hehe found the follow at a Chinese newgroup, can anyone with good Chinese skill translate it? my Chinese education is in simplified chinese.... well, I understand quit a bit, but not all.... it basically says one cant download or upload any intellectual property...so on. also, free to to discuss this issue. 今天，政府推出網上侵權刑事化諮詢文件，由於立法的影響十分廣泛，全港市民議論紛紛，幾乎所有網上討論區都正在談論這次諮詢。本小組將會與大家一同細閱這份諮詢文件，提出值得留意的地方。完整文件《在數碼環境中保護知識產權》可以在工商及科技局工商科網頁取得。 第一章 - 未獲授權而上載和下載版權作品的法律責任 現在，很多人談論有關點對點下載 (P2P) 的部份，要留意諮詢包括的範圍並不單止是 P2P。對於擴大刑責範圍，政府提出以下三種可考慮方案 (同時歡迎市民提出其他方案，或完全反對擴大刑責)： 1) 任何人如未獲版權擁有人授權而從互聯網下載一篇文章或一張照片／ 圖像也可招致刑事檢控，或 2) 由於下載版權作品的點對點使用者，會同時讓其他點對點使用者存取他剛下載的 檔案部分，以及他在指明資料夾內儲存的檔案，因此該等使用者亦會引致刑事罰則，或 3) 只把造成直接商業利益或程度嚴重的未獲授權下載活動和分享檔案活動定為刑事罪行 很明顯，第一個方案的管制最為嚴厲，程度大得任何一個使用互聯絡的市民都很有機會犯刑事法例。正如英國的智庫 IPPR 說過，「it doesn’t make sense to have a law that everyone breaks」。 至於第二個方案，即是針對 P2P 使用者來擴大刑責，由以往只針對起始上載者改為針對所有參與者。在全面將侵權 P2P 列入刑事的同時，其影響範圍引起不少網民注意。在民事訴訟下，對下香港沒有代理的作品 (如日歐美的電視劇集或沒有官方中譯的文字創作)，鮮有原版權持有人來港訴訟。但轉為刑事化後，這些檔案的傳播會否受影響，則有待確實。 第三個方案看似溫和，但需要留意「程度嚴重的未獲授權下載活動」亦列為刑事。如何才算是「程度嚴重」呢？下載十張圖片？二十篇文章？互聯絡使用者每天都在下載圖片及文字，每天下載過百圖片及文章是非常普遍的事情，當中很多會難以確定版權持有人是否允許下載，如何介定「程度嚴重」的標準令人擔心。 第二章 - 為透過各種傳送科技向公眾發放的版權作品提供保護 這一章，政府諮詢的是「應否在香港的版權法例引進條文，給予版權擁有人透過任何一種傳送科技向公眾傳播版權作品的權利；若要引進，請大家就侵犯這項權利的行為應否招致刑事罰則提供意見。」 這部份，政府旨在想一次過解決所有媒體的版權問題，方法是給與版權持有人擁有所有媒體傳播作品的權利，包括所有未流行、甚至未面世的傳媒方法，連藍芽檔案傳送、MMS 手機訊息傳送、USB 線傳送等亦受影響。明顯地，這個提議已經完全超出互聯絡侵權的範圍，而且不同媒體有不同特性及需要考慮的情況。這個問題涉及非常多的媒體，連手機、MP3 機、各種電腦連線、各種影音錄製系統以至將來所有新傳媒播媒體都受影響，將此列入是次諮詢中視為一部份恐怕難以取得各界共識。 還有，政府提及將任何一種媒介的傳播權給予版權持有人，這其實即是 DRM (Digital Right Management) 提供的部份功能，例如限制使用者不能將 CD 轉為 MP3，不允許自行燒錄影碟，電子書 (ebook) 不可再傳送等。雖然政府說旨在限制「向公眾傳送」，但現有相關的技術會直接嚴重干涉使用者的權利，令市民購買唱片、影碟或電腦檔案後無法在自己擁有的傳體之間傳送，政府必需仔細考慮。 餘下的諮詢文件，容後再與大家細閱、分析。 第三章 - 互聯網服務供應商在打擊網上盜版問題上扮演的角色 這部份文件說是諮詢有關互聯網服務供應商 (ISP) 的法律責任，但其實影響很廣。政府建議訂立通報制度，讓版權持有人發現侵權後可以更直接地向 ISP 通報，加快移除版權物。同時，用戶可以表示反對，要求 ISP 重新上載檔案。由於這種制度會直接影響互聯網上的資訊流通，其審批條款的訂立要非常小心，否則會變成網上言論封鎖，與國內的 GFW 無異。同時，負責管理此制度的組織必需確保公平對待版權持有人及使用者，任何一方提出通報或反對都應以相約的時間完成處理，不能傾向幫助其中一方。 同時，政府建議如果版權持有人發現侵權並向 ISP 索取用戶資料，ISP 就必需提供資料，否則需要承擔法律責任。雖然過去一年來各大 ISP 都已願意提供客戶資料，但看來版權持有人仍不放心，想由法律途徑強制 ISP 提供資料。他們加強力度的同時，市民的私穩保障也就同時削弱了。政府如要訂立此法，先決條件是必需要有妥善的機制，保證守法的市民的私穩能得到保障、不會錯誤向版權持有人提供市民的個人私穩資料。 第四章 - 協助版權擁有人對網上的侵犯版權行為提出民事訴訟 本部份，政府提出以下諮詢： 1. 應否設立機制讓版權持有人毋需經過法院向 ISP 索取客戶資料 2. 應否立法強制 ISP 紀錄客戶所有網絡活動 3. 如不修改法律，可否以指引及措施讓版權持有人較便捷地向 ISP 索取客戶資料 首先，對於第二點，就如文件中曾提到，政府要求互聯網統一紀錄客戶所有網絡活動，資訊量非常龐大，所需成本不低。這紀錄是為了協助版權持有人而強制實行，如果將這成本轉嫁到客戶或 ISP 身上，則非常不公平。但版權持有人又是否願意承擔這筆費用呢？如將龐大的費用算在侵權人的罰款，侵權人可能根本無法支付，又是否實際呢？文件中亦提到，業界現各有其網絡活動資料紀錄制式，政府應多考慮及研究如何善用現有資源，避免令 ISP、市民或版權持有人需要承擔額外開支。 至於第一點，則是非常危險的建議，無視現行的法律制度，讓版權持有人避過法院就可取得市民資料。此提案是再進一步強化第三章的提案，市民私隱將失去法院的保護，即是將市民的私穩權削弱至危除的境地。第三點美其名是「基於現行法律」，實際上即是想「走法律罅」，以另一方法尋找讓版權持有人更易取得侵權者資料。其實，文件中提及美國的 John Doe 訴訟，讓版權持有人在未確定侵權人姓名時提出訴訟，政府應多考慮此方案，並加以改良及應用於香港。例如，政府可研究訴訟先以匿名進行，在確定侵權者有罪或必需要取得其身份時才披露，以保障市民權益。 此部份的諮詢完全著重幫助版權持有人進行訴訟，政府有沒有考慮過同時幫助市民抗辯及平反呢？政府單市面幫助版權持有人；未免對市民太不公平了。 第五章 - 侵犯版權的法定損害賠償 本部份是諮詢市民對於法律上訂明侵權的賠償金額。這種做法在一些國家正在實施，好處是可以減少對裁決的爭議。就如文件中提到，此提案最困難是在於尋找恰當的賠償幅度。如何能夠平衡版權持有人及市民的權益呢？如何能避免出現不合理金額的情況呢？文件中提到，可考慮先等待更多案例供參考，再作決定。其實政府除了參考本港案例外，亦可參考外國的賠償金額，以及怎樣處理特殊及例外情況。政府說要令香港成為反侵權先鋒，但也請別令香港與世界脫軌。 第六章 - 為暫時複製版權作品提供版權豁免 此部份，是諮詢市民對於是否為互聯網服務供應商 (ISP) 的快取記憶 (Cache) 設立版權豁免條款。Cache 是互聯網資料的臨時記憶，例如電腦瀏覽網頁時會臨時記錄網頁內容。不單止是個人電腦，ISP 亦有其快取記憶，以加快客戶存取網頁的速度。現時，ISP 在其伺服器上以儲存版權資料的備份，是沒有豁免的，換言之即是可當作侵權處理。 快取記憶的豁免問題，在很多國家都未有定案。快取記憶可分為「主動」與「被動」兩類，前者是主動前往網頁去儲存備份，後者是當有使用者存取某網頁時才順道儲存備份。被動式快取記憶的豁免比較受廣泛接受，在不少國家已允許，但是主動式的則還有不少爭議。其實關於這方面，由於所影響的公眾很少，同時鮮聞相關的訴訟，香港政府宜先參考外國的立法情況，再作決定。 細閱過後 - 請大眾表達意見 是次諮詢影響很大，尤其是現在香港很多人都有使用互聯網，大家都與是次諮詢息息相關。為了大家的切身權益，在了解這份文件後，請多反思當中的提案，與別人討論，並積極表達意見，讓政府清楚知道市民的意願。如果大家的意見都只流於朋輩間的閒談，而沒有向政府反映，最終受影響的還是自己而已。 還有，除了政府提供的一些提案外，市民亦可以另行提出動議，或是全盤反對。不要以為諮詢文件是一份草案，諮詢文件的內容市民可以完全不接受、可以另覓方案的。如你有另類提議，可以即管向政府提出，同時歡迎在這裏與我們討論。
