. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/Q/CHN/1/Add.3/Rev.1 
IP/Q2/CHN/1/Add.3/Rev.1 
IP/Q3/CHN/1/Add.3/Rev.1 IP/Q4/CHN/1/Add.3/Rev.1 
14 January 2005 
 
(05-0154) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Original:   English 
 
  
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION 
 
CHINA 
 
Revision
 
 
 
 The present document reproduces responses by the delegation of China to the further 
follow-up questions put to it by Japan in the context of  the review of China's legislation initiated at the 
Council's meeting of 17-19 September 2002.  
_______________ 
 
 REPLIES TO FOLLOW-UP QU ESTIONS POSED BY JAPAN
1 
Follow-up to follow-up question 1  
 
Regarding Answer 1, please let us know the detailed schedule of establishing 
"Regulations on Royalty Criteria for Broadcasting and Television Organization", which has been listed in the 2004 Legislation Agenda of th e Office of the Legislative Affairs under the 
State Council.  Also, please explain the problems  if they had been revealed in the process of 
consultation between the State Copyright Bureau and Chinese domestic broadcasting and 
television organizations. 
Regarding the formulation of the Regulations on Royalty Criteria for Broadcasting 
Organizations , the National Copyright Administration of  China has made a certain number of 
preparations, such as conducting relevant researches, inviting officials and experts of CISAC to visit 
China to discuss with the departments in charge of broadcasting organiza tions, and explaining the 
Copyright Law  and relevant international treaties to th ese domestic broadcasting organizations.  The 
National Copyright Administration of China is making efforts in order to submit the draft regulation 
to the Office of Legislative Affairs under the State Council as soon as possible in 2005.  As for 
formulation of regulations on royalty, the domestic broadcasting organizations are of the view that 
relevant standard of royalty must be in conformity with China's actual situation. 
                                                     
 
1 These questions are based on the responses to Ja pan's follow-up questions contained in documents 
IP/Q/CHN/1/Add.2, IP/Q2/CHN/1/Add.2, IP/Q3/CHN/1/Add.2, and IP/Q4/CHN/1/Add.2, dated 16 June 2004. IP/Q/CHN/1/Add.3/Rev.1, IP/Q2/CHN/1/Add.3/Rev.1,  
IP/Q3/CHN/1/Add.3/Rev.1, IP/Q4/CHN/1/Add.3/Rev.1 
Page 2 
  
 Follow-up to follow-up question 2
 
 
Regarding Answer 2, we appreciate China's progress in considering the Judicial 
Interpretation on the application of laws for th e criminal of IPR infringement.  We have heard 
that the Chinese Government plans to hear public comments about this interpretation later this 
year.  If the detailed procedure has been decided, please let us know. 
Regarding the hearings of the application of  judicial interpretation to IPR infringement 
offences, up to now, we do not have any pl an to hold relevant hearings yet.   
Follow-up to follow-up question 4  
 
Regarding Answer 4, is it correct that th e evidence which a right holder submits for 
proving the fact that illegal behaviour has infr inged public interest in order to initiate the 
administrative punishment procedure is the same as that stipulated in Article 12 of the Implementation of Copyright Law on Administrative Punishment?  
It is very unclear whether a right holder can make use of administrative punishment 
procedure since the copyright office or court d ecides each case differentl y.  It seems necessary 
that the legislative body would establish the complementary interpretation concerning what 
kind of act is regarded as "infringing public interest".  As far as this issue is concerned, please 
provide us with the opinion of the Chinese Go vernment.  Also, please tell us whether the 
Chinese Government plans to consider such an interpretation. 
Regarding the initiation of the procedur e for copyright administrative punishment ，it should 
be clarify that even though right proof (initial pr oof) and infringement evidence are referred to in 
Article 12 of the Enforcement Regulations on Copyright Administrative Penalty , there is no explicit 
requirement that the right holder should subm it evidence that the infringing acts impair public 
interests when applying to file cases.  In practice, no matter whether the right holder could verify that 
infringing acts impair public interests or not, local copyright administrative departments should 
deliver their judgment on whether they would acc ept a case according to the situations of 
infringement.  As for judging whether the infringing acts impair the public interests or not, the 
National Copyright Administration of China will provide local copyright administrative departments with necessary instructions during the process of the enforcement. 
 
__________