☭ marselip0910 叶俊华™

2011年04月18日 北京商報

“4·26”是世界知識產權日，適逢國內知識產權維權大氣候日漸成熟的契機。記者了解到，各種版權力量正在崛起。

在音樂著作權協會、文字著作權協會聯同作家、音樂人向百度發起圍攻的同時，中國廣播電視協會旗下相繼誕生了廣播、電視的版權專項委員會。各類版權維權平臺也推出了自己的大型版權方案，甚至編劇們也抱團取暖，成立了兼具經紀和維權功能的專業公司。

電視臺誕生版權組織

記者從央視總編室了解到，隸屬於中國廣播電視協會的電視版權委員會將在本月底正式成立。

對此，央視總編室版權管理部相關人士表示，日前成立的廣播版權協會由中央人民廣播電臺聯合全國140多家電臺，與音樂、文字版權方進行談判，在去年初實行的幾種付費模式基礎上，進一步確立了付費談判實體和付費的途徑、辦法。電視版權委員會在2010年9月26日獲得民政部批准，月底也將成立，成立之後將作為行業版權組織，陸續開展行業版權繳費功能、版權交易支援、版權維護研討等工作。“目前電視臺已經參照國家確立的付費標準各自進行著版權付費，此次成立的委員會則是電視臺的版權集體組織。”

維權由0.3元開啟

3月24日，由中國廣播電視協會主辦、中央人民廣播電臺承辦的廣播版權委員會成立大會在京舉行。大會上出臺了《中國廣播電視協會廣播版權委員會會費繳納辦法》，並對會員臺提供了向中國音樂著作權協會付酬可選用的幾種模式。由此可知，廣播、電視這兩種媒體使用版權作品的付費問題將陸續得到解決。

在廣電系統使用音樂、文字作品的付費問題上，2001年通過的《中華人民共和國著作權法》修正案指出：“廣播電臺、電視臺播放已經出版的錄音製品，可以不經著作權人許可，但應當支付報酬。當事人另有約定的除外。”但針對廣電系統播放音樂版權收費的具體辦法和標準遲遲未能出臺。2009年5月6日，國務院第62次常務會議通過了《廣播電臺電視臺播放錄音製品支付報酬暫行辦法》。辦法規定，自2010年1月1日起，廣播電臺、電視臺播放錄音製品，將有三種付費方式供選擇，作為約定或者協商支付報酬的基礎。以其中媒體年度播放錄音製品的時間總量乘以單位時間付酬標準的支付方式看，規定明確了廣播電臺的單位時間付酬標準為每分鐘0.3元；電視臺的單位時間付酬標準5年內為每分鐘1.5元，5年後為每分鐘2元。

消息一齣，立即成為音樂界熱議的話題，很多人拍手叫好，也有不少人對此事能否順利實施抱有懷疑態度。 谷建芬當時表示：“我們之前提出的是60元一分鐘，目前起點低沒關係，讓人高興的是從無價到有價，我們的音樂維權已經邁出了第一步。”音樂人吳向飛說：“我相信3毛錢是一個時代的開始。”

記者了解到，在電臺、電視臺播放新歌是否應當付費上，相關人士意見出現了分歧。眾所週知，目前唱片業在電臺、電視臺“打榜”是其宣傳需要，通常都是唱片公司免費給電臺、電視臺郵寄單曲碟，而電臺、電視臺方面從來不會向唱片公司繳納任何版權費，有時候公司甚至會給對方錢。對此，業內人士提出，按照國外的慣例，如果唱片公司有新歌給電臺或電視臺播出，是要向播出方支付一定宣傳費用的。但國外一般這個宣傳期為3個月，即在3個月內唱片公司要給播出方費用，3個月以後播出才算是使用，電臺或電視臺才需要支付費用給版權方。而這3個月的“豁免期”在國內應該同樣適用。

在日前，全國140多家電臺聯合組建的廣播版權委員會，作為中國廣播電視協會的直屬專業委員會，標誌著各廣播電臺形成了與著作權集體管理組織進行談判的聯盟體。

記者了解到，該委員會不但負責各廣播電臺與著作權集體管理組織之間的聯繫與合作，還負責為會員單位提供版權維權資訊，接受會員單位委託開展維權活動，為會員單位參與版權訴訟、仲裁提供支援，增強會員單位的版權保護能力，提升集體版權管理水準等工作。

