【新唐人2012年4月9日讯】中共国家版权局公开对《著作权法》修正草案征求意见。其中第四十六条，关于录音制品首次出版3个月后，可以不经著作权人许可，就能使用。这项规定，引起了音乐界人士以及网友们的极大关注。此外，修正草案还规定，使用者向有关部门备案、注明出处和缴纳一定费用后就可以使用那些出版制品。
原《著作权法》1991年实施，被认为“可操作性欠佳”，导致侵权成本低、维权成本高，难以真正对侵权行为产生足够的遏制作用。
“华龙网传媒公司”签约歌手杨银波认为，这绝对打击了创作人的积极性，这比原法案更糟。
杨银波：“本身我也写歌，最近一直在写。现在这么一说的话，我觉得写与不写没有多大影响了。以后都是一个全民的疯狂时代，一切都是免费的。”
《著作权法》十二条规定：如无相反证明，在作品上署名的自然人、法人或者其他组织为作者。
对此，杨银波表示，现在中国的音乐本身就处在一个怪圈中，音乐作品后面的关系、后台、包装和职称等已经占据重要位置，作品本身已不是那么重要。如果新的草案实施的话，都不需要标作者的名字了，都不是作者的作品，谁都有权力使用，那中国以后也没有什么可听的了。
台湾《联合报》评论认为，这是中共大开倒车的行为：现在大陆已经深受盗版冲击，如果这条法案通过，对创作人来说是雪上加霜。以后谁还敢为大陆写歌？
广东“同益律师事务所”律师邱斌：“可能对于很多人来讲，在后续谈这个报酬的时候，会发生很多纠纷，或者付出很多的精力，来去主张相关具体作品的报酬问题。”
针对质疑，“中国社科院智慧财产权中心”的一位专家回应说：“《著作权法》不是仅仅保护着作权人的法律，不能只从权利人的角度看问题，还要考虑传播者、使用者和社会公众的共同利益。”
但是，邱斌律师认为，草案的目地是想加快音乐作品在市场上的传播、向公众流通和共用，这在一定程度上削弱了作者权利和牺牲作者利益﹔但能不能达到繁荣音乐作品市场、会不会真正损害作者积极性，还不是一时能够看得到的。
而美国版权协会指出，在中国使用的线上音乐，99％是无牌或侵权。2008年美国音乐版权在全球损失约70亿美元，互联网盗版损失就超过5亿美元。
北京市“汉卓律师事务所智慧财产权部”首席律师赵虎认为，如果按草案实行的话，必然包括国外的作品，这是不严谨的，需要重新修订。
赵虎：“从目前的草案规定的定性情况来看，我认为是有问题的：因为这种使用他人的歌词、使用他人的歌曲这是一种市场行为，应该通过去谈定价的方式来解决，而不是法律许可解决的问题。”
《中国新闻周刊》对新《著作权法》草案的看法是，这使得音乐著作协会获得了空前的收钱权利，是鼓励他们收黑钱的行为。网友对此的评价是：国之将亡，必有恶法。
采访/周玉林 编辑/宋风 后制/萧宇
Copyrights only valid for 3 months, progress or decline?
National Copyright Administration of the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) requests an amendment for copyright law;
Article 64, relates to the publication of audio materials.
This is looking to change the rules so after 3 months audio
files can be used without the copyright holder’s permission.
This provision received great attention from musicians and
netizens. In addition, the amendment also stipulates that
users are allowed to make use of these publications after
paying a fee and reporting the case to relevant departments.
The original “copyright law” was implemented in 1991.
It was viewed as “lacking in practicality”,
the likelihood that it would cause rights violation was high,
and highly expensive to protect copyrights.
It is difficult to truly curb the violation of of copyrights.
Contracted singer Yang YinBo of Hualong Online Media Co.
believes this absolutely shatters the motivation of creators,
this amendment would be worse than the original
copyright article.
Yang Yinbo: “I write songs, and I”ve been writing them recently,
but now I feel there isn’t a huge impact whether or not I write.
It’ll be a crazy epoch for everybody in the future, if everything
is free.”
Article 12 of the “copyright law” says: if there is no
opposing evidence,
naturally a person whose name appears on the works is
viewed by legal personnel or other organizations as the author.
For this, Yang YinBo expresses, now China’s music is in a
strange cycle – the interpersonal relationship, back stage,
packaging and titles already take important positions,
the works themselves are not that important.
So if the new amendments are put into practical use,
there is no need for the artists to put their names on.
The the works would not belong to the author
if everybody has the right to use it.
There will really be no good music to listen to
in China in the future.
An editorial section of a Taiwanese newspaper believes
this a huge retrogressive act of the CCP.
Now Mainland China is already deeply affected by
the breaking of copyright laws.
If this amendment is passed, then to creative people,
it is really adding hail stones onto a snowstorm.
Who will have the courage to continue writing songs
in Mainland China in the future?
A lawyer in Canton, Bin Qiu said: “Maybe to a lot of conflicts
will surface when the topic of compensation comes up.
Or people will spend a lot of energy on advocate related to
specific works’ compensation issues.
In response to suspicions, expert from Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences’ Intellectual Property Center said,
“copyright law not only protects the author,
it can’t be viewed simply from the perspective of the author’s,
but must also consider broadcasters,
users and the public’s shared benefits.”
However, lawyer Bin Qiu believes, the goal of the proposition
is to speed up the speed of broadcast in the music market,
to share with the public, on a certain level it weakens the
musicians’ rights and sacrifices the musicians’ interests,
but whether or not it will achieve the goal of thriving music market,
and whether it will truly decrease musicians’ motivation cannot be observed at once.
Yet, U.S. copyright office pointed out, 99% of online music
used in China have no copyrights or violate copyrights.
In 2008, U.S. lost 7 Billion Dollars for copyright in music,
over 500 Million Dollars alone on internet piracy.
Beijing Law Firm Intellectual Property Rights Division
Chief Counsel Zhao Hu believes, if the proposition passes,
it will inevitably include foreign products,
this is not strict and needs revision.
Zhao Hu: “looking at the current conditions of the provision
of the proposition, I think it has problems:
because this usage of other people’s lyrics,
using other people’s songs is a market behavior,
it should be solved by discussion of a set price,
not permitted by law to solve.”
China News Weekly’s opinion towards copyright law is,
this allows musicians association to gain unprecedented rights to collect money,
it is a behavior which encourages them to accept “black money”.
Netizens’ evaluation towards this is:
there are inevitably evil laws when a country will perish.
