TYGlobe

With the rapid development of China's Internet economy and industries, the Internet has become an important medium for information dissemination, influencing and changing people's work, entertainment and living habits. As the vast majority of works can be easily accessed and obtained by the public through the Internet, an endless stream of copyright infringement cases in the Internet field with varied forms have emerged as a result. Article 217 of the Criminal Law Amendment (XI) of 2020 stipulates the crime of copyright infringement. Compared with the previous version, the addition of the provision of "dissemination to the public via information networks" is a highlight. However, a careful review of the relevant provisions on the crime of copyright infringement in the Criminal Law finds that under the Internet environment, how to interpret "dissemination to the public via information networks" in the criminal law context has not yet been clarified.

Anyone with knowledge of the Copyright Law of China knows that "communication to the public through information networks" has a specific connotation in the field of copyright. Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 12 of the Copyright Law specifically provides for the right of communication through information networks, namely the right to make works available to the public by wired or wireless means, so that members of the public may access the works at a time and place chosen by them, which is also referred to as the right of interactive communication. If the expression "communication to the public through information networks" under Article 217 of the Criminal Law of China is interpreted strictly in accordance with the definition of the right of communication through information networks under the Copyright Law, only interactive communication acts that infringe upon the right holder's right of communication through information networks shall constitute the crime of copyright infringement in the sense of criminal law, excluding non-interactive communication acts that infringe upon the right of broadcasting such as live webcasting, web broadcasting (scheduled online streaming) and other relevant acts.

It is not an isolated case that divergences have long emerged over the interpretation of the expression of criminal acts in the crime of copyright infringement, dating back to the interpretation of "reproduction and distribution". The right of reproduction and the right of distribution stipulated in the Copyright Law obviously do not cover the right of communication through information networks. However, Paragraph 3 of Article 11 of the *Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement* stipulates that, the act of disseminating to the public other people's written works, musical works, cinematographic, television and videographic works, computer software and other works through information networks shall be deemed as "reproduction and distribution" as prescribed in Article 217 of the Criminal Law. *Notice of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on Issuing the Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement* (Fa Fa [2011] No. 3, January 10, 2011), Section 12 "Identification of 'distribution' as prescribed in Article 217 of the Criminal Law and related issues", stipulates that "distribution" includes general distribution, wholesale, retail, communication through information networks, rental, exhibition and sale and other activities. Professor Wang Qian of East China University of Political Science and Law has always opposed the aforesaid provisions, holding that the judicial interpretations of criminal law are suspected of analogy, while China prohibits criminal analogy. The revision of the provisions on the crime of copyright infringement in Article 217 of Amendment XI to the Criminal Law has obviously enabled the regulation of criminal acts infringing on the right of communication through information networks. The ensuing question is whether the provision only specifies that the channel for disseminating information to the public is the Internet without setting any restriction on the way of information dissemination, that is, whether it is an interactive communication method if interpreted broadly literally, or whether the provisions on the crime of copyright infringement must be interpreted systematically in combination with the provisions and theories of the Copyright Law. Different understandings in practice may lead to different conviction results and leave room for defense.

Provisions of the Ministry of Public Security on the Division of Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases (2020) assigns copyright infringement cases to the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Food and Drug Criminal Investigation. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Public Security requires that "public security organs in all localities shall, in accordance with the requirements of this Notice, take into full account their own institutional setup, functions and responsibilities, lose no time in clarifying the internal division of jurisdiction over criminal cases, submit relevant provisions to the public security organ at the higher level for the record, and earnestly implement them". However, in practice, the establishment of "food and drug investigation bureaus, food and drug investigation detachments and food and drug investigation squadrons" among public security organs across China is highly complicated. Some localities have not established such organs at all; some have only established such organs at the bureau or detachment level; while in other localities, copyright infringement cases still fall under the jurisdiction of economic crime investigation departments. Nowadays, as epidemic prevention and control tasks become increasingly onerous, the shortage of police force, in particular the shortage of police force responsible for case handling, has become particularly prominent. Accordingly, some grassroots law enforcement personnel may have somewhat insufficient understanding of crimes of intellectual property rights infringement, which require a higher level of professional expertise. Under such circumstances, they are more inclined to interpret "communication to the public through information networks" in a broad sense.

On April 19, 2022, the *2022 "April 26" World Intellectual Property Day Series Events* was co-hosted by the Research Society on Cyberspace Governance and Data & Information Law of the Shanghai Law Society and the Institute of Intellectual Property and Competition Law of Shanghai Jiao Tong University. At the second lecture entitled *Difficult Issues in the Handling of Copyright Cases*, Procurator General Song Jianli, then Deputy Director of the Intellectual Property Prosecution Office of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, explicitly stated that there are differences between traditional criminal cases and intellectual property rights (IPR) criminal cases in Shanghai in terms of handling procedures and case-handling logic. The handling of traditional criminal cases focuses on the elements of a crime, while the handling of IPR criminal cases requires the introduction of the trial logic of "right confirmation - infringement determination" applied in civil trials. It can be understood that the establishment of a criminal offense shall also be premised on civil infringement. Therefore, the elements of the crime of IPR infringement shall be established on the basis of the elements of a civil tort, and the basic logic for ascertaining the crime of IPR infringement shall be to first judge whether a civil tort is constituted in accordance with civil norms. Accordingly, the interpretation and application of relevant criminal law provisions and concepts shall seek and maintain consistency with preceding norms. In particular, the same legal concept shall not be interpreted differently in criminal and civil proceedings. Both the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) restrict the way for the public to access uploaded works from the Internet to interactive communication, and exclude non-interactive communication from the applicable scope. The Copyright Law of China also follows the aforementioned rule.

Currently, the existing interpretations of Amendment XI to the Criminal Law have not yet provided specific clarification on this issue, and the understanding of the aforesaid issue remains subject to further interpretation by the competent authorities of China. In this process, through contentions and interactions between the prosecution and the defense in various cases, higher requirements have also been raised for criminal lawyers specializing in intellectual property rights.