【新唐人2012年4月9日訊】中共國家版權局公開對《著作權法》修正草案徵求意見。其中第四十六條，關於錄音製品首次出版3個月後，可以不經著作權人許可，就能使用。這項規定，引起了音樂界人士以及網友們的極大關注。此外，修正草案還規定，使用者向有關部門備案、註明出處和繳納一定費用後就可以使用那些出版製品。

原《著作權法》1991年實施，被認為「可操作性欠佳」，導致侵權成本低、維權成本高，難以真正對侵權行為產生足夠的遏製作用。

「華龍網傳媒公司」簽約歌手楊銀波認為，這絕對打擊了創作人的積極性，這比原法案更糟。

楊銀波：「本身我也寫歌，最近一直在寫。現在這麼一說的話，我覺得寫與不寫沒有多大影響了。以後都是一個全民的瘋狂時代，一切都是免費的。」

《著作權法》十二條規定：如無相反證明，在作品上署名的自然人、法人或者其他組織為作者。

對此，楊銀波表示，現在中國的音樂本身就處在一個怪圈中，音樂作品後面的關係、後臺、包裝和職稱等已經佔據重要位置，作品本身已不是那麼重要。如果新的草案實施的話，都不需要標作者的名字了，都不是作者的作品，誰都有權力使用，那中國以後也沒有甚麼可聽的了。

台灣《聯合報》評論認為，這是中共大開倒車的行為：現在大陸已經深受盜版衝擊，如果這條法案通過，對創作人來說是雪上加霜。以後誰還敢為大陸寫歌？

廣東「同益律師事務所」律師邱斌：「可能對於很多人來講，在後續談這個報酬的時候，會發生很多糾紛，或者付出很多的精力，來去主張相關具體作品的報酬問題。」

針對質疑，「中國社科院智慧財產權中心」的一位專家回應說：「《著作權法》不是僅僅保護著作權人的法律，不能只從權利人的角度看問題，還要考慮傳播者、使用者和社會公眾的共同利益。」

但是，邱斌律師認為，草案的目地是想加快音樂作品在市場上的傳播、向公眾流通和共用，這在一定程度上削弱了作者權利和犧牲作者利益﹔但能不能達到繁榮音樂作品市場、會不會真正損害作者積極性，還不是一時能夠看得到的。

而美國版權協會指出，在中國使用的線上音樂，99％是無牌或侵權。2008年美國音樂版權在全球損失約70億美元，互聯網盜版損失就超過5億美元。

北京市「漢卓律師事務所智慧財產權部」首席律師趙虎認為，如果按草案實行的話，必然包括國外的作品，這是不嚴謹的，需要重新修訂。

趙虎：「從目前的草案規定的定性情況來看，我認為是有問題的：因為這種使用他人的歌詞、使用他人的歌曲這是一種市場行為，應該通過去談定價的方式來解決，而不是法律許可解決的問題。」

《中國新聞週刊》對新《著作權法》草案的看法是，這使得音樂著作協會獲得了空前的收錢權利，是鼓勵他們收黑錢的行為。網友對此的評價是：國之將亡，必有惡法。

採訪/周玉林 編輯/宋風 後製/蕭宇

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.