I will have difficulties translating the legal and political terms =_=b Though the passage itself isn't that difficult to translate (if those techinical terms are not there) They are being quite ambitious in the proposed policy, but I stand back and see how it will be implemented... Since most of the images on the internet is copyrighted, I doubt that they have the resources to prosecute EVERY SINGLE PERSON on that =_=b But P2P is at stake here... And I think I just cannot go back and stay in Hong Kong now that they may prosecute ripping CDs onto iPods =_=b
lol.. thanks.. quite interested in this new law.. but wasn't expecting this.. will read it when im feeling more sane.. >.<
Today, the government promotes the on-line right infringement criminal activity consultation document, because legislates the influence is extremely widespread, the entire port resident discusses in abundance, the nearly all on-line discussions area all is discussing this consultation. This group will be able thin to read this consultation document together with everybody, proposed is worth place which will pay attention. The full document "Protects Intellectual property rights in Digital Environment" to be allowed obtains in the industry and commerce and the technical bureau labor commercial course homepage. First chapter - has not attained the authorization to upload with the downloading copyright work legal liability present, very many people discuss related point-to-point downloading (P2P) the part, needs to pay attention the scope which the consultation includes and not merely stops is P2P. Regarding the expanded 刑責 scope, the government proposed following three kinds may consider the plan (simultaneously welcome resident to propose other plans, or completely oppose expanded 刑責): 1) any person like has not attained the copyright to have the person to be authorized but downloads an article or a picture/image from the Internet also may incur the criminal prosecution, either 2) as a result of the downloading copyright work point-to-point user, can simultaneously let the file which other point-to-point users deposited and withdrew him just to download partially in, as well as he in indicated the file which the material clamped stores up, therefore this and so on the user also could bring about the criminal penal regulations, either 3) only created the direct commercial interest or the degree serious has not attained authorized downloading to move and shares the file activity to decide as the criminal crime very obviously, the first plan control was severest, The degree all is big the residents which any use mutually contacts to have the opportunity to violate the criminal legal regulation very much. Just like England's wisdom storehouse IPPR has said, "it doesn ' t make sense to have a law that everyone breaks". As for the second plan, is expands 刑責 in view of the P2P user, by formerly only aimed at outset uploading to change in view of all 參與者. While comprehensive will infringe upon the right P2P to include the criminal activity, its influence scope will cause many 網民 to pay attention. Under the civil action, does not have agent's work to the under Hong Kong (for example Japan Europe's and America's soap opera collection or does not have writing creation which in the official translates), rarely has the original copyright possessor to come the port lawsuit. But after transfers the criminal activity, these files dissemination can otherwise receive affect, then waits for truly. The third plan looked resembles temperately, but needs to pay attention "the degree to be serious has not attained authorized downloading" also to list as the criminal activity. How is "the degree is serious"? Downloads ten pictures? 