits to be made. The prison factories need more and more all the time. And Walmart will be able to offer better holiday discounts.

Re:Everyone?

[DRM_is_Stupid]

Oh, I get it. China has draconian law enforcement, except when said enforcement would make them look good in western eyes, because China is always evil, whenever they enforce or not enforce a law.

Re:Everyone?

[rob_squared]

Especially those of us who bought region-free DVD players from them. I mean, it circumvents the region encoding "protection," right?

Re:Everyone?

[Chowderbags]

He did say so, right in the headline!

Re:Everyone?

[ThePhilips]

Every country has "draconian" law enforcement when local traditions come into question.

Every country is lax on regulations enforced by some very unrelated party.

No doubt it's true for China. And I know it's true for US. (*)

(*) Adaptation of metric system being good example.

Interesting.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

As many others have noted in this forum before, the US ignored copyright, patents & trademarks as an emerging economy, right until its elite started to benefit from the trade monopolies granted by such IP.

It appears that China's elite is in a similar position to start benefitting more from the artificial market created by these laws.

On a slightly different note, it appears that Chinese journalists are more educated about internet copyright infringements than their western counterparts:

the uploading and downloading of Internet material without the copyright holder's permission. [emp mine]

Pity western journalists can't learn that. Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses.

Re:Interesting.

[Southpaw018]

You have no rights in China. I'm not quite sure what this article is about, or what you're talking about. The government can and will freely profit from the IP rights of its citizens, yes, but it can strip those rights whenever and however it pleases for any reason whatsoever.

This isn't some emerging trend, or some candle to hold up so that Western states can rise to it. At least here, when our IP rights are corroded, or IP gets overbearing, we have recourse.

Re:Interesting.

[Tim C]

At least here, when our IP rights are corroded, or IP gets overbearing, we have recourse.

You do? Excellent - please go ahead and seek recourse, as your country and corporations are both lobbying and inspiring mine to their own excesses.

Re:Interesting.

[Alfred, Lord Tennyso]

no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses.

I've always assumed that was because legal uses comprised a trivial fraction of cases, at least with respect to music and movies.

Re:Interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

without the copyright holder's permission. [emp mine]
Pity western journalists can't learn that.

The same corporations that own the mainstream music and movie industries also own the newspapers. Killing P2P isn't about keeping you from downloading Britney. It's about keeping you from hearing the major labels' competitors, the indie and local bands that would dearly love you to hear their stuff. They know full well that the studies have shown that the more a person uses P2P the more music they buy. The trouble is, they don't buy it all from the majors.

Just for yuks, email your local dimwitted journalist and explain it to him. Enclose a copy of Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning as an attachment, just to show them how good a free, independant movie can be!

Re:Interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because if you do anything but demonize copyright infringement and make it look worse than murder, you can be sure to receive a lawsuit from the powers-that-be on the grounds that you're promoting terrorism by encouraging piracy that funds them.
Welcome to America, land of the abuse of the legal system^W^W^W^W^W free.
Ironically enough, the CAPTCHA for this post was "Trusting".

Re:Interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant to say "I hold in my hand a piece of paper".

Re: Interesting.

[gidds]

Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses.

They don't need to mention it. If material is public domain, or you have the copyright holder's permission (e.g. under a suitable licence), then that's legally downloading music. So if you're talking about 'illegally downloading music', you're automatically excluding that.

But yes, I agree with the general point that far too many people tend to assume that all free downloading is illegal.

Re:Interesting.

[Decker-Mage]

Just ask McCormick or the McCormick reaper. His patent was stripped by the US Government. So much for the Constitution.

Re:Interesting.

[mrchaotica]

The government can and will freely profit from the IP rights of its citizens, yes, but it can strip those rights whenever and however it pleases for any reason whatsoever.

The government can do that here, too. It uses the phrase "national security" instead of "any reason whatsoever," but it amounts to the same thing these days.

Re:Interesting.

[mrchaotica]

Where in the Constitution does it say that McCormick had any kind of "right" to a patent? (Hint: it doesn't.)

Re:Interesting.

[werewolf1031]

I've always assumed that was because legal uses comprised a trivial fraction of cases, at least with respect to music and movies.

"Fair use" is not a trivial fraction, especially recording a TV show to watch later which is something millions of mostly-law-abiding people do on a routine basis, and have done for roughly two decades, entirely within the law. This new legislation could easily render something as simple as a VCR illegal in China. As always, it's just another case of government -- ANY gov't -- attempting to criminalize the routine behavior of ordinary citizens so they have an excuse to prosecute... that is, *persecute*... anyone at any time if they so much as hiccup funny.

Gah. Why bother. iminplaya was right, this IS becoming a prison planet.

Re:Interesting.

[plantman-the-womb-st]

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since you asked, a patent tends to be considered either a paper or an effect.

Re:Interesting.

[mrchaotica]

a patent tends to be considered either a paper or an effect.

Ah, see, that's the problem. It shouldn't be considered "an effect," since it's not property (regardless of whether it's called by the fictional term "Intellectual Property"). It shouldn't be considered a "paper" either, since it's a public document (as opposed to a private one).

Really, a patent represents a grant of privilage from the government to and indvidual, as reward for documenting an invention (as opposed to keeping the mechanism secret). As a grant, it inherently revokable by the issuer -- in fact, the government wouldn't have to explicitly "revoke" it at all, but could just stop enforcing protection of it. It would be revoked by default.

And it's entirely reasonable for the government to do this, because patents were created for the Public Good in the first place, not for the benefit of the inventor. If the public receives greater benefit by expropriating the patent directly instead of letting it stand in order to encourage more inventions, then that's fine.

Re:Interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do have rights in China.

Perhaps not the particular same sets of "rights" that is cherished by you, and perhaps more in theory than in practice, but you do.

Re:Interesting.

[kimvette]

How the hell is that a troll? Does a reasonable assessment of what is going on here in America today really justify modding the post as "Troll?" I don't think so.

Re:Interesting.

[KDR_11k]

However, that would be fraud because the government made a deal with the patenter that he shall pay 20000$ and disclose all information that belongs to the patent in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the patent. If the government just keeps his money and information while saying "we've changed our minds" that's theft or fraud. If the government hadn't lured him out with the promise of a temporary monopoly he might have decided to protect his invention through other means (including nondisclosure). Do you want the government to be allowed to ignore contracts on a whim? That is tyranny. Would you agree to the government coming into your house and taking things they like because it "benefits the greater good"? Do you approve of emminent domain?

Re:Interesting.

[mrchaotica]

Hmm... good point. I guess the government would have to refuse to grant the patent in the first place (and refund the application fee), or buy it from the inventor at Fair Market Value (as with Eminent Domain for real estate).

Re:Interesting.

[plantman-the-womb-st]

Nice interpretation. I'll extend your definition.

You erroneously consider any land that you may own to be "yours" and in fact private.

Really, land ownership is an abstraction that is actually your governing body giving you controlling rights to an area of land that you have requested controlling rights for. Since all land within the borders of the US is sovereign to the US, the public contract made between the government and whom ever petitions for controlling rights of a given area of land, is issued by the government and therefor able to be revoked. The contract is a public document, not a private one (anyone can request a copy of any deed or title from the Recorder's Office of the applicable county).

These public contracts are created for the public good. They allow for mediation between two parties whom may be in dispute of a given area of land. Thanks to these contracts there is a public record of which areas which people have been granted rights to by the governing body.

Re:Interesting.

[mrchaotica]

The difference is that land is Property (as in "unalienable right [to] Life, Liberty, and Property") whereas patents are created in order "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts." Get it?

Re:Interesting.

[shark72]

"Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses."

Every report on P2P that you've ever read? That's really quite odd; I just spent about 20 seconds entering "P2P" into the search box at wired.com and couldn't come up with any articles that even came close to implying that all music/software downloads are illegal. Frankly, I don't believe you, and I think that you're trying to set up a HUGE straw man here.

My experience is that I don't recall reading an article that deliberately implied that all music/software downloads are illegal. I may have read one that I don't remember, but at the most, it's the exception, not the rule. I know this is Slashdot, where we're all smarter than everybody else, but I really do think that the typical reader who follows stories on P2P or piracy understands that there is indeed freeware/shareware/open source software, and that a trivial amount of P2P traffic is indeed permission-based.

Re:Interesting.

[CherniyVolk]

This isn't some emerging trend, or some candle to hold up so that Western states can rise to it. At least here, when our IP rights are corroded, or IP gets overbearing, we have recourse.

Humor me, please. What so-called recourse might you take?

You can speak out? You can point a finger? Wait, I got it! You can run apachectl start, and post a blog for the world to see! But wait one second... who are you? If CNN doesn't make a claim of your credentials, noone cares what you have to say. Oh, but there's more. Furthermore, words are nothing but sound waves dissolving in unaffected gentle breeze. You won't pick up a gun, bat or throw a rock. You won't, becuase you think there's a higher plateau, a more sophisticated means of compromise or influence where everyone is happy throughout the debate. Problem is, not even geeks find much happiness in what they even consider truelly sophisticated; though we might enjoy being challanged, the connotation here is of the feeling of utter bewilderment and a sense of hopelessness. And why do you think, that those who are able to avoid action are better? Perhaps the answer to this question, lay within the social culture which you were raised. Oh, but, exactly WHO would most benefit in what could be accurately described as a docile subordinates?

Why, those in power... it's apparent.

But, lemme pose a question. Have you ever actually influenced anything in America? Yeah, the defacto standard response is something like, 'Yeah! I voted! Did you?'. If you aren't willing to fight, you don't truelly believe. See, our forefathers certainly believed. They rebelled with force, deadly force to themselves and to others around them. I'm sure there was some insane pilgrim who really cared more about serenity than her own personal welfare much less intangible crap such as personal rights. Rights... what rights? What rights do you think you have? Which of those rights have you exercised, diligently? None, I assure you. Cause, if you had, you'd quickly realize that long before you could have a modicum of impact on society, you would be jailed for break state, county, city ordinance, local and federal laws.

You are told you have 'rights' by someone very well capable of stripping them from you without you even being aware of it. You are handed a priveledge, and you are so enchanted by the implicit attention of someone of such power. Even if the King/President/Mayor/Senator/Congressman/Prime Minister et al passes laws that invalidate your given right. As long as those in power insist you have the Right, your ability or lack thereof, to practice your right effectively on a social scale becomes irrelevant. Your Rights, are irrelevant; and, YOU still don't care.

