Excerpts from this book address intellectual property rights and their protection, compliance, and enforcement in China. After China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which subsequently extended the TRIPs agreement to its borders, China has seen mixed results on its attempts to enforce the standards and statutes outlined in the TRIPs agreement. According to the authors, China's IP law currently offers protection consistent with the minimum requirement of TRIPs. However, the authors suggest that in order to elimanate some of the shortcomings of the TRIPs framework, Article 7 of TRIPS and its role must be enhanced in order to restore balance: "the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations. However, the landscape of international intellectual property is changing, and the authors point out the diverging trend of multilateral institutions leaning towards securing the access of developing countries to protected content and material on reasonable terms while bilateral trade agreements continue to enforce strict copyright rules in favor of the developed nation. However, we must take TRIPs on facevalue and should be viewed as part of the broader strategy of priority setting, education, and institutional capacity building, regulaory adaptation, FDI marketing, and patent mining. Nevertheless, piracy and counterfeiting are still significant threats to right holders. The Chinese policy of administrative enforcement of copyright law often impedes its very goal due to longstanding local protectionism and cronyism as well as the internal bureaucratic rivalries that prevent the creation of a comprehesive IP strategy.  However, the Chinese have instituted judicial review of these administrative decisions, increases in the maximum fines available for IP infringements, and lower thresholds for criminal liability. Although change has come at a sluggish pace and Chinese IP enforcement will never rival that of many Western nations, China has made considerable steps in order to comply with TRIPs legislation.

 

The general opinion seems to agree that China has come a long way in IPR enforcement, but it still has a long way to go. As the broader themes of this paper come together, this article will serve to point on many of the drawbacks of the Chinese system and what can  be done to change this as well as the steps taken by China to meet the minimum requirements of the TRIPs agreement. While enforcement is still an issue, this authors make clear that we must be patient due to the extenuating circumstances of China's robust economy coupled with a lagging administrative stucture and status as a developig nation.

Much like their respective copyright histories, the U.S. response to piracy in China is markedly different than that in Russia. During the last year of the Quing Dynasty, 1910, the Chinese government enacted its first comprehensive  copyright law, although it was short-lived and barely enforced. THe rise of the Communist Party after World War II spelled a dramatic change as China closed its doors to foreign influence and banished any Western idea of copyright that lasted until  its adoption of the Open Door Policy in the 1970s. Following U.S. pressure for more protective IPR's China enacted the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China i 1990, granting private rights to authors although still sticking to its socialist principles. However, there was limited protection for foreign works and over subsequent years, sustained pressure and threats of trade sanctions by the U.S. continually beefed of the Chinese laws. Overall, the U.S. placed China on the priority country list under Special 301 and threateed trade sanctions on three separate occasions in the 90's.

 

The U.S.' notably more aggressive response to Chinese piracy in comparison to Russian piracy illustrates not only the importance of the Chinese market for American goods but also the rampant and blatant copyright infringement in China that the U.S. goverment as attempted to chip away at over the years. This article identifies what tools and sanctions the U.S. government can use in order to enforce its trade agreements. This is important for it will help me further contextualize the role Chinese piracy has played in U.S. foreign trade agreements and the degree to which the United States will go to protect its largest exports, its media and culture. However, its important to note that while the threat of U.S. trade sanctions was often an effective, short term solution to the Chinese piracy problems, eventually these measures deteriorated until further sanctions were threatened. We can therefore see the necessity for foreign cooperation in to enforce international trade agreements and copyright laws.

This article documents China's promise to step up its efforts to punish violators of intellectual property rights outline in the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Proprety Rights (TRIPs). China unveiled an outline of a new enforcement policy of IPR's, eaded by the deputy director of its National Copyright Administration's copyright management bureau, Xu Chao. Their response comes after multiple please by the U.S. for the Chinese to further crackdown on IPR infringement, despite Chinese claims of significant progress. China's law stipulates a maximum of seven years i prison for copyrigh violators. However, the Chinese still do not meet international IPR protection standards. The aforementioned outline promulgated the Chinese goal to increase its self directed IPR levels within 5 years. Furthermore, the Chinese plan to fully ramp up their efforts, similar to international levels, by 2020.

