Intellectual Property Research. Volume 15

Author: Tang Guangliang
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-01-01
Features: The development of intellectual property and the development of information technology are inseparable. Historically, every technological revolution in information has triggered a transformation in intellectual property. For example, the emergence of network dissemination technology in the 1990s made the copying and dissemination of works easier and faster. To strengthen copyright protection, WIPO passed two new copyright treaties in 1996. It is evident that WIPO intended to use these two new treaties to reinforce the control of authors over their works and to constrain the behavior of online service providers. However, information dissemination technology quickly evolved again, as we have seen with the so-called "P2P" technology. It blurred the boundaries among the three roles in the "copyright realm"—authors, publishers, and readers—or, in other words, every online user could potentially become an online service provider, an information provider, and an ordinary netizen. In this environment, how to define the right of communication through information networks and how to hold or control suspected infringement of copyright transmission becomes an issue we must face. On this matter, traditional or familiar intellectual property theory has proven inadequate. In fact, the intellectual property we are familiar with has long ceased to be its original form. Just 20 years ago, respected German intellectual property professors taught us that "no creation, no copyright." However, when we see the EU's 1996 Database Directive, databases lacking creation are still enjoying "quasi-copyright" or "special rights" protection. When I had the opportunity to ask German professors directly, although they gave me various explanations, they ultimately failed to answer how the "law" of "no creation, no copyright" was overturned. The same thing is happening today with many people, including myself, who are researching the intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge. For traditional knowledge in the "public domain," "unowned," or "ancient," using the familiar intellectual property theory to explain it will never yield a positive answer. The articles published in this volume, whether they concern copyright, patents, trademarks, or trade secrets, are all related to information protection, and thus they could all be placed under the category of "Information Law." I have placed them in different categories merely for the convenience of readers. Finally, it should be noted that the term "Information Law" is entirely a translation of the English "Information Law." It is not desirable for it to be mistranslated as "Intelligence Law," nor is it desirable for it to be misused in the same way as the term "Intellectual Property Law," which should have been translated as "Knowledge Property" or "Intellectual Property." Now, some people say "Intellectual Property," which is essentially making the best of a mistake. Is there a better translation for "Information Law"?