版權平臺建調解中心

4月15日上午，第三屆“知識產權雍和行”活動啟動儀式暨“4·26”知識產權宣傳月大型宣傳活動在北京舉行。在本屆“知產雍和行”活動啟動儀式上，雍和園管委會、東城區人民法院知識產權庭與中國網際網路調解中心共同簽署了“雍和園企業知識產權糾紛調解服務平臺戰略合作協議”，中國網際網路協會調解中心雍和園工作站也正式成立。該工作部一方面旨在化解園區企業的矛盾糾紛；另一方面也著力促進企業間合作，以特色服務為園區企業保駕護航。

據悉，“知產雍和行”由中關村科技園區雍和園管理委員會、北京東城區人民法院和東城區知識產權局聯合主辦，已經連續舉辦3年。

而今年，上述三方推出調解平臺的戰略合作，可謂大勢所趨。據相關機構數據顯示，2010年中國網民數量已超過4.2億人，網路成為人們獲取資訊、知識的新渠道。但以網路盜版文學為例，據保守統計，國內目前文學盜版網站的數量約為53萬家，造成了版權商的極大損失。

編劇群體組維權公司

近日，近70個電視劇編劇在京加盟“喜多瑞”編劇經紀公司，表示要組團外接作品，合力對抗“潛規則”。這些編劇中包括《奮鬥》編劇石康、《鐵齒銅牙紀曉嵐》編劇汪海林、《神醫喜來樂》編劇高大勇等活躍在一線的名編劇。

據組織方介紹，編劇們集體抱團，主要是為了維護自己的權益提高編劇地位。首先，該經紀公司旗下的會員編劇將不再免費給別人寫“劇本創意”和故事大綱。因為在目前編劇被侵權的種種情況中，受影視公司邀請寫了創意和大綱，結果創意被無償拿走卻拋棄了原創者，是司空見慣的現象。

編劇王興東曾把編劇比做“高危行業”，付出心血得不到合理回報，一點兒安全感都沒有。一些編劇批評電影百花獎、大學生電影節等從不設立編劇獎，對編劇的勞動不尊重。有的製片方為了遷就收視趣味甚至大牌明星的出鏡，強迫編劇或請他人更改劇本，拍出來後面目全非。一些剛出道的年輕編劇，寫一集1.8萬字的劇本才掙數百元或數千元，甚至因投資方計劃更改一分錢都拿不到，還有的年輕編劇不是被拖欠稿酬，就是以各種名目被他人聯合署名。

對編劇經紀公司的成立，業界態度不一。一些製片方認為，這個經紀公司只是一個個別群體的行為，加盟的編劇都為目前國內一二線編劇，而這部分編劇的待遇已經相當高，有的一集稿酬高達一二十萬元。眼下更緊要的是成立整個編劇行業的維權協會，解決那些初級編劇和無名編劇的待遇問題。

免費時代或將終結

不久前，中國音樂界、文字界人士對百度發起的集體圍攻，得到了行業協會、政府主管部門的大力支援，相關人士預測，“百度門”之後，網路免費面貌或將改寫。

3月16日，50位作家和出版人聯名狀告百度侵權，共同發佈題為《“3·15”中國作家討百度書》的文章，稱百度公司在沒有得到任何人授權的情況下，將他們的作品發佈在百度文庫中，並對用戶免費開放。

4月7日，繼音樂人的聯名抗議之後，“華語音樂詞曲作者維權聯盟”再次向百度發出公開信，提出“下線、道歉、賠償、共謀發展”四條談判條件，並提名谷建芬、高曉松、小柯、小蟲、李思菘等幾位詞曲作者為聯盟代表與百度進行談判。

不同行業版權人對百度的集體申訴在今年出現了“突破性”格局，因為此舉得到了主管部門北京市版權局的大力支援。北京市版權局相關人士公開表明，百度已經涉及濫用“避風港”原則，並已涉嫌構成違法出版行為。在追究責任方面，根據北京市高級人民法院于2010年5月出臺的《審理涉及網路環境下著作權糾紛案件若干問題的指導意見》、最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院和公安部、司法部最近發佈的《關於辦理侵犯知識產權刑事案件適用法律若干問題的意見》、新聞出版總署《網際網路出版管理暫行規定》等政策依據，對百度等資源分享網站予以行政處罰沒有法律障礙。並且，根據國家版權局的指示，北京市版權局已對百度文庫事件進行了詳細調查，並最終形成《關於“百度”文庫經營方式的調查報告》提交給國家版權局。防範此類事件的行政法規《資訊網路傳播權保護指導意見(試行)》(以下簡稱《意見》)也將於4月下旬正式公佈。