This article will help illustrate some of the causes of the rampant Chinese piracy of U.S. IPR. There exists both a punitive and a cultural defecit between the two countries. The lack of genuine enforcement of IPR domestically has enfuriated U.S. copyright officials and trade czars for decades. There seems to exist a chasm between the two countries as to the moral reprehensibility of copyright ifringement, illustrated by the Chinese complancency with their progress, that may help contextualize much of the discrepancy in policy goals between the two countries. This article will serve as background support and evidence to my larger goal of first proving the enforcement of international copyright law and then documenting the trade agreements put in place to accomplish this very task.

 “We could reject the notion that Internet culture must oppose profit, or that profit must destroy Internet culture. But real change will be necessary if this is to be our future- changes in law, and changes in us.” These words spoken by heralded Creative Commons’ co-founder Lawrence Lessig really capture the attitude within which many officials are acting when addressing IPR. Lessig argues that many trials, ranging over Youtube videos to Girl Talk compilations, are responsible for the limitation on creativity of users. Lessig states that the release of the “remix” culture from the shackles of copyright owners could drive extraordinary economic growth. This "create as well as consume" culture can and will inspire a deeper, much more meaningful practice of learning. Lessig further supports that the war in this century is against the pirates and has resulted in a failed effort to get them to stop sharing. His closing statements reveal that it is necessary to decriminalize Generation-X since peer-to-peer sharing has only gotten stronger with technological advances present today.

This article provides a lot of hope for the future of creativity since Lessig addresses that restrictions, such as the ACTA, will inhibit economic advancement. Currently speaking, mashups and compilations of other works appear to be selling well and appeal to the market the most. Lessig’s approach appeared useful in my argument about the future of file sharing since it implied that it is a necessary evil. In contrast to other theorists, this movement towards a more liberalized outlook on copyrighted works can better the economy within reasonable means. Lessig’s article, in addition to being highly engaging, highlights points rarely brought up by other legal system analysts.

Thesis: The Chinese economy is best served by a gradual increase in intellectual property right (IPR) protection that corresponds to the growth of its economy. This gradual increase will allow China to become technologically and culturally self-sufficient because contrary to what large American corporations would argue, foreign investment and involvement in the Chinese intellectual property (IP) economy would still be sufficient and China's domestic development would not be unduly restricted.

   This book, a collection of essays by the scholar, Kong Qingjiang, is among the most comprehensive and up-to-date sources available on IPR in China. In this book, Qingjiang takes his work over past years and compiles it into an organized fashion. Because of the nature of this compilation, there is some overlap among the essays in concepts, facts, and ideas. Nevertheless, the book provides more information about IPRs in China than most other books written to this date.
   Because this book is a collection of essays written over a period of time, there is no single unifying thesis to the work. However, it can be said that Qingjiang is very optimistic about China’s IPR future in regards to meeting international standards. On a very basic level, all of the essays suggest that China is making a great deal of progress and that strengthening its IPR regime is a good thing, although it should be undertaken in a gradual manner.
   Specific topics that Qingjiang’s essays focus on are a brief history of recent developments in Chinese IPR regime; an overview of China’s current stance on IPRs, domestically and foreign; judicial enforcement of IPRs; problems in China’s IPR regime posed by the digital era; a discussion of how China is handling the balancing of competition policies and IPRs; China’s strategy for the future of its IPRs; China’s place in the WTO; China’s role in TRIPS and the Doha Agenda; whether China is or can enforce international standards of intellectual property protection; how China’s IPR regime effects Sino-US relations; and lastly, how China’s IPR regime effect Sino-Japanese relations.
    The bulk of these essays use case studies to exemplify their individual assertions although some essays use more statistics than case-studies. As a result of the numerous essays, this book provides more information specific to China than any other book. The book is important for any assessment of IPRs in China and helps to accentuate the argument that China is best suited by a gradual change toward meeting international standards of IPR. This thesis is supported by Qingjiang in different essays throughout, and so is a useful tool in providing a scholarly grounding to the thesis of this project.

