Angry Chinese Blogger
 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Leading by Example?: 5 Top Chinese Universities “named and shamed” in global piracy report
posted Sunday, 7 May 2006
While critisizm of China's lax attitude towards Intellectual Property is nothing new, things took a more personal turn for five of China's leading academic institutions this Spring, when they were individually 'named and shamed' in a high level report on piracy which slammed them for having what observers have called 'an ingrained culture of IP violation' and for carrying out IP piracy 'on an industrial scale'.
The were singled out for criticism in “Special 301”; an annual report on the state of world IP protection released by the International Intellectual Property Alliance; an influential NGO based in the US.
In its report, the IIPA accused Chinese universities of systematically pirating textbooks, literary material and academic IP from around the world, for use in their own internal teaching programs; reproducing everything from essays to entire textbooks without consent, or the payment of fees to the writers or original publishers.
| “Publishers are especially concerned to learn that universities throughout China are actually reproducing books for distribution to students without authorization from, or compensation to, right holders.” Special Report 301, IIPA (2006) |
The Universities named were
- 清華大學 (Tsinghua University)
- 復旦大學 (Fudan University)
- 武漢大學 (Wuhan University)
- 中國科學技術資訊研究所 (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)
- 花南師範大學 (South China Normal University)
Industrial Scale?
According to the IIPA, the level of piracy committed by Chinese universities goes beyond the casual photocopying of academic material for use as classroom handouts, and has grown into a 'significant industry' that allows university presses and external textbook centers to maintain distinct a warehousing systems and supply chain just for the production and distribution of pirate textbooks.
| “These practices are so widespread and organized as to require bar codes for scanning of inventory.” Special Report 301, IIPA (2006) |
The report also noted that, while many counterfeit textbooks were produced prior to the start of each semester, the wiling demand from Chinese universities has become so strong that it can support both batch production and 'on-demand' publishing services.
What's Yours is Mine
In addition to accusing them of direct physical piracy of IP, the IIPA report also raised the issue 're-branding'. A practice under which university presses and external textbook centers are supply students with 'customized' versions of pirate textbook.
Versions of standard textbooks which have been modified so as to come replete an institutes's own personalized dustcover, insignia and publication detail. Essentially allowing them to distribute externally produced material while giving the impression that it is their own.
“Some of the universities even produce their own covers for the illegal books, bearing the university seal.” Special Report 301, IIPA (2006) |
Additionally, the IIPA laid down accusations that it is common practice for Chinese groups to illegally translate material from overseas sources, and to replace the authors name with a Chinese name so as to give the impression that the piece was domestically produced, rather than being the work of a foreigner, and that some Chinese Universities, most notably 中國科學技術資訊研究所 (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China) were scanning entire sections from subscription based publication onto open access computer systems, allowing them to be downloaded or distributed with consent, or payment of fees, to the original authors.
| "In one instance, the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information [of] China (ISTIC) appeared to be engaging in a practice similar to a document delivery service for journals, without any permission from rights owners." Special Report 301, IIPA (2006) |
Bad Example?
Although providing little new information, the release of “Special 301” has once again raised the issue of the institutionalized nature of IPR violation in China, and has lead China watchers to question exactly how a society can hope to tackle the problem of piracy when it own education system appears not only to be promoting piracy, but also to be profiting from it.
As such, some observers have voiced that China's universities should be made to 'lead by example' and to face strict penalties from the state if they supply their students with counterfeit textbooks.
There have also been suggestions that Beijing should interviene directly and introduce legislation that forbids universities from using textbooks from sources that have not been specifically approved by the state as supplying non pirated products.
IPR Violation and China?
As a country, China has one of the highest levels of IP piracy in the world, with between 85-95 percent of all media products, including books, CDs and DVDs violating the rights of IP owners.
Like most endemic problems, IPR violation in china has several root causes for its existence and continuation. Many of these causes can be summarized into three basic categories:
- Fiscal
- Socio-cultural
- Legal
Despite China's economic boom, overall levels of poverty, and the pronounced disparity between rich and poor, mean that much of China's population is not able to afford to maintain a consumer lifestyles without purchasing pirate or counterfeit products; which are usually several fold cheaper than the real articles.
The fiscal factor of IP piracy is also being exasperated by China's slanted currency value against the dollar; which makes the import of legitimate foreign goods difficult and the payment of fees for domestically produced good, containing western IP, overly burdensome on manufacturers and consumers.
Matters are further exasperated by wester anti-competition and cartel practices, which serve to artificially inflate the prices of many consumer goods on the international markets; pushing their prices beyond the reach of most Chinese consumers.