針對諸多“圍剿”，百度方面已經和各個版權人代表組織展開了談判。

百度方面對外宣佈，將在5月發佈新的MP3搜索服務，百度CEO李彥宏在3月底出席深圳IT領袖峰會時就百度文庫事件表態稱，對被侵權的作家表示歉意，百度正在調集公司力量加強反盜版力度，如果管不好，就關掉百度文庫。但他同時強調，百度還是希望與版權方、作家達成一個滿意的解決方案。比如積極推進與作家、出版社的合作，通過用戶付費閱讀和廣告分成等模式獲取收益，並將把大部分收益回饋版權方。

對於近日備受關注的百度文庫版權糾紛事件，分析人士指出，隨著全社會知識產權保護意識的不斷提高，以及網路運營成本的增加，不僅百度這樣的公司難以繼續之前的免費模式，網際網路免費模式或將終結。

商報記者 鄭潔 陳傑/文 宋媛媛/製表


2010-2011年重要維權事件速覽

50位
2011年3月，50位作家和出版人聯名組成“出版界反百度侵權同盟”，狀告百度侵權，共同發佈題為《“3·15”中國作家討百度書》的文章，稱百度公司在沒有得到任何人授權的情況下，將他們的作品發佈在百度文庫中，並對用戶免費開放。3月30日，百度文庫版權合作平臺上線。

100名
2011年3月，百名音樂人聯手向百度維權，控訴其深度鏈結滋養盜版網路音樂。此後，谷建芬、高曉松、小柯等音樂人成立“華語音樂詞曲作者維權聯盟”，並作為代表跟百度展開實質性談判。

200萬冊
2011年3月，有網友向中國草根協會舉報，稱郭敬明的新書《臨界·爵跡》在人物情節、故事框架、思想題旨等方面和協會常務副會長獨孤意先生的武俠小說《獨孤神俠傳》系列存在驚人相似。在此之前，《臨界·爵跡》首發就印刷了200萬冊。

15萬元
2010年，著名收藏家馬未都因央視春晚將自己多年前寫的《量力而行》在他不知情的情況下改編成了小品《兩毛一腳》，向春晚劇組索要15萬元改編費。《兩毛一腳》改編自《故事會》上同名小說，小說卻署別人的名字，進入春晚視線被改編為黃宏小品，馬未都先後遭遇了兩次侵權。

500萬元
2007年9月，香港金幣總公司與北京市中海福文化發展有限公司簽訂了《范曾十二生肖純金幣製作發行協議》，授權中海福公司在全球獨家發行和銷售國畫大師範曾“十二生肖圖純金紀念幣”，但未獲授權。2010年1月，范曾將兩公司告上法庭，最終法院判令賠償500萬元。

(UPDATED) This guest post is by Mathew D, Vice-President of R2G/wa3.cn, one of China's leading digital music distributors.  He blogs on the music industry and copyright reform in at The Global Outpost.

New music copyright protection guidelines have been announced by the Beijing Copyright Bureau which aim to redress the burden of proof imbalance between copyright owners and those engaging in and in many cases, profiting from institutionalized piracy.

The Beijing Municipal Bureau of Press and Publication (Copyright Bureau) brought together Copyright Owners including representatives of record labels, publishers, composers, music distributors and industry associations amongst them Taihe Rye, Dong Music, Music Copyright Society of China and R2G who voiced their opinions and support for the guiding framework late last week.

It was noted that the law needs to objectively state what defines Copyright Ownership, as currently there is a heavy burden of proof upon Copyright Owners with the balance tilted in favor of Service Providers. Copyright Owners have an inordinate amount of work to not only prove their ownership but also to issue take-down notices whilst Service Providers seek sophisticated ways to perpetuate music piracy, most commonly abusing Safe Harbour Laws and using their technology platforms as a cover to facilitate users’ uploading of copyrighted content. In fact, Service Providers including music Search Engines themselves get into the act and simply upload the copyrighted content whilst conveniently blaming their users.

As Music Ally stated in its China profile report (subscription only) last month:

“Only two online companies have fully-licensed music streaming and downloads services in place: Google-backed Top100 offers free ad-funded downloads and streaming, while R2G’s wawawa has paid-for streaming and downloads, too. Both companies, however, face fierce competition from other dubious portals and services, amongst which stand out Sina, QQ Music, Xiami, VeryCD, and the infamous Baidu.