   This book is essential for any study of intellectual property rights or copyright in modern China. Because it is one of few books devoted entirely to this subject, The Politics of Piracy provides the reader with an indispensable source of information and a unique thesis on the problem of piracy in the People’s Republic of China. The book’s thesis is as follows: “The direction of external pressure and the characteristics of the institutions it is designed to change are crucial to understanding the effects of foreign pressure on policy enforcement outcomes.”
   As can be seen by this sentence, which merely states Mertha’s hypothesis, the book can, at times, be difficult to read. The writing does not flow as smoothly as it could but this reflects some of the harder concepts that Mertha tries to tackle. To defend his thesis, Mertha mainly uses empirical case studies as opposed to broad statistical evidence, presumably because statistical evidence on piracy in China is fraught with a great deal of unreliability.
   One of the best aspects of this book is that it devotes an entire chapter to each type of intellectual property: patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Because most books on IPRs deal with multiple developing economies, they tend to lump all IPRs together. This book treats each IPR as its own entity and explores their problems and possible solutions with the attention they require.
    It must be stated that this book treats IPRs in China from an obvious etic perspective and argues that most reform in China’s IPR protection comes from foreign, usually United States, pressure. Mertha believes that this is a good and effective method for bringing China’s IPR standards into compliance with Western standards. However, one of the strengths of Mertha’s book, the penultimate chapter, discusses problems with his thesis and his approach to the subject. As a consequence, this book is very valuable to the topic of intellectual property rights in China despite its sometimes difficult prose.
   The value of this book in relation to my thesis is that the book illustrates one aspect of the relationship between China and the US. This book shows that by pressuring China, the United States has achieved higher standards of IPR protection. To my thesis, this suggests that as China has become more important economically, it has also become more important regarding IPR. This importance proves a correlation between the strength of the economy and the strength of IPRs that goes well toward advancing the argument for China's gradual improvement of IPRs.

This book is a collection of essays.  It is very interesting and important for my topic of strengthening IPRs in China because it presents a point of view that is contrary to many of the other books written on IPRs for developing economies.  This book contests that developing economies should not adopt IPR regulations similar to well-developed countries.  More succinctly, “the chapters in Part II suggest that global intellectual property rules may well be an obstacle to development.”
    The essays are generally written in an easy style and all present compelling arguments.  Most essays are written by scholars although some are written by administrators and businessmen with experience in international intellectual property.  The book is broken down into four segments with each segment representing a different aspect of the overall argument.
    The first segment, entitled, “Innovation and Diffusion of Technology” suggests that international IPRs make it difficult for poor countries to receive advanced technology and education, which is in a contradiction to many economists view of IPRs.  The next section, “Development and Access to Technology: Genetics, Health, Agriculture, Education and Information Technology” discusses the current situation in many developing nations and how they use the economic principle of free-riding to their advantage.  It also discusses the fact that developing nations have the capacity to understand and enact versions of IPR laws that are beneficial to them and don’t need assistance in determining their own laws.  The third segment, entitled, “Knowledge and Access: Who Makes the Rules?” argues that international IPR agreements are really just bully tactics enacted by developed nations to coerce weaker countries into adopting the formers’ standards of IPR.  The final part, “Ownership of Knowledge: Changing the Rules” discusses how developing countries have effected TRIPs, the WTO, international IPRs, and their relation to larger countries.
    This book is very valuable for filling out a complete view of IPRs in developing economies.  It presents an alternative view to most economic arguments and, therefore, shows how my thesis would be beneficial at the initial stages of Chinese economic development.  Because the book only discusses developing nations, its thesis falls apart when expanded to nations that have outgrown the “developing nation” status.  This lack of discussion implies that a country that is neither developing nor developed needs an intermediate level of IPR protection, and therefore a gradual increase of IPR protection is necessary.