Why don't you care? Becuase you only care enough to pick up a pencil and roll out of bed... an excuse to not go to work, or an excuse to be late to work... Sir, I was at the polls fullfilling my civic duty! Democracy is great! Is that it? If I raped your daughter, you'd only be motivated enough to scrawl a worthless check on a peace of paper? Everything is fine after that? Justice is served? No, you would likely try to kill me. You would try to kill such an agressor, hopefully, becuase the safety of your daughter or children is a very STRONG belief to you. Is it not? See, the stronger the belief, the more willing you are to actually do something about a violation of your belief; including murder, mutilation.

Since it's safe to assume, you have yet to pick up a firearm on behalf of your belief of the infalible greatness ingrained in American politics, you really do not give two flying rats asses about what the American government does or doesn't do. You don't really care about your Rights, not like you care about the safety of your daughter. You don't care, one iota.

Yet, here you are, trying to claim those in China are left with no recourse; when you have absolutely none yourself. The Chinese have several advantages regarding this dilemna. First, th

If by everyone, you mean some.

[expro]

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?

If by everyone, you mean some, then you are right. You clearly do not speak for everyone or for me. There is great value in having diversity in laws in different areas of the world, it is sad to see freedoms lost, and it is obvious to me that China will borrow our worst policies, including DCMA-style anti-circumvention nonsense.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[baldass_newbie]

China will borrow our worst policies, including DCMA-style anti-circumvention nonsense.

If you think that's the worst thing going on in China, then you've got your head up your arse. I wouldn't consider it 'freedom lost' since that would imply there was a freedom to lose. China is just coming to grips with notions of Property (the 'P' in 'IP'.)
They are Communist, remember?

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[Ithika]

They are Communist, remember?

No, not really. Do you honestly think that the branches of McDonalds in Beijing are owned by the workers? Your naivete is touching.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[dominator]

The way I look at things is that China has had unfettered access to our (relatively free) markets while it has severely limited Western ownership in and access to its markets. Their stance on human rights is awful. They wield draconian control over the Yuan. The balance of power has been relatively one-sided thus far. All this, even as they're in the midst of applying for membership in the WTO. At best, they pay lip-service to the WTO's (and thus, the West's) demands, including IP reform.

Anything that signals that China is becoming more willing to play the same game as the West is a welcome relief for me. Free trade must be reciprocal. That is, unless we wisen up and fully appreciate who it is we've been dumping dollars into all these years, to the detriment of our local manufacturing sectors.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[Anonymous Coward]

it is obvious to me that China will borrow our worst policies

The RIAA and PRC government go together like fugly at a Radcliffe party.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm sure the franchises are owned by The Party. People have all this rosy notion about "communism" "never existing" "in practice," which mearly showes their predisposition towards the lies. Do you really, honestly think that anyone ever intends to get past the dictatorship of the proleteriat? Did Marx? Probably not. Marx and Engles were educated and wealthy. What would they gain by giving it away? Nothing. What would they gain by LYING to the masses in order that they would deliver themselves whole-heartedly into the hands of a system much, much more oppressive than Capitalism? Very high.

Communism is the biggest lie ever told, with Christianity being #2.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[gowen]

Do you really, honestly think that anyone ever intends to get past the dictatorship of the proleteriat?

I've no doubt it was the intention of some. Rosa Luxembourg, for example, Tony Benn as another. Probably Marx and Engels, too. As good middle-class boys, they were prime candidates for the necessary level of idealism to believe that that would happen.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[Anonymous Coward]

What would they gain by giving it away? Nothing. What would they gain by LYING to the masses in order that they would deliver themselves whole-heartedly into the hands of a system much, much more oppressive than Capitalism? Very high.

Contrary to what Americans are taught in school, not everyone is motivated exclusively by money and power. It's quite possible that Marx and Engels weren't. The problem with Communism is, a great many people are motivated by precisely those things. (Though fewer than you'd think, if you've only ever met Americans).

PS : What does it say about someone who pretends to be an expert on Communism and can't spell Engels?

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[drinkypoo]

This IS just lip service. China has a long history of benefiting from utilizing the rest of the world's IP. Lots of machine tools have come out of China replicated so faithfully that they have the same design flaws. And, of course, the world market in "pirated" media of all kinds is driven at least as much by China as by any of the other major players (like Russia.) You can expect anyone in good with the power structure in China to continue to distribute materials in violation of copyright for the forseeable future.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[shutdown -p now]

Two things.

First, not all branches of communism are Marxist. Thus, not all commies consider dictatorship of the proletariat necessary or even possible.

Second, dictatorship of the proletariat as defined in theoretical works was never implemented either. The closest we ever came to that were the workers' councils operating in early post-revolution years in Soviet Russia, but the Party took over soon enough. It was declared that proletariat speaks through the Party, but, with all inside democratic procedures de-facto disabled, it was never really the case. The same system was then exported to other countries, most often directly, sometimes through a proxy (usually China).

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[Anonymous Coward]

Authoritarian (state) communism will never work as it lacks a proper mechanism to get past the dictatorship of the proletariat, as Marx was well aware of. Libertarian communism / anarchism did however actually work in practice in large parts of Spain for a brief period during the thirties.

The workers themselves took control of businesses, security, welfare, health care, schooling and public services as the state seized to function. Society was completely democratic, everything was decided at town meetings and nobody was forced to collectivize. Productivity and quality of living soared and crime and poverty dropped to almost zero. They even did a decent job of defending themselves for a while. Although they eventually had to give in to the fascists like most of the rest of Europe, the "socialist experiment" was generally regarded as quite successful while it lasted.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Draconian controls" over the yuan sounds so...sinister. Pegging one currency to another (allowing a slow rate of change) isn't anything outrageous, a number of Central and South American countries directly use the dollar, either officially or as a de facto parallel currency.

China has been a member of the WTO for a number of years now.

The entire Chinese banking system is heavily invested in by US banks, something the US doesn't allow foreign banks to do. Overall the market isn't as open as with the US, but the US has the world's most open market.

It's to the detriment of the U.S.'s manufacturing sector, but to the obvious help of other sectors. For one, China is heavily invested in low-interest government bonds, George Bush wouldn't be able to spend wildly without raising taxes if it wasn't for the Chinese government.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[nelziq]

Free trade must be reciprocal.

This is entirely untrue. Free trade is beneficial regardless of whether it is reciprocated. This is established economic theory for 200 years. See David Ricardo

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[sgt_doom]

No - they are definitely not communist - in fact there is a progression towards very little difference between the present system in China, fascist capitalism, and the same system in the United States of America (also fascist capitalism or corporate fascism).

I believe their notion of property dates back some 3,000 years or so.....

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[baldass_newbie]

You're an idiot.
When I had my second daughter, nobody came to my door and ordered her executed, as they do in China.
I can freely change jobs without getting authorization from the central party. Likewise with medical care.
Also, whatever I earn, I get to keep and use as I please.

I know in your coffeeshop mentality that equates to 'fascism', but you should bone up on history and read about what real fascist states are like for those that live in them. Take a look at the folks who are modifying 1950's era cars into boats to try and escape Castro's wonderland.

Here's something, google falun dafa. Heck, download some exercises. Read up on it.
And know that if you did so in China - you would either be imprisoned or killed.
See the difference?

As for 'their notion of property', you would do well to read this vignette.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some.

[sgt_doom]

Negative, sonny, my suggestion to you is:

Go back to the time the Bush administration took over back in 2000 or thereabouts, and begin reading the Federal Register forward. Start back about four years ago and peruse the all those Supreme Court decisions handed down. Next, read over the Patriot Act very slowly and very carefully. After that, check over all the regulations handed down by the National Labor Relations Board since the Busheviks have been in offce. Finally, if you ever served in the US military, kindly review the oath you took --- the same oath General Hayden was supposed to be obeying and quite similar to Bush's oath of office.

Then, after you've done all that, come back and repeat your accusation to me --- if you honestly can....

China bans computers?

[grimwell]

the law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection".

Doesn't that describe general purpose computers?

Re:China bans computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

you beat me to it, I saw that clip and wondered, ok, what are they really talking about, do they even know what they are talking about? Clearly they are not going to ban computers.

Re:China bans computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe their trying to stop people trafficing?

Re:China bans computers?

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Hell, by that wording they've banned DVD players, TV's, etc.

Buy a TV, hook it up to a DVD burner or VCR (yeah, one of those ancient devices), record a movie broadcast via cable or TV, and voila, you've violated the copyright.

Buy a DVD player and a DVD burner. Rent a movie, duplicate it, and again you're in violation.

Granted, the copies in both these cases wouldn't be 100% digital reproductions, but they'd still be violating copyright.

Re:China bans computers?

[VoxCombo]

Do you see the little pair of curved lines before and after the sentence taken from the article? Those are called quotation marks, and they imply that the sentence has other stuff before and after it.........

So instead of jumping to a silly conclusion, try drawing a logical inference and assume there is language similar to the US "substantial non-infringing uses".

Re:China bans computers?

[rufty_tufty]

Add to that any camera, or indeed, the good old pen and pencil.

Sorry, can't chaulk on cave walls, you could breach copyright!

Just watch then stick a "digital" in there somewhere to avoid this...

Hey everyone, don't panic

[localroger]

Fortunately TFA doesn't say they have banned the production and export of devices that allow us to bypass DRM. Your supply of Chinese DVD players that can be hacked to skip the unskippable bits and disable Macrovision will not be affected.

Re:Hey everyone, don't panic

[twitter]

Your supply of Chinese DVD players that can be hacked to skip the unskippable bits and disable Macrovision will not be affected.

I'd like one that just works out of the box, thank you.

Typo in summary

[gowen]

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP human rights.

There, fixed it for you.

I couldn't give a damn about Chinese IP rights, but this action is rather indicative of where the pressure from the West is being directed. Our governments don't care if the Chinese people are oppresssed, as long as our corporations aren't getting ripped off.

Re:Typo in summary

[gowen]

ooops. Guess IP doesn't work at slashdot...

Re:Typo in summary

[linvir]

Scroll down a bit further:

Allowed HTML
<b> <i> <p> <br> <a> <ol> <ul> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <em> <strong> <tt> <blockquote> <div> <ecode>

Re:Typo in summary

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you see so much of this: ...its enforcement of IP^H^Hhuman rights.

Re:Typo in summary

[Ilex]

Sadly I have to agree that you are correct. Governments everywhere, not just China now uphold the privilege of the IP Monopoly that is Copyright and Patents over Human Rights like freedom of expression. Copyrights and Patents are now being abused to stifle the culture they were meant to protect.

