China Faces Piracy Suit Over Censorship Software

angry tapir writes "Web software filtering vendor CyberSitter has filed a $2.2B lawsuit against the Chinese government, two Chinese software makers, and seven major computer manufacturers for their distribution of Green Dam Youth Escort, a controversial Web filtering package the Chinese government had mandated to be installed on computers sold there. Researchers at the University of Michigan found that Green Dam copied code from CyberSitter."

Comments

I'll take Sovereign Immunity for the block

[LostCluster]

If the USA did this, it could remove itself from the lawsuit claiming "Sovereign Immunity" and it's game over. Are you telling us that China doesn't have this out clause?

Re:I'll take Sovereign Immunity for the block

[mi]

Are you telling us that China doesn't have this out clause?

It does not have this clause in China, because in countries like that suing the government is as bizarre and unimaginable as, say, defecating on the Moon (without spacesuit).

It does not have this clause in the US either — for entirely different reasons... If you were to RTFA, you would've known, that the suit was filed in the Los Angeles federal court.

Re:I'll take Sovereign Immunity for the block

[abigor]

Exactly. The makers of this software aren't hoping for a settlement. They just want to make the rights infringement public, and lawsuits attract publicity.

Everyone knows that Chinese "programmers" cheerfully copy whatever they get their hands on. This lawsuit is the legal equivalent of a press release.

Re:I'll take Sovereign Immunity for the block

[lorenlal]

So... Maybe a judge could "alter" the judgement such that the Chinese Government would actually owe over say.... $6 trillion? You know... in that whole punitive way?

It'd certainly lower the burden of those interest payments our lovely federal government has to make... Even if only for a few months.

Re:I'll take Sovereign Immunity for the block

[Trepidity]

Sovereign immunity really does mean that you cannot sue the government for monetary damages for any reason, unless they explicitly consent to it. The reason Microsoft could sue the U.S. government for copyright violation is that the U.S. federal government has waived its immunity in advance, for wide classes of torts, via the Tucker Act and Federal Tort Claims Act.

In a much earlier era, the standard way for someone with a grievance against the U.S. government to collect on it was to file a petition with Congress, which would pass special-case legislation agreeing to pay them, if Congress felt that the person in question was indeed owed redress. The fundamental separation-of-powers justification is that an individual claiming that they're owed money is a request for money from the U.S. Treasury, and only Congress may appropriate such money.

This obviously became rather tedious as the volume of claims increased, and didn't give a great perception of fairness, so in 1855 Congress delegated the hearing of most such claims to a newly created Court of Claims, a special court that served as essentially a claims-hearing arm of Congress (a "legislative" or "Article I" court, not a part of the judicial branch), which would report a recommendation back to Congress; Congress typically then appropriated the money as a sort of rubber-stamp, but was still technically in charge. The system gradually shifted to a more and more judicial one, first by having the U.S. Treasurer automatically dispense judgments from pre-appropriated money, and later increasingly by consenting to have claims heard in regular courts.

Re:I'll take Sovereign Immunity for the block

[jsse]

Exactly. The makers of this software aren't hoping for a settlement. They just want to make the rights infringement public, and lawsuits attract publicity.

On top of making a publicity, it's actually a profitable move. It's so obvious(at least to civilians Chinese like me) the China Government is intending to create another listed company by giving monoplization power to a private company created Green Dam. Law suits like that, international or local, would greatly affect the risk profile and directly affect the estimation of stock value. For mutual benefit, that listed company would pay for the royality eventually. CyberSitter could cheerfully accept compensation as a settlement in the future.

Everyone knows that Chinese "programmers" cheerfully copy whatever they get their hands on. This lawsuit is the legal equivalent of a press release.

To tell you the true, in the case of Green Dam, these programmers are not copying codes, they copied the binary directly, and they don't even bother to change the company name in the executables. XD

But you're right in the sentance "Chinese porgrammers cheerfully whatever they get their hands on". In fact, they're the huge supporter of opensource programming. (I'm recruiting opensource programmers there and I've never found short of them. :)

They may have solved the puzzle...