In China the funds available for to those providing/receiving education are limited. Thus pushing many institutions/students to choose between the quality of the education that they give/receive and the integrity of the materials that they supply/use.
For most Chinese, the critical importance attached to gaining a quality education means that this choice exists only in principle.
Socio-Cultural
Despite traditionally having a knowledge based culture at its head, most modern Chinese see the value of a product as being in the materials that it is made from, not in the idea that it is based on or the images that it contains.
This attitude has served to create an atmosphere where the violation of the right of ownership of an intangible product (IP) are often dissociated from the concept of theft. With the latter being routinely being viewed as applicable to tangible items only.
In addition to this, China also maintains a strong victim mentality in regards to foreign companies and IP holders. Under this mentality, many Chinese believe that they are only taking 'what is rightfully theirs' from groups who are purposefully acting to either keep them down or to extract the maximum possible money from them.
A similar situation exists in the west with music piracy. With many western music fans drawing a distinct line between the physical act of theft and the act of downloading a song from a Pier to Pier music swapping service, and arguing that the actions of pirates are largely a result of multi-national companies seeking to charge 'top dollar' for mediocre products.
Legal
Although China has pledged to give protection to IPR, words are rarely equalled by actions.
One reason for this is that China has no single body to take charge of IPR protection, and predominantly relies on a combination of local and regional bodies to carry out enforcement, and different set of local and regional bodies to bring forward any subsequent prosecutions.
| “there is not one Ministry that takes responsibility for criminal copyright enforcement, including the raid, arrest, seizure, and transfer of a case file for prosecution.” Special Report 301, IIPA (2006) |
This high level of separation not only makes raids difficult to organize and co-ordinate, but also makes the bringing violators before the courts a complex process that involve cases being passed 'up the ladder' from one agency to the next until a it reaches the level where a prosecution can be made.
Owing to this complexity, most violations never reach the criminal level, and instead stop at the civil level, where token fines are imposed but little else.
| “Retailers, distributors, warehouse owners, and even pirate producers know that administrative raids will rarely if ever be transferred for criminal prosecution” Special Report 301, IIPA (2006) |
Another issue is hampering the protection of IP is that most anti piracy actions in China must be carried out at the local level. Meaning that they are hampered by two distinct problems.
Firstly, most local authorities in China lack the facilities to carry out both their regular duties and sustainable IP protection activities. Meaning that they are only able to act in high profile cases, or when ordered to redirect time and resources by higher level of government.
Secondly, local authorities, both at the provincial and city levels, are reluctant to move against IP violators because such actions could potentially put local retailers and manufacturers out of business and make their region less attractive to future investment. Thus, enforcing IP right would putting them at a strong economic disadvantage to cities and provinces with laxer attitudes towards IP protection.
Though a critical point, this second reason is rarely accepted by western bodies as being valid.
Face?
While a great many, some would argue most, Chinese universities commit a broad range of IPR violations on a regular basis, and do little or nothing to keep this fact a secret, the way in which the five institutes were named by the IIPA, and the public highlighting of their transgressions, remains an extreme loss of face.
Traditionally, China considers the highlighting of its faults by foreign organizations as being both an interference in its internal affairs and a hostile gesture.
View Comments/Add a Comment (8)
1. China Law Blog left...
Tuesday, 9 May 2006 1:08 pm
You make it seem as though we should be shocked by this, as though we
should somehow expect college professors to be above this. I don't know
why you would expect this. I certainly don't.
2. ACB left...
Tuesday, 9 May 2006 3:42 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
"I don't know why you would expect this. I certainly don't."
4. ACB left...
Wednesday, 10 May 2006 3:56 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
I've just run both my article and comment through a spell checker and the
only thing that it said was that criticizm should be spelt criticism.
5. Asia Business Intelligence left...
Wednesday, 17 May 2006 1:01 am
Well done. Two points:
6. ACB left...
Thursday, 18 May 2006 3:57 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
Could you please provide some evidence of issue number (2)? Particularly
evidence of them taking foreign papers and putting American names at the
end, or them counterfieting entire textbooks and putting their logos on the
front.
7. ACB left...
Thursday, 18 May 2006 4:00 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
"Can't simply put the onus on Chinese academics."
8. Sonagi left...
Wednesday, 28 June 2006 9:41 am
This is not news to me. I bought a beginning Japanese language text and
thought the content looked awfully familiar and dug out a book published in
Korea by the Japan Foundation. They were identical. The foreword described
the textbook as having been developed by professors at the university.