The more the IP fascists buy new law's to persecute those who they deem to be infringing the more people will begin to resent the persecution. When enough peoples Children have been imprisoned or executed civil unrest will follow. Government will soon strip away these IP laws when enough people get angry enough. Remember governments only listen to those who can keep them in power.

Ironic that the biggest IP fascists are the entertainment industry. It is said that entertainment is the opiate of the masses. Lets see what happens when DRM and these IP laws prevent the masses from getting their fix.

Re:Typo in summary

[linvir]

I have no mind but Google. I must copy and paste.

pre is a magic newline and space deal, whereas ecode is a capricious beast that I do not understand. Apparently it depends on the site owner's implementation.

Re:Typo in summary

[noidentity]

Our governments don't care if the Chinese people are oppresssed, as long as our corporations aren't prevented from ripping everyone off.

There, fixed it for you.

So china has banned computers?

[gentimjs]

RE: law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection".
So the PRC has banned all PCs and other general use computers? SHHHHHHH!!! Stop giving ideas to the XIAAs ! ;-)

They already hold copyright on the word Tiananmen

[arivanov]

Let me guess what this will be used for.

Copyright on the AIDS prevalence reports in the China rural population after the massive infections produced by various "buy your blood for money" scam artists of the late 90-es.

Copyright on the documentation about the Three Gorges dam and its environmental assessment

Copyright on the studies about the history of Tibet

Copyright on the ...

MPAA and RIAA get what they always wanted ...

[LordAbraxsis]

ironclad Copyright laws in a country that would rather execute you than listen to what you have to say.

/Counts the days to a world wide boycott on Music/Movies following the first Copyright Infringement conviction that is followed by the person's execution.

Re:MPAA and RIAA get what they always wanted ...

[Zaphod2016]

What a crazy idea, and even crazier because it seems more feasible every day.

Re:MPAA and RIAA get what they always wanted ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's naive to think that american consumers would boycott music/movies because some guy in China got killed over it. The message the average consumer would take from that would be "China has dumb laws," rather than "the *IAA is bad."

Re:MPAA and RIAA get what they always wanted ...

[jez9999]

Now if only the Chinese people would rather execute their current government than hear what they have to say.

Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[eldavojohn]

Remember everyone, this is legislation coming from a government that proclaims itself to be communist. According to the ideas set down long ago by Marx & Engels, there is no sense of private property--yet we're seeing laws protecting intellectual property. Doesn't make much sense. Then again, there isn't any idea of a market system in Communism yet China is rife and growing with rudimentary free markets and international business.

Why do we see the leader of the Communist Party arguing for strengthening stronger IP rights?

Could they at least change the name of their party? They're really giving way to a new form of Communism that only seems to select and use the parts that are useful to them given the time and place. Seriously, what part of the original idea of Communism is left without these two things? They are picking a very odd way to abolish social classes. Perhaps they should be called Neo-Communists or just flat out trend-Communists.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[zymurgy_cat]

Could they at least change the name of their party? They're really giving way to a new form of Communism that only seems to select and use the parts that are useful to them given the time and place.

The same could be same of just about any political party and/or political belief. For example, in the US, Republicans favor small government and despise government intrusion in people's lives....unless, of course, they're enforcing moral/religious viewpoints. Similar examples can be offered for Democrats.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[kfg]

They're really giving way to a new form of Communism that only seems to select and use the parts that are useful to them given the time and place.

This has always been the way of China. In the long haul they have always been social pragmatists.

You may not be so different yourself. Have you adopted Germanic pagan tree worship, or do you just put up a "Christmas" tree because you like to?

KFG

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[Anonymous Coward]

You confuse intellectual "property" (a propaganda term) and real physical property. Copyright and patent monopolies are ANTI- free-market-capitalist, and seriously undermine physical property rights (e.g. despite having all the physical property to build a copy of a patented device (WITHOUT depriving anyone else of their physical property or the fruits of their labour - copying isn't theft) with your own time and materials, you are prohibited from doing so).

Strong enforcement of I"P" fits right in with the InfoFascist mentality of the Chinese Communists, just as much as with the InfoFascist mentality of the American Corporatists.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we see the leader of the Communist Party [blackenterprise.com] arguing for strengthening stronger IP rights?

They're just doing this because of preasures put on them by the owners of the IP that's going over there - via our Government. That's all.

Maybe, in time, this will push their economy over more towards freer markets.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[RsG]

Bah, heathen. Keep insulting my tree gods, and I won't send you any mid-winter feast cards this year :-P

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[gowen]

Could they at least change the name of their party?

Are you kidding? The cost to reprint the official stationery would bankrupt the country.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[benk81]

Next you'll be saying that the main conservative party in Australia should change its name from the Liberal party!

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean like in Marx and Engels' Manifesto of the Communist Party -- first printed in London, thus granted copyright February 1848.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[iminplaya]

Perhaps they should be called Neo-Communists or just flat out trend-Communists.

Nah, plain ol' fascist is good enough.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[kfg]

Keep insulting my tree gods. . .

Quite the contrary, I was insulting Christians, because my name is Rex Cramer; Danger Seeker!

KFG

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - authoritarian state runs large scale firms itself but allows small scale firms to run themselves = facism.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels

[geobeck]

Perhaps they should be called Neo-Communists or just flat out trend-Communists.

Nah, The Mao Dynasty would be more accurate.

Priorities

[gentimjs]

I think you are dead-on with this ... I'd rather see the various oppressions easened-up than see some copyright crap passed. Frankly, China's loose stance on copyright/"IP"/etc is one of the few things I find redeeming about thier system.

What about modchips China loves to make?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine all the lost GNP for China now that they wont allow their citizens to make millions of modchips and illegal CDs.

Wait... this bill only influences THEIR copyright... not the copyright of foreign countries.

Continue your communism, nothing to see here.

Public opinion and China

[Anonymous Coward]

is this a step too far?

Whatever China could possibly do is a step too far, eh?

Hypocritical

[Enderandrew]

Does anyone find this a bit hypocritical given that China is arguably the largest pirate nation on the planet?

Neither the populace nor government has any respect for foreign intellectual property value.

Re:Hypocritical

[Kirth]

Well, its actually not the largest pirate nation, the largest would probably be malaysia. But its true, only too often a freightship attacked and taken over in the malacca strait or south china sea finds its way into chinese ports.

http://www.imo.org/Legal/mainframe.asp?topic_id=33 4

Re:Hypocritical

[cciRRus]

China is not the top software piracy nation, but rather the third. Apparently, Vietnam is at the top of the list, followed by Ukraine and then China.

Re:Hypocritical

[Enderandrew]

I saw that list, but it is by percentages. Take said percentage, and multiply it by the population and China becomes the largest pirate nation on the planet.

Re:Hypocritical

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocritical? How so? If the Chinese government looked at the state of their nation, and thought "piracy is bad" and "our people are responsible for a lot of piracy," enacting a law to prevent piracy is about the only reasonable and consistent thing they could do. If they said "piracy is bad" and then didn't enact such a law, that would be hypocritical.

Maybe you're confused about what the word means?

Re:Hypocritical

[jj102]

for ur ignorance, i did the search for you, according to this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_on_hi_te/so ftware_piracy, the lost sales for year 2005 in the US was $6.9 billions,$3.9 billions in china and $3.2 billions in France.
now its the percentage: The countries with the highest piracy rates, according to the study, were Vietnam, 90 percent; Zimbabwe, 90 percent, Indonesia, 87 percent, and China and Pakistan, both at 86 percent. Russia, down 4 percentage points to a piracy rate of 83 percent; Ukraine, down 6 percentage points to a piracy rate of 85 percent.

Re:Hypocritical

[WaffleMonster]

In China to have your works copied is concidered an honor -- there is a different mindset that needs to be recognized. With all of the legal squabbling in the US with patents and copyrights and organizations using the law to both unjustly enrich themselves and protect their flawed technologies I don't think we should be "exporting" our flawed ideas until at least we get our own problems straightened out.

Re:Hypocritical

[ClamIAm]

People are hypocritical. Therefore, governments are too. The US is hypocritical in this as well, as we ignored copyrights for a long time, yet now we want everyone to respect ours.

Re:Hypocritical

[Enderandrew]

"for ur ignorance", China's population is over 1.3 billion people. With a piracy rate of 86%, that would make 1,123,429,878 pirates. That would make them the largest pirate nation in the world.

Re:Hypocritical

[Enderandrew]

I should consider it an honor when someone breaks into my house and steals my TV? They consider it worthy of being stolen after all.

Look, I know I won't get much sympathy for the film and music industry here, and perhaps rightfully so. However billions and billions are stolen from the US alone from China every year. Where as consumers in the US still pay for music, movies, software, etc. perhaps half the time, 86% piracy rate exists in China, and if I had to guess, I'd wager that a large part of the 14% that isn't pirated is home grown.

When you miss out on 1.3 BILLION consumers because they are allowed to steal from you without anyone caring to enforce IP rights, then I don't think China is allowed to take the moral high ground on such issues.

Again, this is very hypocritical for the country.

Re:Hypocritical

[jj102]

lol, how many ppl of the 1.3 billion own a computer? use ur brain plz, if its like what u said, China wouldnt be only 1.2 times more than France in the lost sales based on the fact that China has roughly 18 times more than France in population.

Re:Hypocritical

[Enderandrew]

I won't dignify "use ur brain plz".

Re:Hypocritical

[jj102]

When you miss out on 1.3 BILLION consumers because they are allowed to steal from you without anyone caring to enforce IP rights, then I don't think China is allowed to take the moral high ground on such issues. Based on any facts? Are you stupid enough not to do any research before spitting out any rubbish from ur mouth? Let me give u a tip, search for something related to the laws. If China is Hypocritical, so are other countries, -_-!!

Re:Hypocritical

[jj102]

how about come back with some facts supporting ur point?

Re:Hypocritical

[Enderandrew]

I don't respond to Trolls, nor personal attacks.

I gave you hard numbers and facts. You provided none. You provided empty rhetoric and flames. Perhaps you failed to notice, but I'm done. When I kindly asked someone to downmod you for being a Troll, I was implying that I don't consider you worth my time.

I hope that is more clear.

