On May 21, the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ Intellectual Property Office (IPO) proposed an amendment to the Copyright Act (著作權法) to block foreign Web sites that engage in copyright violations. While the proposal triggered considerable opposition, the office said the public was exaggerating the issue.
However, the amendment will likely not be enough to curb copyright violations, and could hurt the nation’s image as a free and democratic country.
China is the most notorious of the countries that impose online filtering and censorship. The Chinese government’s network technology and law enforcement systems are not inferior to those of Taiwan’s government, but Beijing is still unable to prevent Chinese from “crossing the firewall” to browse Web sites blocked by the authorities.
If Taiwan were also to impose a system to block access to certain Web sites, Taiwanese would inevitably react by trying to cross the wall.
An information engineering professor has already said he would teach people how to cross the wall if the government does impose such measures. In that case, the amendment would not meet its goal of cracking down on copyright violations, and the nation would become just another country notorious for filtering and blocking Internet access.
Similar legislation has been defeated in the US and the EU because it was deemed to violate human rights and freedom.
At the beginning of last year, Wikipedia, Google and more than 7,000 other Web sites shut down for one day to protest against the US Congress’ proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, while more than 7 million US citizens signed a petition against it. In the end, Congress withdrew the proposal.
In the Europe, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) signed by 22 members also triggered large street demonstrations in major cities. The agreement was rejected by the European Parliament on July 4 last year, with 478 votes against and just 39 votes for the act.
It should be noted that the IPO once pushed for Taiwan to sign the ACTA, and even planned to amend laws so that Taiwan could live up to the agreement’s “high protection standards.”
The IPO plans to establish a committee to determine if a Web site engages in copyright violation and so should be blocked, but who has the right to decide which Web sites 23 million Taiwanese can be allowed to browse? Such a violation of human rights is likely to cause much controversy.
Since the Web sites targeted by the IPO’s proposal are outside of Taiwan, why cannot copyright holders file suits in the countries where the sites are located? Why do they want the IPO, network operators and Taiwanese to protect their rights for them?
Wu Kuo-wei is the chief executive officer of the National Information Infrastructure Enterprise Promotion Association.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS