I have been mulling over Patrick Mattimore’s op-ed in China Daily, where he argues that a commercialized media cannot adequately serve the public interest, for some days now, and I thought I’d just put my two cents into the piggy bank. Original piece in italics.
Yesterday, China Daily and People’s Daily reported that a draft law for the protection of intangible cultural heritage was submitted to the National People’s Congress for deliberation. Intangible cultural heritage has been a relatively hot topic in China since 2006, and has been a significant topic in IP circles as well.
Back from the holidays, I first read this article , and then Stan Abrams’ response to it. Apart from the question about China’s reaction to the Internet revolution where IP law is concerned, I started thinking about another phrase that pops up in most China IP-related articles in many different forms: China has to/doesn’t/isn’t able to/is unwilling to protect IP. Sounds simple: “China” (whatever that may be) does not do what it should do (or what we want it to do), and it should behave better. Very often, there is little in the way of concrete and detailed analysis of how it can do so, and what the aims would be. So here, I’m approaching the same problem from the other side, by asking what can China do more to protect IP?
So there we have it, China’s answer to the much-decried international news networks began broadcasting yesterday. China Xinhua News Channel Network (CNC) will now broadcast English-language news and features, with the aim of “presenting an international vision with a China perspective”. In other words, CNC should inform English-language viewers about the Chinese point of view on international matters. But rest assured, station controller Wu Jincai pointed out that CNC will be a “news channel, not a propaganda station”.