Re:Hypocritical

[jj102]

Oh, now you are accusing me to do personal attack. I guess that attacking a country blindly wont be a matter to you. When you made your statements like in the above, i suppose that you were ready to take any response back from other ppl with a valid proof, but you are just like a coward running away, haha. I dont see any facts you provided, for you information, China is neither the worst in total lost sales nor percentage, you cant derive it is the worst pirate country from these two figures. So why is it the largest pirate nation on the planet? YOu said based on its 1.3 billion population, well, if you took the population as a consideration, why you stopped here not going further? How about considerring the number of ppl owning a computer then come back with a fact to prove your point? Based on your theory, you can put any random " the Largest" hat on China, just coz it has 1.3 billion ppl, LOL.

Re:Hypocritical

[jj102]

btw, the piracy rate of a country does not mean the percentage of its population doing piracy, not sure why you wanted to use piracy rate * the population. -_-!!

To bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this does not apply to all the copyrights on physical products the steal on a daily basis...but then again, what should we really expect from a bunch of Commies!?

Freedom!

[VincenzoRomano]

So we can say that one third of the world cannot access a free (ans in freedom) internet. Another third cannot access it at all.
So is it right to call it "world wide web"?

Re:Freedom!

[linvir]

The freedom of the internet is a negative right, not a positive one. But it's on the national level, not the individual level, meaning that nations are not prevented by others from connecting to the internet, and nobody is obligated to step forward and connect others to the internet. And each nation gets to decide individually whether or not to allow certain traffic, just as they are allowed to make their skies a no-fly zone or ban the importation of products that are blasphemous according to their belief system.

If it were any other way, it'd be paternalistic imperialism on our part (see Iraq)

Re:Freedom!

[jginspace]

"So we can say that one third of the world cannot access a free (ans in freedom) internet. Another third cannot access it at all."

Ah, you'll be referring to this map: http://opennet.net/map/ right? (Sorry, Flash required)

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[Enderandrew]

You forgot the history of Taiwan.

It's nice to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that China's legislators are as clueless as our are! This is a good thing, the worse other governments are, the better our incompetents can keep up.

Basically it looks like they banned computers, VCRs, and tape recorders (and cell phones?). I wonder what country will manufacture our electronic geegaws now? ;)

There Goes Lenovo

[cyberbian]

The ban includes the production of devices that can be used to circumvent IP protections...

I guess Lenovo is about to file the Chinese equivalent of Chapter 11.

Stupid Human Rights Tricks...

Prohibition has never been the answer, how many times do we need to learn this?

No Strict Definitions for US Parties

[Anonymous Coward]

The same could be same of just about any political party and/or political belief. For example, in the US, Republicans favor small government and despise government intrusion in people's lives....unless, of course, they're enforcing moral/religious viewpoints. Similar examples can be offered for Democrats.

But there is no "Republican Manifesto" or "Democrat Manifesto" or even literature written to define precisely what Republican or Democrat mean. They're constantly changing parties that have gone 180 degrees and back again in the history of US politics. In fact, they're not really the "Grand Ole' Party" by name much anymore. My point is that Communism is a very concrete and established idea. The Chinese government has fewer and fewer traits and are now seemingly Communist only by name.

Interesting-Farmer's market.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It appears that China's elite is in a similar position to start benefitting more from the artificial market created by these laws."

Is a market really a market, if there are no farmers? And is a farmer's market just a step above going to every individual farmer?

Waging the war on freedom...

[el_crapitan]

I hear they are looking to copyright things like 'democracy' and 'rights' so that they'll have even more reasons to through those pesky chinese bloggers away.

Misparse

[Morosoph]

It's not that markets are artificial, it's that IP is artificial property. Literally: that ideas can be restricted in their domain of use is a human artifice.

Re:Misparse

[KDR_11k]

On the other hand, property itself is an artificial concept.

Re:China bans modchips?

[boron boy]

I think this could this mean no more Chinese sourced modchips. Better get them while you can.

Computers illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are all programmable computers illegal by this law?

Incorrect summary

[jkrise]

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?"

While the entire article speaks specifically about Copyright violations only, the summary lumps it under 'Intellectual Property' and confuses the issue. And immediately, the /. crowd will be up in arms about software piracy, China's poor record against piracy etc.

When the term "intellectual property" is itself not clearly defined, and software patents - a key component of the so-called "IP" - are not treated equally by all nations.... why should we over-simplify this matter?

China's suposed violations of s/w patents, licenses and trademarks have no bearing on the legislation being debated.

Re:Incorrect summary

[iminplaya]

While the entire article speaks specifically about Copyright violations only, the summary lumps it under 'Intellectual Property' and confuses the issue.

Not at all. The evil here is IP law and all that it encompasses. It's no different than speaking about Christianity and lumping it under religion.

MOD UP!

[brunes69]

Man, you took the words right out of my mouth.

I was actually planning a comment along these lines in my head when I clicked on the story.

Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

China was so progressive with their stance on copyrights, i.e. turning a blind eye to violations and whatnot, leading to leaps and bounds in innovation and progress in science and the useful arts. Now their devolving into the US with respect to IP. Too bad. Expect innovation in China to stagnate like the US in a few years.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[stubear]

You can't copyright a word, but then again, much of copyright law seems to elude your typical slashdot reader. Also, last I checked, copyright has nothing to do with government censorship of facts and information.

Between the US and China...

[burningion]

Between the US and China there has been a rediculous number of infringements on human privacy and freedom of speech. I think the best way to stop the NSA and China's insistence on snooping and restricting is for as many people as possible to start participating in an anonymizing service, like the EFF's TOR Project. It wraps every web request in encryption and then routes it through other servers so noone can tell what the other person is looking for. I wrote a tutorial on putting this anonymizing software on a hidden volume in a USB key for those people who want to be able to surf the web, without big brother tracking them. Make your own DemocraKey, and let's take away every government's ability to regulate thought.

Insightful, not funny

[Mateo_LeFou]

I'm waiting for a forward-thinking, high-profile country to stand up and say. "Hey, you know what, we thought about it and
-A twenty year copyright term provides enough incentive for the creation of works and the advancement of science and the useful arts
-Recent technology has made it quite easy for an author to recoup a hefty reward for a popular piece of writing/art over the course of twenty years.

It seems absurd to me that as the world gets more interconnected, making it easier for an author to find and sell to hisher market in a short time period, copyright terms are being extended

Re:Insightful, not funny

[mOdQuArK!]

Such a country had better be self-sufficient. There are all kinds of nasty economic tricks that a big country can do to a small one if the small country doesn't "play by the rules".

Re:Insightful, not funny

[shutdown -p now]

I think that, at the moment, the only countries which might be bothered to do anything like that are socialist ones. But there are none big ones left anyway, and for China, which is capitalist already in all but name, this step did make a lot of sense.

Re:Insightful, not funny

[Anonymous Coward]

That's simple. It's about control. Longer IP protection means more control to those with economic power, and a longer time for playing fields to level. The potential for level playing fields is enough to justify any measures by those in power to prevent them occurring, simply because they are a path to the weakening of their power. Power is an end in itself, and those who have it will fight to keep it, however much harm is done to others in the process.

Re:Insightful, not funny

[jx100]

Aren't they trying for this in Sweden? They seem to have enough of an anti-copyright stance to have a pro-piracy political party.

Re:Insightful, not funny

[techno-vampire]

Considering Sweden's Viking heritige, I'm not at all surprised there's a pro-piracy party there.

Re:Insightful, not funny

[Meneth]

The Swedish Pirate Party wants a five-year copyright term, while allowing all non-commercial use from day one.

Re:Insightful, not funny

[ClamIAm]

The major problems here are the WTO and the Berne Convention. The Wikipedia article says Victor Hugo instigated it, and much of the idea was based on the French concept of "right of the author", rather than the economic idea of copyright. It requires all non-photograph and non-cinema copyrightable works to be protected for life + 50 years. Why they chose two arbitrary classes of copyrightable things to be different I have no idea.

The WTO comes into this by requiring member countries to sign the TRIPs Agreement, which contains most of the language of the Berne Convention. Interestingly, the WTO defines computer programs as "literary works" in this agreement, so software patents could either invalidate themselves or open us up to literary patents, at least according to the WTO.

The kicker here is that to be a member of the WTO, you must accept whatever they tell you to. Oh and there's pretty much no oversight. So any member country who decided to go against the grain would be barred from trading with any other member countries until they were in compliance.

Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bad sign when China's looking to us for tips on restricting people's freedoms.

I think you're recourse has run its course.

[Mateo_LeFou]

If I understood Moglen's analysis of Eldred v Ashcroft correctly, the Supreme Court more or less said there is no Constitutional limit on how "overbearing" copyright laws can get. Anything Congress passes is presumed kosher.

You still have the recourse of finding new legislators to start repealing these bogus "intellectual property" laws. Good luck with that. The trend in 80% of (democratic) governments is to extend the scope and length of copyright coverage even more, and to have these extensions enforceable across international boundaries through WIPO etc.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[RsG]

Oh, I dunno. I could see censorship done via IP law, even if not directly.

What if, for example, P2P programs caught on in China as a way to circumvent government censorship? Banning those programs as "subversive" (or words to that effect) would have political repercussions. Banning them in the name of IP law however would work fine - there would be less uproar, and as a bonus, the law would have the support of any media company operating in China. Plus, the government could claim they were complying with western law.

"Censorship? What censorship? We're merely protecting copyright materials. How is that different from what companies in America do?" -- Doesn't that seem a little convienient?

Not saying it will happen, but it's not that far fetched. And the only reason I see for it not happening is the fact that china really doesn't feel the need to justify it's actions internationally, or at least they haven't felt the need yet.

Good for the goose...

[Afty0r]

... forcing ISPs to remove illegal content if given written notice, the law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection

Is this not exactly the situation the US of America is in, and has been for the best part of a decade?

Banning devices

[Alien54]

there's this bit:

banning "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection".

Technically, wouldn't that ban the production, import and supply of computers? Note that it does not say "specifically designed"

This would open the door to all sorts of draconian enforcements of the law. This would fit the stereotype of a bureaucrat's paradise. I bet other countries are taking notes.

Re:Banning devices

[hynakin]

Well, this is only a translation from one of the chinese dialects... the original is probably written in Mandarian so this translation is never the same as the original... Therefor you can't go too far into detail.

Re:Banning devices

[vux984]

production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection

Not just computers:

Video cameras, still cameras (including cellular phones), tape recorders, photocopiers, fax machines, scanners...

pretty much anything with an "analog capture mode" is capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection... ...microphones, web cams, pen and paper, sticks and clay

IP and communism

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that IP is at odds with the principles of communism.