20 articles? Mutually contacts the user every day downloading picture and the writing, every day has downloaded hundred pictures and the article is the extremely universal matter, middle very many can determine with difficulty whether the copyright possessor does permit downloading, how distinguishes "the degree seriously" the standard is worrying. Second chapter - for penetrates each kind of transmission science and technology the copyright work which provides to the public to provide protects this chapter, the government consults is "shoulds in Hong Kong's copyright legal regulation introduction article, gives the copyright to have the person to penetrate any kind of transmission science and technology to disseminate the copyright work right to the public; If introduces, asks everybody to encroach upon this right the behavior to should to incur the criminal penal regulations to provide the opinion." This part, the government is for the purpose of thinking time of solution all media the copyright question, the method gives the copyright possessor to have all media dissemination work the right, including all has been unpopular the media method which, has not even appeared on the market, Lian Lanya the file transmission, the MMS handset news transmission, the USB line transmission and so on also receives affects. Obviously, this proposition already completely surpassed mutually contacts the right infringement the scope, moreover the different media had the situation which the different characteristic and needed to consider. This question involves extremely many media, including handset, MP3 machine, each kind of computer segment, each kind of video and music transcribing system down to future all new media will broadcast the media all to receive affects, will include this in this time consultation to regard as a part perhaps with difficulty to obtain the from all walks of life mutual recognition. Also, the government mentions any kind of medium dissemination power gives the copyright possessor, this actually is the partial function which DRM (Digital Right Management) provides, for example limits the user not to be able to transfer CD MP3, does not allow voluntarily the fever to record the video compact disk, the electricity 子書 (ebook) can again transmit and so on. Although the government said is for the purpose of limiting "transmits to the public", but the existing correlation technology can direct seriously interfere user's right, after is purchased the resident the phonograph record, the video compact disk or the computer file is unable between the biography body which oneself has to transmit, the government essential pondered. -odd under consultation document, 容後 thin reads, the analysis again with everybody. The third chapter - Internet service supplier in attacks on-line pirates the role this part document which in the question acts to say is the consultation related Internet service supplier (ISP) legal liability, but actually affects very broadly. The government suggested works out the notification system, after lets the copyright possessor discover the right infringement may directly to the ISP notification, speed up 移除 the copyright. At the same time, the user may express the opposition that, requests ISP reto upload the file. Because this kind of system can directly affect on the Internet the information circulation, its examination and approval provision works out must be extremely careful, otherwise can turn the on-line opinion blockade, with domestic GFW not different. At the same time, is responsible to manage this system the organization essential to guarantee the fair treatment copyright possessor and the user, any side proposed the notification or the opposition all should reach agreement the time completes processing, cannot favor helps side. At the same time, the government suggests if the copyright possessor to discover the right infringement and demands the user material essentially to ISP, ISP on provides the material, otherwise needs to undertake the legal liability. Although passes for year each big ISP all to be willing to provide the customer material, but looked like the copyright possessor still did not feel relieved, wants to force ISP by the legal way to provide the material. They strengthened dynamics at the same time, resident's private steady safeguard also simultaneously weaken. The government like must work out this