Yahoo China slammed again for piracy
Yahoo China lost another round in a legal battle as a court in Beijing upheld a ruling that the company is infringing on copyright laws by allowing pirated music to be downloaded, according to the industry group suing Yahoo China.
"The ruling against Yahoo China is extremely significant in clarifying copyright rules for Internet music services in China," John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of Phonographic Industries, or IFPI, said in a statement Thursday. "By confirming that Yahoo China's service violates copyright under new Chinese laws, the Beijing court has effectively set the standard for Internet companies throughout the country."
Yahoo owns a 44 percent stake in Yahoo China, and the controlling stake is owned by Chinese Internet company Alibaba.com, which essentially runs the site. Representatives from Alibaba could not be reached Friday for comment on this story.
The International Federation of Phonographic Industries, which represents the music industry, filed the lawsuit in January 2007 on behalf of several recording studios, including Warner Music Group, Sony BMG, and Universal Vivendi.
In the suit, IFPI accused China Yahoo of violating copyrights because it allows links between its search engine and Web sites that have illegally copied songs from artists such as U2 and Destiny's Child.
In April, a lower court in Beijing had ruled that Yahoo China facilitated infringement of copyrights. Yahoo China appealed the decision, arguing that it should not be liable for content found outside its Web site. Now that appeal has been rejected by a higher court in Beijing, according to the IFPI.
Separately, the court also upheld a ruling on a similar case against Internet company Baidu. A lower court in November 2006 had found that Baidu had facilitated copyright infringement. But because this case was filed under older Chinese copyright laws in 2005, the company was not liable for copyright infringement, the IFPI said.
"We are disappointed that the court did not find Baidu liable," Kennedy said in a statement. "But that judgment was about Baidu's actions in the past, under an old law that is no longer in force. Baidu should now prepare to have its actions judged under the new law. We are confident a court would hold Baidu liable as it has Yahoo China."
China is viewed as one of the biggest sources of pirated music and movies, as well as counterfeit goods. And the IFPI, along with other companies and trade organizations, has been taking legal action to stem the flow of this content out of China. Recent reforms in Chinese law have helped, but experts say piracy still runs rampant.
The IFPI said search services from sites such as Yahoo China and Baidu, which connect users to hundreds of thousands of pirated music tracks, are "a huge drain on efforts to develop a legitimate music market in China." The group claims that more than 99 percent of all music downloading in China violates copyright. Despite the large population and potential of the Chinese market, the IFPI said that in 2006, music sales in China only amounted to $76 million, or less than 1 percent of the entire global recorded-music market.
Still, music labels see huge potential in China, and they have been willing to work with Chinese companies to ensure that music can be distributed legally and without violating copyrights.
In April, Sony BMG Music Entertainment struck a deal with content aggregator Global Music International to distribute its music videos, full-track songs and ringtones to mobile subscribers in China. The deal calls for Global Music to distribute Sony content through wireless-phone operator China Unicom.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
This is HUGE news. I have been at this copyright enforcement game for over 15 years now. How the US can let China, with practically the highest willful copyright infringement rate on the planet, get ahead on its copyrights laws, and enforcement, is beyond my wildest imagination.
How embarrassing? How hypocritical? How wrong!
Of course, these giant publicly funded search engine companies should be held accountable for allowing known illegal activities to continue on through their networks while at the same time making billions of dollars from advertising on the infringing websites. No one with common sense could argue against this ... even the Chinese apparently agree with this logic.
If you and your readers noticed, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google earlier this month agreed to pay somewhere over $35,000,000 for selling advertising on web sites that promoted illegal gambling activities here in the US. How is supporting known piracy web sites any different?
In fact, I can argue that it is far worse. Google (and presumably soon Microsoft and Yahoo, as well) is the ONLY significant source of income to many of these web sites that traffic in stolen goods (whether through online digital piracy or through counterfeiting). The illegal activity simply would not occur without this "funding" from the search engine companies that make the same amount of advertising dollars whether the goods and services sold are legal or illegal.
Internet piracy is the most profitable new business enterprise on the planet. And organized crime, as well as terrorist organizations, participate in these enormous profits. If China is now making a legitimate attempt to stop these crooks with their new laws, then why aren't we?
Do you believe Google, Yahoo, Ask.com, AOL, and Microsoft should be able to sell advertising on web sites that promote child pornography? How about instructions as to how to attach a bomb to your body and blow yourself up in a suicide mission? What about cocaine, heroin, and other illegal drugs?
The answer is "OF COURSE NOT". So why are they allowed to support willful copyright infringement activities without recourse? Why do the federal judges often give these companies escape routes, or legal loopholes, in their interpreting of "what Congress meant to say" when it passed the DMCA back in 1998. Why is a policy of "we'll stop it only when we are caught and the accuser follows our rules" allowed to survive?
NONSENSE. It is time we applied some logic to this process. It is time we held these huge public companies accountable for their illegal and unethical actions. It is time we forced their lawyers to tell the truth in court. It is time we enforced both the civil AND criminal laws of this country against their executive officers and directors as well.
My little graphic arts development company, alone, has identified (and documented) hundreds of willfully infringing websites/web site operators that survive ONLY because of Google AdWords and/or AdSense. Why is this allowed to happen in a country that respects copyrights, produces most of the original copyrightable material in the world, and grants its citizens the exclusive rights of ownership and protection in our Constitution?
I, for one, am sick and tired of standing by and watching these giant U.S. image search engine companies rake in billions of dollars while hard working artists, designers, musicians, journalists, programmers, poets, writers, and others in this country continue to struggle.
Bravo, China. Perhaps this is one of your first steps in the right direction.
Thank you for listening.
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com
- Year stupid
- by wildchild_plasma_gyro December 22, 2007 1:47 PM PST
- Why copy any of gods world crap.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(5 Comments)Its not worth a !damn thing
The great mind warrior
takes his metaphorical spear
his real spear
and takes it to the !eye