This move has been made for two reasons:
  -as a political measure for the US
  -as another reason to put dissadents in jail

The US would say to China "you need to have more freedoms like us", ... "except with information owned by our corporations. In that area, you need less freedom"

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[iminplaya]

I could see censorship done via IP law, even if not directly.

If you follow the news at all, then you have seen censorship done via IP law. In case you haven't figured it out by now, this is what IP law is about. This is its purpose. As for China, They want some of that WTO action. And they'll do anything to get it.

Uh huh

[arodland]

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?

No, I'm sure that the average John Chinaman is truly in love with the prospect of a government-run IP crackdown!

Re:Uh huh

[darllikesdong]

"Also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please."

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[mrchaotica]

It doesn't -- it calls itself "China" too! It's just not the same China as the mainland.

Yay!

[Greyfox]

Now all they need to do is pass a law saying that spammers will be executed. They can do that -- their government can do whatever it wants. Not like here. So go ahead, China! Start executing spammers! You have nothing to lose. Well, except a bunch of spammers. They're not... um... contributing to the... er... harmoniousness of your society anyway. Yeah, that's the ticket...

It is not free trade.

[expro]

Free trade must be reciprocal.

Copyright is not about free trade, but about granting of monopoly. Anti-circumvention legislation is even less about free trade but about further restricting what consumers are permitted to do with their already restricted copyrights.

You may argue about whether it is good or bad, but free trade it will never be. However much Americans may like to claim the west is about freedom, often they are about restrictions and anti-freedom. China loves to copy our restrictions wherever it suits them. Copying our games only should be flattering to Americans where it is something good, but you know Americans: "They hate us for our Freedom"(TM) so lets banish more freedom and call it patriotic.

That's not communism, THIS is communism:

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism doesn't mean "everything is owned by everyone", it means "everything is owned by the same entity that owns everyone"; the government. And with that attitude, it's easy to make some of the "decisions" they've made regarding "their" human's "rights"...

Re:That's not communism, THIS is communism:

[shutdown -p now]

Communism does mean that "everything is owned by everyone", by definition.

Never right

[jandersen]

Sigh - once again we see the tsunami of uninformed drivel that is provoked every time China is said to have done anything.

- when they were an isolated, communist state, that was SO EVIL!!!!
- so they opened up, introduced market economy and started outcompeting America, and that is SO EVIL!!!
- but they didn't respect copyright, and that was SO EVIL!!!
- so now they introduce laws that protect copyright holders, and that is SO EVIL!!!

Hmmm, do we see a tendency here? It seems that China can do nothing right, no matter what.

Plus all the nonsense about whether they are really communists or not. 'Communism' and 'capitalism' as political and economical systems both have their roots in Victorian England, and just as you wouldn't expect 'capitalism' to stay the same through the > 100 years since then, you can't expect communism to be the same now as it was then. The world changes and our ideas change with it. Or, at least this is what happens outside the USA.

In my opinion what China has now is communism - not quite the thing Karl Marx described, but essentially the same. I personally think it is good, far better than what you have in the US. It is still far from perfect, but it is evolving and improving, which is what USA's system doesn't.

China and the Chinese leaders have shown great courage and made huge progress. In the beginning of the 20th century China was a backward, chaotic country with an absolute monarch, who lived in total isolation from his people. Only 50 years later China was one of the world's superpowers, and in the last ~20 years or so they have evolved from being a closed country that was limping behind socially, economically and politically to being the emerging leader of the world in all areas, whether you or anybody else like it or not. Everybody who knows about these things agree about this, even American economists are in little doubt; it's only a matter of time when America will be relegated to second or third position.

And that, in essence, is why you Americans keep whining about how bad China is; not because you really care one bit about the plight of other people. If you had cared, you wouldn't keep going on about China, but rather talked about the poverty in India, the hunger in Africa etc etc. You don't, however.

Re:Never right

[danpsmith]

In my opinion what China has now is communism - not quite the thing Karl Marx described, but essentially the same. I personally think it is good, far better than what you have in the US. It is still far from perfect, but it is evolving and improving, which is what USA's system doesn't.

Oh yes, it's far better than the US! I really don't enjoy expressing my opinion of the government without being maimed, killed, or tortured! That's not a right I enjoy at all! Who needs public discourse or a free press! Yes, I'd much rather get killed for having an opinion! I think I'd fit in there perfectly! I should move to china right now!

Are you in reality AT ALL?

Re:Never right

[plasmacutter]

American economists may change their mind now that DMCA section 1201 is in place over there.

I like to call this little piece of economic poison the "beg to compete" law.

all you have to do is add DRM to your product somehwere somehow, and all your potential competitors and enemies have to "beg" to participate in that marketplace.

Laws like this lead to cartelization and stagnation.. We've seen it grind our consumer electronics industry to such a sluggish pace that basement hackers now produce the best set top boxes available, XBMC.

China has lost the free market under which it used to be flourishing. it will now begin the process of gradual degredation being witnessed in the US.

You can't have competition between models when hollywood is governing the minutia of every feature.

Re:Never right

[koreth]

Person A says, "They didn't respect copyright, and that was SO EVIL!" Person B says, "They introduce laws that protect copyright holders, and that is SO EVIL!" It does not therefore follow that persons A and B both think that everything China does is evil. Can you cite one instance of a single person saying both things?

As an American who has spent time in China and is studying Mandarin daily with the goal of living there for a while, I was perfectly happy with their old pooh-poohing of Western IP concepts, and it's disappointing (not EVIL!, just disappointing) to see them backing down in that area.

And, as one of "you Americans," I have never whined about how bad China is -- economic competition is a net benefit for the world as a whole, which is a good thing even if some people lose out in the short term.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[Ant P.]

Under _US_ law, you can't.

However, you miss out something:

[lbbros]

a. It is not a democracy; b. You can still get thrown in jail (or worse) for not agreeing with the official views, that are imposed by the government; c. Freedom of thought is fought at all costs (Great Firewall, censorship in search engines). Economically it may be growing (and often at the workers' expense) but it is in my extremely personal opinion an *evil* country because it does not allow freedom of thought. And yes, this comes from its Communistic roots, as well.

Re:However, you miss out something:

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we talking about China or the US, because all points except the communist one seem to apply to both... :/

Re:However, you miss out something:

[SlimFastForYou]

I think China, because the United States doesn't have a Great Firewall yet.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[rufty_tufty]

Remeber once a law is passed a government can choose how closely it enforces it. You cannot.

You have to follow the law, it doesn't have to uphold it (if it should or not is another issue) A law that can be applied at will can be used to cause trouble for the people you don't like.

"publishing-pirate" does not exist in communism

[Anonymous Coward]

...or here.
IP SHOULD not exist in communism at all.
IP SHOULD not exist for any long periods in a country with free press.

In 1557, The England media company had a monopoly on publishing for 137 years.
When US was founded, the publishing monopoly was allowed but limited to two 14 year terms.
Then it was extended to two 28 year terms.
(Note, At this point companies like Disney used many works that went public domain after 56 years.)
Then the publishing monopoly was extended to 75 years.
Then 95,
Now it is 120 years.
(In 1998, The US media companies publishing monopoly was extened to 120 years).

So now, if you try to publish something published 14 or 28 years ago, you are a pirate.
If you try to re-publish something published 56 years ago (even though the original copyright term expired), you are a pirate.
If you try to re-publish in 1979 something published in 1922, you are NOT a pirate.
If you try to re-publish in 2017 something published in 1923, you are a pirate.
If you try to re-publish in 2117 something published in 1998, you are a pirate.

The current actual publishing monopoly is 83 years (2006-1923). For printing the point where the monopoly broke was 137 years. Hopefully it breaks earlier this time.

China is autonomous

[m874t232]

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?"

China is under no intrinsic legal or ethical obligation to respect our copyright laws. The fact that they are making efforts to do so is the result of their trade relationships: basically, we tell them that in order to trade with us, they must implement copyright and patent laws similar to our own, and they comply because they want to trade with us.

That's different from, say, human rights. Whether China trades with us or not, human rights in China are our business, and China is under international legal and ethical obligations to respect them. (Of course, what constitutes human rights, and what constitutes acceptable cultural differences, is something one can debate endlessly; but there is a core of human rights that every nation on this planet must adhere to.)

Re:China is autonomous

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is not. Actually your human right record is your business. I am sick of the country who put them on a moral highground with a dirty ass.

Re:China is autonomous

[Anonymous Coward]

Human rights violations are subject to international law and international standards, whether you like it or not.

The US may have used these rights for justifying questionable international policies, but that doesn't change the fact that the rights themselves are valid and universally recognized.

Re:Why Is This In Politics????!!

[alfs boner]

The editors are free to deviate from their own policies; its their site, and they aren't accountable to an anonymous rabble of slashlosers. If this upsets you, you are free to start your own forum, or better yet, ask for a refund. :)

Explanation

[Jewbird]

And I'll be sure to use small words you communist Slashdotters will be sure to understand. This is part of a broader trend amongst the Chinese powers that be to recognize and enforce IP rights. It has nothing to do with pressure from foreign lobbying from AmCham or the RIAA or whoever. Not only could they not care less, I think they actually enjoy giving various foreign powers the run-around because it gives them "face". No. This is something that they're doing on their own because they simply see it as being in the national interest. It's not that there's a lot of Chinese elites with IP lined up to register so much, although that does happen to some degree. It's more that they thoroughly understand and recognize the very necessary role the concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY plays in economic development. The Chinese experience with IP is pretty straightforward. Name a Chinese band. Any one will do. Name a Chinese movie. (HK doesn't count) Name a Chinese brand of a product you actually bought and use. That's what I thought. There are many people here in China who LIVED THROUGH and remember what happened when they decided to share everything, including food, collectively, in the largest peer-to-peer network ever created. For the uninitiated amongst you, (and in the "beer wants to be free" parallel universe of the hippie commune that is Slashdot I imagine that's quite a few) 30 million people starved to death.

Re:Explanation

[geekoid]

No, they are doing it bacause of pressure from the US.
Look at any meeting Bush has had with the Chinese. It is always on the discussion table, and always given more time(i.e. importance) then human rights discussions with the Chinese.

Improper care for it's people resulting in 30 million deaths IS NOT THE SAME THING AS COPYRIGHT. In fact, it's pretty damn insulting to even make the comparison.
Copyright has NOTHING to do with private property.

Copyright had very little to do with the economic development of the US.

Copyright is about maintain total control over a work that is displayed publicly.

For the record, I think a 14 year copyright is a good thing, but it's current length is preventing culture from evolving. We know the culture will evolve and something will give. It seems to me what's going to give is copyright law completly.

