Zhang Hongbo has appeared frequently in recent media reports, becoming the focus of attention, together with the China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS), as a result of the Google Books dispute.

 

Zhang expressed clear-cut opinions on Google digital library’s infringement on the copyright of Chinese writers, using a straight forward manner to describe its behavior during a CCTV interview: “Google took your work without paying anything and then sent out a letter saying: ‘You must agree to a settlement with me if you want to take back your work, and I will give you a bit of money for compensation. I’m not afraid of you taking me to court, because I have plenty of money. If you don’t reach me, OK, I’ll use your things free of charge.’”

 

Viewed from all kinds of media reports, Zhang is a desperate defender of the Chinese authors’ rights who are against the Google digital library.

 

However, after a special interview China IP reporter found that he is actually a firm supporter of the digital library while maintaining this his attempt to defend authors’ rights is but an important step for the CWWCS to “standardize” digital publishing.  

 

 

 

China IP: When did the CWWCS learn Google used Chinese writers’ works without permission?

 

Zhang: We have been watching closely digital libraries at home and abroad, especially Google Books which started from 2004. They have been in trouble from the very beginning, but mostly in the US, until last June, when we received a letter from the International Audio-Video Copyright Association, telling us Google had also used Chinese books among their collection of authors worldwide. They hoped that we could notify Chinese right holders, who could then contact Google for a settlement scheme to solve the problem.

 

China IP: What was your first react? Did you notify right holders?

 

Zhang: Our first thinking was that we should investigate the seriousness of the matter. Then we did a little research, and found that Google indeed used a lot of Chinese works. Our preliminary judgment was that, given the number of works included in the library, it would have been impossible for Google to have obtained all of the copyrights. Although we have always support cultural dissemination through digital libraries, it doesn’t justify copyright infringement. So we drew up a notice immediately and sent it to right holders through the 12 organizations which initiated the CWWCS.

 

China IP: Did right holders respond strongly? Did they hope the CWWCS could solve the problem?

 

Zhang: Actually we didn’t receive much feedback, and perhaps some organizations were not aware of the seriousness of the issue. Then we appointed three people who spent more than two months to search for Chinese books still under copyright protection which wee included in Google’s digital library. We finished the preliminary research in early August, and estimated that reported that their library contained at least 18,000 volumes, a number that is not yet complete, but quite astonishing. So, on September 1^st, we published the results to more than 30 media organizations, whose reports finally generated enough social attention and awareness from the Chinese community and our authors that we began to receive a large number of inquiry calls.

 

China IP: When did Google pay attention to Chinese right holders?

 

Zhang: Google was actually in a passive position. It wasn’t until October 19^th that a lawyer from Google China contacted us, but it was only responsible for providing legal information. After that Google China and headquarters sent out information two times, but both targeting Chinese media instead of right holders and copyright watchdogs like us. Then, on October 21^st they contacted us again, saying Mr. Erik Hartmann, the Asia-Pacific head of Google Books, hoped to come to China to discuss the matter with us. Our meeting took place on November 2^nd. The talk was fairly fruitful. First of all, we confirmed that some infringement had occurred. For example, there were, as reported earlier, two sources for Google’s digital books: The first was the partnership scheme, which meant permission from over 50 Chinese publishing houses for around 10,000 books; the second was the library project, which meant to scan books from American university libraries. In the latter case Google refused to talk details, only admitting they had no permission. In addition, they also admitted readily that the 18,000 volumes we announced were only a small part of their project and the real number was far bigger. They would tell us the number after some statistical work. What is most important, I think, was that we established a normal communication channel and set down dates and an agenda for future consultations.

 

China IP: Isn’t the permission from Chinese publishers valid?   

 

Zhang: Firstly, the right that needs permission here is called the right of communication through the information network, and the process in China is somewhat unique. In foreign countries, publishers obtain the right to use copyrighted material by explicitly laying out detailed articles of agreement in publication contracts and sign them directly with the authors. But in China, most of our 579 publishing houses use the 1999 edition contract of the National Copyright Administration, which contains articles only on digital copyrights instead of the rights of communications through the information network. This is an industry standard, not a law, and it leaves the rights in the hands of authors instead of publishers. In fact, it reveals a flaw in our digital publishing practices. Many publishing houses don’t even have copyright departments and it is usually left up to the editorial director to sign publication agreements. Much permission is given by people who are not entitled to do so. Consequently, who possesses the right of communication through the information network is complicated in China.   

 

 

China IP: Google Books violated the rights of Chinese authors. But you also say the library is a good thing. Do these positions clash? Also Google said itself it is not for profit, so why does it have copyright accountability?

 

Zhang: Google’s digital library, which is intended to be the world largest, is a good thing indeed. It can help spread culture when completed, and more people will know Chinese culture when Chinese works are included. Besides, just as you mentioned, Google said it was public and non-profit. But the issue of infringement is a different matter. The building of a digital library, for whatever purpose, must be based on a legal framework, and being public and non-profit doesn’t justify copyright infringement. Google’s copyright problem does exist viewed from its prolonged lawsuits in the US and, as shown in the survey on Chinese right holders, the central question is the fact that they scan and upload works without permission. Many people think that if something is free of charge no permission in necessary. Actually they are procedures at two stages. Permission to scan is a must, then whether to charge or not is also based on permission. Some renowned Chinese authors, like Zhang Kangkang and Bi Shumin, were shocked upon learning the news. This is not a question of how much my book is worth, they argued, but the fact that you are using my book without telling me or getting my permission. They are would have been happy to give permission free of charge, since Google isn’t seeking to make profit, it is seeking to spread culture. In a word, that fact that is a non-profit venture does not justify infringement. What’s more, it is still unknown whether Google will profit from the use this library. For instance, profiting from advertisements in connection with use of the library is certainly a possibility, judging from the media reports.

