Music Television and Music Video Disputes in the PRC

On May 25 2005, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court issued its opinion on a dispute regarding the copyright protection of music television and music videos (MTVs*), between Go East Records and Unicorn (a PRC karaoke business operator). This case is the latest development in a long string of disputes arising between local and international record companies and karaoke business operators in China.

In June 2003, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court accepted the first MTV case, in which a record company sued a karaoke business for copyright infringement. This case opened the floodgates, and since then dozens of PRC karaoke businesses have been taken to court on the same grounds. On March 1 2004, 49 record companies, both domestic and international, including EMI Music and the Warner Music Group, issued a letter of warning to over 12,000 karaoke businesses in China, requesting that these businesses make payments to compensate for damages, and cease the use of copyrighted materials in their businesses.

Over 30 of these businesses chose to fight back and sued the record companies for defamation. During the course of this ongoing battle there have been a few issues which have been resolved. Many still remain, however; not the least of which is the PRC courts' treatment of MTV materials and their shaky status under the PRC Copyright Law(中华人民共和国著作权法). Throughout this long, convoluted battle, the major legal issue is relatively clear. To what extent do MTV materials enjoy copyright protection? The twist in PRC law is that not all audiovisual products enjoy copyright.

Protection of MTV Materials under PRC Law

Under PRC Copyright Law(中华人民共和国著作权法), audiovisual products are classified into two categories: (i) cinematographic works and work created by virtue of an analogous method of film production (films); and (ii) video recordings (videos). The difference between the two lies in the fact that films enjoy full copyright protection, allowing the copyright holder of the films to enjoin others from unauthorized public showing of the films. Videos, however, only enjoy neighbouring rights, which do not include public showing rights. As such, copyright holders of videos cannot enjoin the public showing of videos.

Thrown into this confusion is the fact that the current law does not explicitly classify MTV materials into one category or the other. The alleged act of infringement is the public showing of the music videos in karaoke establishments, as an accompaniment to the songs sung by patrons. If MTV materials are to be classified as films, then this act is clearly an infringement of the copyrights held by the record companies that produce the material. If the MTV materials are in fact classified as videos