Re:Explanation

[plasmacutter]

and what happened to my "private property rights"?

you know.. my right to OWN the things I purchased with my hard earned dollar?

what about the "IP rights" of the inventors of consumer electronics and software which interact with media?

the music and movie industries don't have to go beg electronics manufacturers for the "right" to make a movie that will be played on their devices.. why should the electronics manufacturers have to beg the music/movie industry for the "right" to make a device for consumers which will work with their media?

what happened to those people's right to profit form their ideas?

oh wait.. they dont have it because the corrupt governments of the world play a game of "IP favoritism", shunting aside much larger industries to cater to the elitists of hollywood.

Re:Explanation

[shark72]

"Improper care for it's people resulting in 30 million deaths IS NOT THE SAME THING AS COPYRIGHT. In fact, it's pretty damn insulting to even make the comparison."

The GP did indeed use small words, but it looks like he wasn't clear enough. Communism did not work for China. It hasn't worked for a lot of places. Generally speaking, the standard of living is higher in countries that embrace capitalist values and respect property rights -- both intellectual and physical property. China understands this. They know that to be a player in the world's economy (and, some would say, become the winner in their economic war with the west), they'll have to embrace property rights.

"Copyright had very little to do with the economic development of the US."

That's a surprising statement. Can you elaborate on that? The US exported $27 billion in IP in 1995 (the latest year I could find with a few minutes of research). Whether we like it or not, the money that comes into our country due to the creative output of our software developers, filmmakers, musicians, novelists and other artists and scientists is a major factor of the quality of life we enjoy.

By "economic development of the US" do you mean in, say, the 1790's? If so, how would you compare and contrast the economic power of IP exports back then, vs. in today's information age?

"Copyright is about maintain total control over a work that is displayed publicly."

Correct. And you might choose to copyright your work in an effort to profit from it. That's perfectly acceptable.

"For the record, I think a 14 year copyright is a good thing, but it's current length is preventing culture from evolving. We know the culture will evolve and something will give. It seems to me what's going to give is copyright law completly."

I've heard this before. Can can you explain (in small words, to use the GP's phrase) why this is the case? Will allowing the teens of America to trade the music and movies of 1992 with impunity have a significant effect on accelerating our culture? Has our pop culture been hindered ever since the copyright term was extended to 28 years in 1831?

Re:Explanation

[Jewbird]

It's no surprise to me that someone so anti-IP has ZERO worthwhile ideas.

Re:Explanation

[Jewbird]

and what happened to my "private property rights"? you know.. my right to OWN the things I purchased with my hard earned dollar?

Surely you do have the right to the things you purchase with your money.

what happened to those people's right to profit form their ideas?

Hang on. No one has the "right" to profit from their ideas. You have the right to offer them for sale, but that doesn't mean other people have the obligation to pay you for them.

One of the major issues with digital media generally is that it is easily copied. And that keeps Hollywood executives up at night and in search of ways to prevent that. They did, after all, risk tens of millions if not hundreds of millions to develop their IP and would like to receive a return on investment. Sometimes, despite multi-million dollar marketing budgets, they don't and even end up losing money. However they can't maximize their profits unless they hit ancillary markets like DVDs.

In the case of the relationship between electronic device manufacturers and Hollywood, it varies. The movie and music companies have the right to determine what format they want to release THEIR music and movies on and if the electronics manufacturers want to produce something different, they're just SOL. On the other hand, the studios are not going to release their content on a format no one has a player for because it's bad business. So there's a balance that gets struck and of course that balance is not equal. It matters who has the power in such cases.

As you might recall, Apple did have to "beg" the music industry for cooperation with iTunes at first. But because of its tremendous popularity, Apple is now in the driver's seat and treats the initiatives of the record labels relating to iTunes pricing and even government (at least the French) with open disdain.

Re:Explanation

[plasmacutter]

and my point is that's not how it works in a free market.

in a free market hollywood determines the format, yes, but consumer electronics firms are allowed to independently engineer how they interact with those formats, allowing them to remain free of contracts and lawsuits which would prevent them from providing the features their coustomers want.

This is no longer the case and you know it.

the market is no longer a free market, it is not balanced, hollywood now has monopoly control over not just the copyrighted works they produce, but everything that interacts with them. allowing hollywood to determine which technologies are "allowed" to exist is not "balance", balance indicates there are 2 sides, there is no second side, only hollywood's side. There will not be the next VCR, theyve fixed that. enjoy your stagnating market.

Re:Explanation

[Jewbird]

Obviously if the studios determine what format they release on, they implicitly have some sway over the technology that interacts with them. And I'll grant companies like Macrovision would never exist in a free market. Now you argue that it's one-sided but it's not really. The studios want DRM and scream bloody murder if it's not there. And the electronics companies are like, fine, no skin off our backs really. So it's not that it's one-sided. It's that only one side cares. Some of the time, I'll grant it makes things inconvenient and worse and doesn't apparently solve anything. Region-encoding for DVDs for example. Other times, things just suck completely and work not at all and make things so bad consumers revolt and that's why every attempt to produce an iTunes music store competitor failed abysmally. (if it's any consolation, companies like Wal-Mart lost money trying) And I can certainly understand the frustration at having studio execs make technical decisions as a general matter of principle.

At the end of the day, however, companies that strike a balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of content producers like Apple will win and companies like Wal-Mart that kow-tow to the studios and try and undercut on the basis of price alone while offering an inferior consumer experience will lose and that's how it should be.

I'm not familiar with the DRM in Vista but if it does indeed represent an onerous burden on consumers, it can only cost Microsoft market share, especially when it comes to the golden-convergence holy grail battle for the living room.

Re:Explanation

[plasmacutter]

At the end of the day, however, companies that strike a balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of content producers like Apple will win

the problem is this is not a balance between the rights of consumers and content producers, it is a balance between the profit margisn of electronics producers and content producers, and consumers be damned.

large incumbent electronics producers are not a proper proxy for the general populace, and with the presence of the DMCA the up to 49% of the populace which demands more flexibility but is not serviced by large incumben firms will no longer be served by niche firms or startups because they have to "beg" not only hollywood, but a panel of both their hollywood enemies and their potential competitors for the right to produce a product superior to theirs. You honestly think theyll say yes? it's like the right to life movement being put in charge of abortion approval.

i've already made a thorough argument against the premise of this post in this thread and don't feel like repeating it. there are a few typos in my last post, have no idea how they got there, but please bear with it.

give it a read.

Re:Explanation

[Jewbird]

I read the linked thread. I don't know if I agree with the whole big media and electronics companies are trying to screw us thing. Big companies have a habit of screwing the consumer if they think they can get away with it, but electronics companies aren't the worst offenders. And there are infinitely more egregious instances. For example, it's bullshit that you have to get locked into a year-long "service" contract with a mobile provider that may or may not actually provide decent service. About the only thing I can say there is that such companies absolutely will lose market share after the year is up. Ditto credit card companies making you pay $29 if you're one day late. Thanks to Google, however, that's becoming more and more rare. People can look for opinions out there on whatever products and services before they buy. Consequently, power does shift, to a large extent to the consumer if they but take the initiative to spend not even 5 minutes doing their homework before making major purchasing decisions. Of course, you're pretty vague about the instances of companies screwing people over except for Microsoft, but we all knew that. If you don't like Microsoft, your choices are: OSX and Linux. Personally I like OSX but a lot of other people are already used to viruses, spyware, and things otherwise not working. As you said yourself, inertia. But when it comes to the balance of profits between studios and electronics firms, consumers be damned, hardly. The paying consumer, in the aggregate, is the one who ultimately holds the power.

Re:Explanation

[plasmacutter]

I am not making the case that electronics firms are intentionally out to screw us, I am saying they are out to expand their bottom lines and not be destroyed in the process.

To that end.. they strip as many features as they dare without losing the majority of their market to avoid having their heads lopped off by hollywood, and become involved in these standards bodies because they know they can limit their competition via the DRM&dmca combo, again preserving their heads and maximizing their profits.

This leaves consumers in a terrible position which would not be present if the free market were truly operating.

The paying consumer, in the aggregate, is the one who ultimately holds the power.

and there's the rub, the consumer in aggregate. The nation in aggregate drives four door sedans. Why not eliminate the sports car, the cargo van, and the SUV then by making their production illegal?

A free market would be one in which new startups can independently engineer their own and more flexible products if the major players are not satisfying everyone's needs.

This market entry has been quashed by the combination of the DMCA and the implementation of DRM in every standard established since, and there are a hell of a lot of dissatisfied people being diluted in that aggregate which will never be served because of the afore mentioned dynamic.

while this is fine in politics, where only one person can occupy a specific seat for a given period of time, it is not fine in a nation which is supposed to be first world, where everyone should be able to find what they seek through a free market.

Re:Explanation

[Jewbird]

So this is a complaint about companies being forced to add DRM? Well, that's not the free market, is it? At the same time, as I said in another post, I can understand the position of the studios as well. If they do good work, they also have a right to expect to profit from it. Everything from PSPs to iPods are nothing more than an expensive paperweights without it. And if content can be easily copied (and digital content does have that attribute), the chances of content-producers recovering their development costs is lower, meaning fewer people will invest in content production, and as a result we'll have less content of poorer quality. If you can think of some alternative business model that respects the rights of artists and yes, publishers, (publishers are the ones who bear the financial risk of marketing usually) as well as the rights of consumers, by all means, start a company around it. Alternatively, just do the Linux hacker thing, which in the aggregate means fuck all and at the margins is good because it means interesting things are happening. But understand that in the aggregate all legitimate parties on the value chain for consumer products, including information, should be allowed to reap the legitimate rewards of their effort exerted and risk borne.

Re:Explanation

[plasmacutter]

Everything from PSPs to iPods are nothing more than an expensive paperweights without it.

the same can be said about hollywood's precious product without people building those psp's and ipods.. nothing but an expensive shiny disk.

please provide valid reasons for the improper level of power granted to these companies, because this is not one of them.

Um, this is China we're talking about.

[edunbar93]

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?

When it comes to the law in China, there is no such thing as "a step too far". *Especially* when we're talking about crushing the rights of the little guy. I was actually quite surprised that I didn't see the words "prison term" anywhere in the article. Funny that, since if you get caught distributing software for free in the US, they *will* throw you in jail.

Not everyone wants to see China changing policy

[dada21]

I'm one of a few people on slashdot who repudiate copyright. In fact, everything I create in an intellectual sense I freely offer to others to use as their own, if they wish. The more information that is out there, the more that industrial people can work with to create new inventions that satisfy our desire for more information and cheaper products.