law, the precondition is must need to have the properly mechanism, guaranteed obeys the law the resident private is steady can obtain the safeguard, cannot wrongly provide resident's individual private steady material to the copyright possessor. The fourth chapter - assistance copyright has the person to the on-line infrigement copyright behavior to propose civil action this part, the government below proposed consults: 1. shoulds to set up the mechanism to let the copyright possessor do have to demand the customer material after the court to ISP 2. to should to legislate forces ISP to record customer all networks to move 3. like not to revise the law, whether or not directs and the measure lets the copyright possessor conveniently demand the customer material to ISP first, regarding 2.th, like in the document once mentioned, the government requests the Internet unification record customer all networks activity, the information quantity to be extremely huge, needs the cost not to be low. This record is for assist the copyright possessor to force to implement, if passes the burden to on the customer or the ISP body this cost, then is extremely unfair. But copyright possessor whether is willing to bear this expense? If the huge expense calculated in the right infringement person's fine, the right infringement person basic is possibly unable to pay, also is whether actual? In the document also mentioned that, the field presently respectively has its network activity material record service pattern, the government should consider and how study friendly with the existing resources, avoids make ISP, the resident or the copyright possessor needs to undertake the extra expenditures. As for 1.th, then is the extremely dangerous suggestion, disregards the present legal system, lets the copyright possessor evade the court may obtain the residential material. This proposal will be further strengthens the third chapter of proposal again, the residential personal secrets loses the court the protection, will be weakens resident's private steady power the region which will eliminate to the danger. 3.th beautiful its is "based on the present law", in fact is thought "walks the legal bottle", seeks by another method lets the copyright possessor be easier to obtain the right infringement material. Actually, in the document mentions American John the Doe lawsuit, lets the copyright possessor in not determine when right infringement person name files the lawsuit, the government should consider this plan, and performs to improve and to apply to Hong Kong. For example, the government may anonymous study the lawsuit first to carry on, is guilty when the determination right infringement or must need to obtain its status only then disclosed, safeguards the residential rights and interests. Does this partial consultation completely emphatically helps the copyright possessor to carry on the lawsuit, the government have had considered simultaneously helps the resident to contradict and the rehabiliation? Government single market condition help copyright possessor; Too is rather unfair to the resident. Fifth chapter - infrigement copyright legal damage compensate this part is consults the resident to subscribe the bright right infringement regarding the law in the amount of indemnification. This procedure is implementing in some countries, the advantage is may reduce to the ruling dispute. Mentioned on like the document in that, this proposal most is difficult is lies in seeks the appropriate compensation scope. How can 夠 the balance copyright possessor and resident's rights and interests? How can avoid appearing the unreasonable amount the situation? In the document mentioned that, may consider first waited for more cases supply the reference, then makes the decision. Actually the government besides refers to the Hong Kong case, also may refer to foreign the amount of indemnification, as well as how processes special and