Although some of these have some form of licensing in place, they all carry pirated content too, fueling traffic levels that generate advertising and adjacent service revenues in the hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of dollars. Whereas piracy in the West remains, for the most part, an activity based on end-users sharing and downloading contents by themselves over one platform or another, in China it is mainly driven by commercial operations”

As traffic is important to these infringing Service Providers, they constantly feed users with unlicensed free content and cite their users’ habits and attitudes which are actually shaped by these corporations as an excuse and human shield to deflect from the institutionalized piracy that they engage in. As these companies are profiting from music piracy, their attempts to undermine actions against music piracy include feeble if non-existent efforts to take-down infringing content. It will be interesting to observe how Baidu will also join this “partial licensing as cover for pirate activity and traffic magnet” model once they launch their upcoming Ting music service

The Beijing Copyright Bureau has recognized that the law can be seen as a polariser as in practice it is an arduous task to prove Service Providers’ subjective intent even as their actions contribute to copyright infringement. As such, a new framework of guidelines to complement the existing laws have been proposed by them.

The most significant of the guidelines which will come into effect from 1 June 2011 are the following:

• The Beijing Copyright Bureau will set up a publicly accessible website for Copyright Owners to register their works and Service Providers who provide file-sharing services, search, links or act as channels are then automatically required to take down links to these known copyrighted works or prevent users from uploading these works to their properties.
• Service Providers are thus effectively required to automatically take down copyrighted works that they know of or should have known that users do not have the right to upload or disseminate.
•  Service Providers are required to remove infringing content immediately or latest within 24 hours upon notice by the Copyright Owner.
• Service Providers are required to take down the same copyrighted work that had been previously taken down/ disconnected based on notification from the Copyright Owner.

The full list of the Guiding Framework on the Protection of Copyright is available here

Currently, Service Providers have been able to employ a variety of means to perpetuate illegal use of copyrighted material by counting on the arduous tasks and barriers that Copyright Owners have to overcome if they are to take legal action:

1. Service Providers require take-down notices to be accompanied by an Authorization Letter from the Copyright Owner or an exclusive Authorization Letter from the assigned distributor
2. Some Service Providers contend that Authorization Letters are insufficient proof of ownership and demand that lyrics be also provided before they will consider a take-down while others require notarized Authorization Letters
3. URLs of each case of infringement have to provided.
4. The Service Provider then sneakily moves the infringing content to a new URL or simply ignores the take-down notice.
5. To then undertake legal action, every page on the website showing the infringing content will first have to be printed and notarized as proof
6. The infringing content itself has to be downloaded, and as further proof, a video camera will have to capture the download/ streaming process
7. A full chain of authorization from the artist, the music composer to the label and distributor has to be provided, and each of these has to be notarized.
8. Physical CDs will also have to be provided which indicate the copyright information [(P) and © symbols]
9. And then begins a long wait to have the legal case accepted in courts, before a further waiting period yields a hearing.

As Wu Jun, CEO of R2G summarized it, current difficulties include:

• Complexity and arduous process of establishing and proving rights ownership
• Costly and heavy burden of proof whereas infringement carries little cost
• Difficult process to inform infringing companies (to take-down content)

It is thus important that Copyright Owners play their part  in registering their works with the Beijing Copyright Bureau so that the new regulations can be enforced once it becomes active from 1 Jun 2011.

There will definitely be a trend towards licensing but at the same time, this will not happen in a vacuum if Content Owners do not pursue the required piracy monitoring and necessary legal actions to inhibit infringing companies from their practices of theft. It will also require investment and collective pressure from Content Owners against infringing companies  if they are to effect the necessary change in action and attitudes, and this will likely be reciprocated by accompanying government support.

The bold and united stand taken by Chinese authors against Baidu’s Wenku site which hosted and made available millions of copyrighted books and documents for free and the subsequent announced step down by Baidu is an example of collective action at work.

The other area to note is that the major infringing companies will periodically announce that they are pursuing a licensing strategy when faced with mounting pressure only to revert to their infringing habits once the spotlight is off them. So it is partly in the hands of a united music industry to effect change - Content Owners that undercut each other are effectively devaluing their own market

With the Beijing Copyright Bureau seeking the views of the music industry as part of this year’s initiative to address the endemic copyright problems in China, a cautiously optimistic approach might be in order.