China has been a Mecca of technology, and I think part of the reason for it is the rampant "piracy" and "theft of intellectual property" that has always been part of their culture. Cheap DVD players that play multiple formats, cheap pocket-sized CD players, even telephones that possess capabilities of file sharing and copying, well beyond what we get in the States and in the EU.

I also produce music (that would be the person behind raising the money), and I'm working with more local bands to repudiate copyright as well. As more smaller bands give up the right to their thoughts, words and hand motions, their fan base grows. When their fan base grows, their shows bring in more money -- much more money. Some bands are even facilitating "piracy" of "their" music by letting people bring their iPods to the show to get a free sync of all the music. There is more money to be made in entertainment without copyright than with.

I'm sad to see China cater to the West and their mad-monopoly-over-information craze. This step means nothing, though, as the average consumer will still use their own capital (their time, their computer and their internet connection) to satisfy the laws of supply and demand. Near infinite supply? Near microscopic price.

Re:Not everyone wants to see China changing policy

[sgt_doom]

By any doubtful chance have you ever read Riccardo and Jean-Baptiste Say?

China IS NOT a Mecca for technology origination, nor are they a Mecca as an original source for best-selling novels, technical publications, etc., as no one stands to make any economic gain given their present (albeit evolving) system (if one presumes a totalitarian fascist system to be evolving!). Your remarks are pretty ludicrous given their present and past economic history, although it is the place to go for inexpensive digital and book knockoffs. Also, the Chinese fascists almost certainly do HAVE - or WISH TO HAVE - a mad-monopoly-over-information - just go back and read all those back issues of the Hong Kong Standard for the past five years.....

Not just computers...

[Sensible Clod]

How about markers?

China can not ahve copright like the US

[geekoid]

It is not in their culture.
You don't ahve a country where people make money be standing on the street and in malls selling works and then expected them to stop.

The Chinese government knows this.

The penalty for violation?

[I Like Pudding]

Any ISP that does not comply with the takedown notice within 72 hours will be shot in the head, fined, dismantled, and sold to other ISPs.

nope.

[geekoid]

"China has been a Mecca of technology, "
incorrect. They have been the Mecca for production.

"As more smaller bands give up the right to their thoughts, words and hand motions, their fan base grows."

wait until clear channel stations begin playing there music and not paying them.

"When their fan base grows, their shows bring in more money -- much more money"

Not nearly the amount of maney they could make if there music was paying them roalties. Assuming they were popular and good*.

*A good band in the music business is not one that can sell out in New York or L.A., it's one that can sell out in Idaho, Ohio, Brazil.

Re:nope.

[dada21]

They have been the Mecca for production.

I do business in China. My customers have more R&D groups stationed in China than in the U.S., a huge change from 10 years ago. If you honestly think the U.S. is the engineering capitol of the world, have a vacation in China for 2 weeks.

wait until clear channel stations begin playing there music and not paying them.

Clear Channel is a copyright-created cartel that would not exist if it wasn't for their right to monopoly given to them by copyright laws.

Not nearly the amount of maney they could make if there music was paying them roalties. Assuming they were popular and good*.


My wife and I are friends with 2 bands that are in the Top 100 right now. They make almost NO money from the distribution of their music (one of them will sell millions of albums in the next 2 years). They make ALL their money from touring. How does copyright help them? They understand that the only way to enter the monopoly-controlled market (FCC and copyright created artificial barrier to entry) is to give up the rights to their music to the cartels.

Copyright is evil. Q.E.D.

Re:nope.

[shark72]

"Clear Channel is a copyright-created cartel that would not exist if it wasn't for their right to monopoly given to them by copyright laws."

I believe the business unit we're discussing here is the one that owns the radio stations. They don't own the copyright on the music they play. They pay the artists (not the record companies) for the priveledge of playing music... the copyrights of which all belong to other people. I'm also not sure of your choice of the word "cartel" here. The first definition provided by "dict cartel" is "A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members." Clear Channel is a single business.

"My wife and I are friends with 2 bands that are in the Top 100 right now. They make almost NO money from the distribution of their music (one of them will sell millions of albums in the next 2 years). They make ALL their money from touring. How does copyright help them?"

"almost no" != "no."

I presume they're under contract with record labels. The record labels funded the production of their music, in exchange for exclusive rights on the distribution of the recordings. The label's promotion and marketing machines have given these bands noteriety and allowed them to embark on an apparently lucrative tour.

If the record labels didn't have copyright protection -- that is, if they'd invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into producing and promoting the music, only to see some Chinese company or anybody else distribute the finished product with impunity -- then they wouldn't have taken a chance on your friends in the first place. We can have fun with "what if" scenarios of how your friends might have been equally successful if, say, they'd instead taken a loan out from a bank and hired their own marketing and promotion experts -- but here in the real world, it's copyright laws that allow the record companies to operate as they do, and it's the record companies that gave your friends a chance.

"They understand that the only way to enter the monopoly-controlled market (FCC and copyright created artificial barrier to entry) is to give up the rights to their music to the cartels."

Bullshit. They could have signed with Magnatunes or another "non-evil" label. The top bands at Magnatunes make thousands of dollars per year. They could have signed with one of the tens of thousands of indie record labels -- the sort that have fewer than ten employees and most certainly aren't members of the RIAA. And, of course, they could have absorbed all the burden themselves by taking personal loans from the bank, and used the services of CDBaby to get their stuff onto the iTMS (the vast majority of the stuff I buy on iTMS is the work of tiny indie labels). But your friends chose to sign with major labels. Maybe they had a good reason to -- maybe they wanted to take that chance of making millions of bucks, a chance that, frankly, Magnatunes and the tiny labels and the self-publishing routes just don't offer. Maybe making just a few thousand bucks a year at their craft via Magnatunes just wasn't good enough for them. That's perfectly fine... if that's the case, I don't fault them at all. But it was their choice, and nobody else's.

rly

[Chris Acheson]

How can the Chinese government become any more totalitarian than it already is?

By immitating the US government!

How to make crappy hardware even worse.

[twitter]

When the term "intellectual property" is itself not clearly defined, and software patents - a key component of the so-called "IP" - are not treated equally by all nations.... why should we over-simplify this matter? China's supposed violations of s/w patents, licenses and trademarks have no bearing on the legislation being debated.

WIPO and the big dumb publishers who established it have oversimplified things for you and the dear submitter. They are the people who invented the meaningless term IP. If you follow the article links, you see that Hu himself acts like he's under the same 40,000 foot high cloud.

Mentioning DRM is also key. China is hinting at the other WIPO issues by targeting DRM evasion. Simply enforcing copyright will cost them a small fortune both in lost productivity and direct enforcement costs. DRM, on the other hand, is not a matter of copyright at all. It's an extra legal enforcement of copyright that relies on bogus and patents and trade secret laws often justified in the name of copyright and the starving artists the big publishers routinely abuse. Mentioning DRM promisses all of the diverse agenda the WIPO crowd would like to push. China is promissing to play ball with it's fellow pigopolists. Don't expect to see slave labor made ogg players anytime soon. With China playing ball with M$, the RIAA, MPAA etc, the fix is really in and only pigopolist approved hardware will be available. IP is an issue of control and that's something China understands very well.

We shall see if they really mean it.

This might be good for us.

[is as us Infinite]

Here in North America we have various content distributors vehemently campaigning to outlaw "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection". Considering China's well-know egregious human-rights violations (specifically their draconian policies controlling the population, ie. freedom of speech, great firewall, one child per family,) I think their decision to restrict said devices as stated can only bode well for us here. I mean, virtually anybody you talk to, whether the shotgun-toting hick, or latte-sniffing coffeeista, or H2-driving soccermom, when asked "Would you like North America to be more like China?" will answer, "My children should be free, hell no," or "Heeeeyall no!", "No, obviously. Mendicant. " (not necessarily in that order.) So please, spread the word of China's (anti-)good works. Maybe this will help us to get the apathetic to listen. Well, at least we can hope...

Law Changed

[Frightening]

Later in the News...

The Chinese government has decided to retract these decisions after officials realise that there are more people involved in the piracy trade than in the Republic's Infantry divisions.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[houghi]

Few. In America such a thing would never happen.

oh boy chinese DMCA...

[plasmacutter]

I get the feeling the scourge that is the DMCA will never be righted, that it is the first step down a slippery slope of invasion and curtailment of personal property rights which will only be righted with full scale revolution in one nation or another.

forgive me while I go get faced, hopefully then i won't remember reading this article.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, last I checked, copyright has nothing to do with government censorship of facts and information.

Copyright originated as a form of censorship. In 1557, Queen Mary Tudor granted the Stationers' Company the exclusive right to print books. They got all of their books approved by the government before printing them. It wasn't until the Statute of Anne in 1710 that copyright took on its modern form where the rights were granted to the author rather than the publisher.

This article isn't on MSNBC any more, but it is all over the internet:

Copyrights and copywrongs: Why Thomas Jefferson would love Napster

It's quite simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

China is a different country and as such, they have a perfect right to gasp do things differently.

I'm so sick of us Americans thinking we have the right to impose our cultural values on others.

Ok so we think free speech is pretty neat. But that doesn't mean the Chinese do.

Some people enjoy perverse sexual acts such as watersports and scat, that doesn't mean that everyone should have such extreme sexual activities foisted upon them.

Think about it.

Haven't we been dabbling with such laws ourselves?

[Siddly]

May be we have more sympathy for the poor Chinese oppressed by such laws under a dictatorship than we have for ourselves with the same laws under democracies.

Artificiality

[Morosoph]

On the other hand, property itself is an artificial concept.

Less so. A car can only have one driver (meaningfully) at any one time, for example. Physical items are limited.

I'm not saying that there isn't an excuse for such an incentive, insofar as it is one, but we should be aware of the degree of naturalness of our laws, if we are interested in freedom, which in practice means that regulation should work with the grain of things.

Re:Artificiality

[KDR_11k]

Less so. A car can only have one driver (meaningfully) at any one time, for example. Physical items are limited.

Yes but keeping something past the time you need it and not sharing it with the community is an artificial concept that doesn't exist in smaller tribal communities.

Copyright law or population control

[Riden]

"the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection"

So people themselves will not be able to re-produce or enter the country.. two birds with one stone?

Please downmod the above Troll

[Enderandrew]

Someone please downmod the above Troll.