the exceptional case. The government said must become Hong Kong the counter- right infringement cutting edge, but also please don't is derailed make Hong Kong and the world. Sixth chapter - for temporarily duplicates the copyright work to provide copyright exemption this part, is consults the resident regarding whether serves for the Internet the supplier (ISP) quickly takes the memory (Cache) to set up the copyright exemption provision. Cache is the Internet material temporary memory, for example when computer browsing homepage meets the temporary recording homepage content. Not merely stops is the personal computing, ISP also has it quickly to take remembered that, speeds up the customer deposit and withdrawal homepage the speed. Now, ISP stores up the copyright material on its server the backup, is does not have the exemption, in other words is may treat as right infringement processing. Quickly takes the memory the exemption question, has not all had the verdict in very many countries. Quickly takes the memory to be possible to divide into "initiative" and "is passive" two kinds, former is goes to the homepage to store up the backup on own initiative, latter is when has the user deposits and withdraws some homepage only then on the way stores up the backup. The passive form quickly takes the memory the exemption comparison widely to accept, has permitted in many countries, but driving type then also has many disputes. Actually about this aspect, because affects the public are very few, with 時鮮 heard the correlation lawsuit, the Hong Kong government suitable first refers to foreign the legislation situation, then makes the decision. After thin reads - has asked the populace to express the opinion this time consultation influence to be very big, now Hong Kong very many people all have the use Internet in particular, everybody is closely linked with this time consultation. For everybody personal rights and interests, after understood this document, invites middle multi- reconsidering the proposal, discusses with the others, and positively expresses the opinion, lets the government clearly know resident's wish. If everybody opinion all only flows Yu P'engpei the chat, but had not reported to the government, finally receives affects or own. Also, provides some proposals besides the government, the resident also may separate propose the proposal, perhaps overall opposed. Do not think the consultation document is a draft, the consultation document content resident may completely not accept, may seek the plan in addition. If you have in addition a kind of proposition, may namely manage to the government proposed, simultaneously welcome in this □to discuss with us. lool, used babel fish....
^ lol online translators suck my friend once tried to do an Spanish coursework using online translation about Tony Hawk, he stupidly copied and paste and so his report ended up being about Tony the Bird
This is stuff I should follow but I can't read chinese, but if I'm not mistaken HK forbids ALL kinds of up/downloads? Including the self produced work? Well, I smell some infringement of freedom of speech and information, but then it's HK, part of China...-boat
@fearless: I think it's possible... which is just sad. I may have to think twice before resettle in Hong Kong now =_=b I really don't want to part with my beloved iPod... @taxloss: I don't think it has a whole lot to do with Hong Kong being part of China... seeing that China doesn't give a damn about the whole download/upload and copyright infringement stuff...
True, but it also prevents people from spreading 'dangerous' news that can harm the government. edit: I mean people in China can't surf the internet freely,-sites/informations are being filtered- and people are being watched what kind of sites they're visiting. >>>HK government is in my opinion slowly moving towards that way but use the copyright infringements as the excuse to derive the attention.