 

China IP: Google has a settlement agreement to pay an author USD 60 if he agrees with its use of his work. Why do you insist that this is infringement in despite that agreement?

 

Zhang: This is really misleading. Firstly, many people will dwell on the money; who gave Google the right to decide whether a book is worth that sum or not? Secondly, it is widely believed that this is a legitimate means for Google to obtain permission. But in fact, the proposal is highly problematic, because once accepted in the US, it will overturn the rule of the entire copyright industry, which is that you seek permission first and obtain the right to use second. That is, Google is assuming the right to use your works at will. Then, if you come forward it will give you USD 60 as a compromise. How many will make that claim among, say, 100,000 writers, especially foreign ones? More important, it will lead to Google obtaining a monopoly over the copyright resources on which digital publishing survives. That’s why many European and American officials criticized it and other rivals watched. If it is permitted to comprise itself in such a manner and this then becomes a common practice, is will be unfair to the other market entities.    

 

 

China IP: Will such unfairness effect China’s digital publishing industry?

 

Zhang: Absolutely, because China’s digital publishing will certainly go global one day, and will find that there is no market available as a result of the unauthorized use of Chinese works by Google. Looking at it from the other way around, if Google gets more and better resources, it will enter our Chinese market directly and threaten domestic companies by offering a wider variety of works, better service and stronger promotional capabilities.

 

China IP: Has any Chinese digital publisher stepped forward against Google?

 

Zhang: Except for www.ChineseAll.com, not a single domestic digital book company has stepped forward.

 

China IP: Why?

 

Zhang: This is where the best lesson from Google’s activities lies. For a decade, why have China’s digital libraries and publishing failed to thrive? The answer is the same as with Google Books; that is, the failure to respect or protect copyrights, and the failure to obtain permission to use copyrighted material. How can Chinese companies point its finger at Google when they themselves don’t have a proper mode of obtaining permission to use copyrighted material? Most of them are living on pirated resources and are also entangled in copyright lawsuits. Despite Google’s conduct, our communication was smooth, but it is hard to talk to some domestic companies; they have engaged in similar conduct and there are too many things that are embarrassing for them to mention.

 

China IP: Does the CWWCS have the same relationship with domestic publishers as with Google?

 

Zhang: Actually we are a watchdog for copyright protection. We receive rights from right holders and exercise them on their behalf. We hold many small rights, especially the right of communication through the information network. One of the purposes of setting up the CWWCS was to solve the permission problem of digital publishing. We applied in 1999, but were not approved; we applied again in 2005, and the organization was established last year. Our contact with Google intended to solve the problem, not to seeking trouble. That is the same with Chinese publishers: We hope we can talk with them on behalf of our right holders, and safeguard their interests through giving them permission. We will have many new members as a result of the Google incident and we will turn to Chinese publishers when we have enough capital to defend the interests of our members.

 

China IP: Is the CWWCS one of the best means for solving the issue of right permission in digital publishing?

 

Zhang: Presently, most scholars support collective organizations to solve the problem, and the state has granted us approval to do the job.

 

China IP: What’s your comment on the current status of China’s digital publishing?

 

Zhang: Our digital publishing started early, but copyright has always been a headache. Permission is a time-consuming job. Many domestic companies claimed they have put a lot of money into that annually, but they were apparently understaffed. But we always believed in the prospects of digital publishing, which might turn out better than traditional publishing. Now profit modes have gradually become clear, and the so-called digital publishing is a combination of the Web and mobile networks, especially cell users. But the industry needs to be standardized.  

 

China IP: As head of a right holder organization, do you think your members and Chinese right holders have strong copyright awareness over Google Books?

 

Zhang: That is what I have worried about. I see in this dispute that our rights holders are rather weak in their copyright awareness, even indifferent. My impression is that the more experienced a writer has, the more attention he will pay to copyright. So I would like everybody to see that this is not a question of money, but law. The key is that one’s creations and works should be respected. This is a complicated issue, and our publicity is not enough. On top of the April 26^th，“World Intellectual Property Day” annually, we also need some regular publicity, such as pamphlets in bookstores. Of course, this is not a question of right holders alone, because many professionals are also weak in copyright awareness, including some lawyers. This is a social problem.

 

China IP: What’s your personal comment on the dispute between the CWWCS and Google?

 

Zhang: This is not a clash between Chinese and American laws, because the infringement is a simple fact. Neither is this a simple right-defending action. We should draw lessons from the dispute for the development of our digital publishing. Without solving copyright permission, even a company as strong as Google needs tremendous efforts to build up a digital library, not to mention those who gave up the idea as Microsoft and Yahoo. As we always believed, digital publishing is advanced in nature, for it is a better tool in spreading culture and generating commercial profits for authors. We hope we can find a balancing point acceptable to all.