[LostCluster]

1. Get the government to require your product be shipped with all computers, and used by all households with children.
2. Make your product by stealing code to save on development costs.
3. Bill the computer makers for license rights to the program you stole and the government requires, they can't turn you down or they're out of the PC business.
4. PROFIT!!!

Re:They may have solved the puzzle...

[abigor]

Do you post multiple top-level comments per story in order to advertise your terrible website?

Re:IN SOVIET CHINA... wait, they still are!

[Antique Geekmeister]

A lot of copyright laws are international, and China is a signatory. There are good business reasons to do this, even though such laws are frequently and casually violated in China, even moreso than in the USA.

Re:Tag this with goodluckwiththat

[LostCluster]

Well, the USA could take that to the WTO... wait, we don't even respect the WTO anymore.

Re:IN SOVIET CHINA... wait, they still are!

[ScrewMaster]

A lot of copyright laws are international, and China is a signatory.

They could, however, say "We're the fifth of the Earth's population, fucker", and make their own rules. A country of a billion does not automatically have to accept the rules of 300 million.

Nor do we have to accept any rules they make, unless they want to send some of that billion over here to occupy us. Not saying that couldn't happen, but it's not going to happen over a copyright case.

Besides, nobody is trying to say that U.S. law should apply anywhere but in the United States. But China has made a number of trade agreements, signed some treaties, and it's going to be interesting to see if they're willing to live up to those obligations. My guess is they won't.

What's the future for "Intellectual Property"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Business in North America has realized that they can no longer compete with the developing world in resources, manufacturing or services, and the only way they can make money is by selling access to the intellectual and cultural property they have acquired rights to. So the movies, music, code, patents and any idea that business can get their hands on is something to be exploited for money. This is the reason for the ACTA negotiations: To create a world where such "intellectual property" created in North America can be peddled to the developing world to get the money back that we have been sending them for their cheap goods and cheap services.

The problem is that average people in both the developing world and the developed world simply don't believe that draconian rules about so-called "intellectual property" are justified. Why do "artists" get to perform once and get paid over and over when regular people need to go to work every day to make a living? Is it not absurd to fine some 14-year old hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few songs on Kazaa? Why is it OK that copyright duration keeps getting extended over and over just so W*lt D*sney can keep making money recycling the same old tired stuff? It also seems that young people see no problem with sharing music with their friends, or making mix CDs or other reasonable use of music, since that music is broadcast free over the radio anyway. This is not to advocate piracy or law-breaking, but if people think that laws are too restrictive and unjust on what people can do with their copies of software, music and video and what they can do with new ideas they hear about then they will ignore those laws and do what's best for themselves.

I understand the reason for this lawsuit and I wish the plaintiff well, but I suspect that in the long run there will be much more of this "intellectual property theft" and people will eventually realize that most people don't agree that it is a terrible crime to steal ideas or music or videos that can be easily shared or freely copied. Eventually the laws that try to enforce huge penalties for such "theft" will make about as much sense to the public as the old "Red Flag" laws that tried to nobble the automobile in a desperate attempt to protect the vested horse, stagecoach and railroad industries.

the USA has a lot of debt in the hands of China. The only way to get out from under that debt in the USA is to figure out what they can sell to the Chinese to bring back all the $$$ that USA has paid for goods and services. I don't see how "intellectual property" can be the product that the Chinese want to pay for as it's easy to copy and share and historically that's what citizens and business are used to doing, both in the USA and in China.

There ain't no easy answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

(Yeah, I know it's only Wikipedia but I am AC after all)

The irony is killing me

[Angst Badger]

So the short version is that an American company is suing the Chinese government because China is violating the basic human rights of its citizens without having a proper software license?

I'm not sure which circle of Hell is reserved for a complete and total inversion of priorities, but I'm sure CyberSitter will find out.