Control + C

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok guys. Heres a credit card, all control keys, c keys, x keys, and v keys must be removed. The right mouse button must be disconnected and removed. Then install this software which removes all "cut", "paste", and "copy" commands.

Allow me to demonstrat with a simpler analogy.

[plasmacutter]

let's say its the early 20th century..but with one difference, ford now has control over weather or not any other product is allowed to use public roads... after all theyre the only auto maker so far.

the model t is gaining in popularity, but a new firm sees the need for a more robust vehicle for carrying larger loads, the pickup truck.

ford, knowing their sales will be undermined by this new innovation, denies their product the permit to use the roads.

The aggregate consumer is none the wiser, though they have just been royally robbed by ford.

There is no protest, no boycott, because how exactly are they to know someone was actually going to satiate their desire for higher capacity and load handling?

the same thing here.. there is no non-DRM alternative of that same film for consumers to flock to. how exactly are they to excercise their power? Any new firms which would have satisfied their needs are constrained by the dynamic i've laid out in that thread.
They are left with 3 paths:
1.produce the exact same product as their competitors, which is the feature minimized product hollywood demands.
2.be sued into bankruptcy under the DMCA.
3.abandon their ambitions to produce a better product and forget the whole thing.

most people who look at the market choose path 3. those who have the whebos to refuse path 3 and not choose path 1 are destroyed via path 2.

this leaves only one path to end consumers, the one in which nothing better for consumers is produced.

and don't say they can "choose not to buy it"..

they consider the work with DRM better than no work at all.. that doesnt mean they despise DRM.

the market for copyrighted works is not the same as a commodity market where refusing one seller leaves a thousand others from which to buy that product. there is only one seller, and that seller should not have a say in what you are allowed to do with that product, where you are allowed to use it, or what you use to access it. That is not a free market and is an affront to personal property rights.

Re:Allow me to demonstrat with a simpler analogy.

[Jewbird]

That seems to me a quite tortured analogy. If Ford were the one to pay for the roads to be built it would seem to me that they should have the right to deny others the ability to use them, much like the railroads of yore. However roads are public goods which copyrighted works are not.

If Hollywood makes a movie and the options to buy it are limited to: buy the DRM version or not buy it. Those are your choices and that's fair. Why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR MOVIE.

market for copyrighted works is not the same as a commodity market

The above statement is accurate. What followed was tortured. In fact, if you don't like one movie, there are many thousands of other options available. However they're not the same movie. Nonetheless there are other options.

Going back to the market for copyrighted works, you're right. It is not the same as for commodity products. Looking at things from an economics standpoint, there are a number of differences such as excludability; that with copyrighted works, you *can* have your cake and eat it too. Namely you can effortlessly and without cost give the same work to your friend while keeping it for yourself. But the problem is that the first copy costs $10 million and retails for $19.95,so it's necessary to make it difficult for the first customer to make copies of his own if you want to sell enough to recover your investment and turn a profit. If you can think of a better way than what they've come up with so far, feel free to patent and sell it.

Re:Allow me to demonstrat with a simpler analogy.

[plasmacutter]

"Those are your choices and that's fair. Why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR MOVIE. "

now this is down right false.the concept of copyright is "LIMITED" monopoly, not unlimited.
it is not analogous to property at all.

Additionally, under this very quote, hollywood has no right to deny consumer electronics manufacturers the right to market devices which access their product (even if it's in ways they don't like) because it's THEIR DEVICE/THEIR IP.

if they really want their product to not be "misused", then they should be paying for the design, construction, and marketing of the consumer electronics devices too. They should have no right to regulate others, and if they don't like what the others are doing with public standards, than they should make private standards and be the sole manufacturer of players for that standard.

Re:Allow me to demonstrat with a simpler analogy.

[Jewbird]

"now this is down right false.the concept of copyright is "LIMITED" monopoly, not unlimited."

Just because the government grants exceptions and limitations to copyright doesn't make it any less the studio's movie.

Additionally, under this very quote, hollywood has no right to deny consumer electronics manufacturers the right to market devices which access their product (even if it's in ways they don't like) because it's THEIR DEVICE/THEIR IP.

Um, no. If it's the STUDIO'S IP, then the studios have the right to limit the ability of others to copy it. Hence the term, COPY-RIGHT.

Allow me to elaborate on this

[plasmacutter]

and hopefully collide both threads once again.

The purpose of copyright is to grant a limited monopoly, limited in the sense that they have the right to be the only seller for a specific period of time. Further, the recording industry, both for film and audio, came to be only after the invention of these "psp and ipod" type devices, prompting someone to fill the need. They would still have uses without the precious product, so it's really hollywood which would not exist/be viable without CE support, so why exactly are they being allowed to wield such unfair power? It should be CE which should be allowed to regulate hollywood after all under your logic!

Just because youre the only seller though doesnt mean you have a right to be the only seller of accessories for that product. Major fashion houses don't have a right to tell you what shoes you can wear with their fancy and patented new line of pants. The same applies here.

To be more specific, there are two ways to skin the cat of media access.. you can license the official implementation of the format, or design your own unique and independent way of accessing that format from the ground up:

example, official divx vs xvid vs 3ivx. xvid and 3ivx can access divx files without violating any patents or otherwise, and provide competitive impetus for divx to provide better quality (and their quality was abysmal compared to xvid in particular for many years).

It is considered completely right and viable for businesses to do this if they consider the official methods either too restrictive, improperly implemented, or lacking in quality compared to what is possible.

Hollywood has denied potential media player market entrants that basic free market right, and you seem to be defending them based on logic which makes as much a case against your point as for it.

Re:Allow me to elaborate on this

[Jewbird]

The valid reason for giving Hollywood that level of power is that the shiny disc costs pennies but the content on the disc often cost the studio tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. A PSP with shiny discs but no content is still an expensive paperweight. A studio with a movie in the can but no PSP to release on still has other options. It is in the electronics manufacturers' interest to want to see content produced for their platform even if that means making certain concessions to the studios.

"Further, the recording industry, both for film and audio, came to be only after the invention of these "psp and ipod" type devices, prompting someone to fill the need."

That's disingeneous. Recording industry only came into being after recording devices came into being? You don't say! Artists preceded the recording industry. And without the artists, there is no recording industry.

"Major fashion houses don't have a right to tell you what shoes you can wear with their fancy and patented new line of pants. "

Huh? I don't see how that applies.

"You can license the official implementation of the format, or design your own unique and independent way of accessing that format from the ground up:"

Ok, I believe there's a place for both. And people do do both and that's fine. However if I'm a studio with the rights to a film and I only want to release on a specific format which contains DRM protection, that's my right. If other people want to release their films on a different format, I have no objection. If they want to convert a film on my format to a different format, I'm going to object because I'm the only one who holds the right to copy the film.
Now if people don't like the DRM format and buy fewer copies as a result and I end up losing money then I have only myself to blame. But if I release on the open format and everyone copies my film and don't pay me for it and I lose even more money, then I'll wish I had released on the DRM format. So the trick with DRM is to find a format that keeps honest people honest while respecting the legitimate rights of consumers and not unduly burdening them.

Re:Allow me to elaborate on this

[plasmacutter]

while the rest of your post is disingenous lobbyist-style garbage, i want to address this statement:

"You can license the official implementation of the format, or design your own unique and independent way of accessing that format from the ground up:"

Ok, I believe there's a place for both. And people do do both and that's fine. However if I'm a studio with the rights to a film and I only want to release on a specific format which contains DRM protection, that's my right.

yes, you have a right to release on a format with DRM protection, but by your own admission, they should have a right to pick the latter path in the quote you made from my earlier post and invent their own way of decrypting this drm without having to consult you. Hollywood is denying them that right! Do you not agree with this? the DMCA section 1201 should be repealed! until it is the market is not free

Now if people don't like the DRM format and buy fewer copies i've already shot this down, but here is another more authiritative post on why DRM cannot be corrected by market forces.

So the trick with DRM is to find a format that keeps honest people honest while respecting the legitimate rights of consumers and not unduly burdening them.
--a completely fallacious comment right out of the RIAA lobbyists handbook
if theyre honest they don't need to be kept honest , and by the way i'm well educated in computer science, the last half of that is not possible. You can not make DRM in terms of what you cannot do, you have to make the default be "deny", then outline what is allowed specifically. This is not acceptable for the entire worldwide market. There will always be swaths of millions who will be "unduely burdened", because the free market is not in operation.

by the way...

[plasmacutter]

who determines which rights are "legitimate".

excuse me, but rights which are considered perfectly legitimate now were characterized as theft and piracy before.

I think what you mean by "legitimate" is what only one side believes is legitimate. The DMCA and DRM are removing the accountability from these assertions by removing judicial oversight of the ever fluctuating definition of fair use.

definition of a free market.

[plasmacutter]

a free marketplace involves many sellers and many buyers.

choices are not binary.

your definition seems to be perverted, so allow me to make this clear, a choice between living under tyrrany and not living at all is not a free choice, just as the choice of buying DRM or not buying at all is not a free choice.

  Further the epressions in the grandparent post by you seem to be indicitive of someone who does not believe in a free market. you believe, rather than "all men are created equal", that these "artists" are somehow created "better". bullshit.

Re:definition of a free market.

[Jewbird]

There's a lot there to address. Does the industry lobby for undue burdens on consumers from a legal perspective? Yes. However to the extent that people object (as you are doing) some of them will be lifted and you might do better to direct your energies towards lobbying your representative. (assuming you strengthen your arguments first) As I see it, people won't buy media or devices that don't do what they want. It's as simple as that. And a choice not to buy something is a choice. If it puts companies who don't sell the products you want out of business while keeping more money in your pocket, that's a choice. On the other hand, if enough other people disagree with your rant and those companies stay in business because they provide products other people don't have a problem with, that's a choice too. Just not yours. There might be cases right now (like the boing boing one) of people having higher expectations than are delivered, but the formatting and law and such are in a state of flux right now. And if a Gateway doesn't work, an HP shouldn't either because they're effectively the same computer. That's more a case of why the whole concecpt of a media center PC is bunk and people who buy them are dumb. Why would I or anyone else build our digital lives around such clumsy devices with such onerous restrictions on the way we use them as a Microsoft Windows-based product? I don't want to watch a blue screen of death on a 60" plasma screen! If people want to record shows, there are ways to do it. TiVo for example. And that presently seems to be the most popular choice. Failing that, there's always the trusty VCR. Point being, who in their right mind would buy technology that represents a step backwards? Just because some people apparently do doesn't mean the market failed. It means those people are idiots.