The third amendment to Copyright Law quickly has caught a great attention from the academic, practical and industrial field around China since National Copyright Administration official started the third amendment to Copyright Law in July, 2011 and accepted proposals from experts. Until March, 2012, National Copyright Administration published Copyright Law (revision draft) (“revision draft”called for short in the following). These amendments lead to a heated discussion in all circles, the field of music in particular. The international community pays attention to this revision as well. These amendments need to be discussed, specially about private copying, legal approve of phonograms, collective administration and organization for copyright and so on. This paper endeavors to provide some suggestions on amendments in revision draft and on those beyond the draft, in order to help improve the system of copyright law.
　　I. Suggestions and Evaluations on Amendments in “Revision Draft”
　　1. The great significance to amend legislative purpose in Article one.
　　“Revision Draft” supplements the related right of communicators. On the one hand, the legal status of publishers, players, producers of phonogram, broadcasting stations and TV stations, which exist in current Copyright Law, are identified. It approves the contribution given by communicators to works and identifies an importance of communicators’ rights. On the other hand, the system of related rights is established from the view of legislation. It improves the system and the structure of copyright law and makes up structural deficiency that copyright was highlighted in Copyright Law issued in 1990. The term, “rights in relation to copyright”, is adopted right now. It does not confirm “rights”in relation to copyright positively, which is not in line with an expression in the world and in theories. Identifying “the right of communicators” means that the status of legal subjects of communicators is evidently identified and sworn in basic legislation of copyright.
　　Copyright law finally aims to supplement provisions which “promote economic development and prosperity”, to represent legislators’ approve and confirmation of a huge economic value from industrializing works and products, to promote and to protect the particular status and effects of national copyright industry which is contributed by copyright law. With the advance of the strategy of national intellectual property and promotion of the policy in cultural industry to greatly develop and boom in our country, an application of copyright is gaining increasing attention . The economic value of copyright taken into the legislative purpose provides the basic principles of design and application of the rules of copyright law, which could realize to protect the economic value of copyright, and further could make it become the protection of basic laws to regulate and improve a development of copyright industry in our country.
　　2. The definition of “models” is suggested to be revised.
　　“Revision Draft” defines models as “three-dimensional works in accordance to a certain rate, based on the shape and structure of the object, for purposes of displaying, testing, observing or other functions.” The definition of models is suggested to be amended as “dimensional art works with aesthetic meanings, which are created for an accomplishment of art works, works of practical arts and works of buildings”. The first reason is that current models highlight works “in accordance to the rate”. Secondly, there is an overlap between models that are defined by current definition and sculptures. Thirdly, models are originated from“Model” in Berne Convention for Protection of Literature and Art Works (Berne Convention called for short in the following). Nevertheless, this word is translated as “utility model”, which refers to practical and novel technological plans for the shape, structure or its combination of the product. Therefore, the connotation of this word in the convention is prior to models of real objects.
　　3. “Information of facts reported through newspaper, journalists, broadcasting stations, TV stations, information network and other media” is suggested to be altered as “news completely from facts”.
　　The reason is that news completely from facts is beyond protection of copyright law because it bears and represents a kind of information, which could not be monopolized by individuals. At the same time, based on a limitation of expressing news completely from facts and on basic principle that information is free, the elimination of facts’ news should not be restricted through newspaper, journalists, broadcasting stations, TV stations, information network and other media.
　　4. Article 12 involved in works of legal person is suggested to be altered.
　　The provision in Clause three, Article twelve is suggested to be deleted. The expression that “authors refer to natural persons, legal persons or other organizations on works provided that no opposite evidences is provided” is amended as “authors refer to signatures of those on works provided that no opposite evidences is provided”.
　　As for reasons, firstly, works of legal persons, involved in copyright system, only stipulate logical products of authors’property rights, not in line with the design of principles and systems in copyright law which learns from the system of authorship rights in our country. Such a regulation is not beneficial to an overall design and interpretation of laws. Secondly, judging standards of legal persons’ works becomes more complicated. Thirdly, considering works of legal persons, the clause in relation to “inference of authors” should eliminate signatures of legal persons.
　　5. “The country enjoys rights and duties which do not belong to any legal person or other organizations” in Article 22 is suggested to be altered as “the public could freely use works whose rights and duties do not belong to any legal persons or other organizations, but not to damage personal rights of authors”.
　　The first reason is that Copyright Law evidently accepts the system of rules about unclaimed property, regulated in Article 79 in the General Principles of the Civil Law, Article 113 in Property Law and Article 32 in Inheritance Law, where ownership is obtained by the country or by the collective. However, it is not significant to return copyright of these works back to the country. Furthermore, the difficulty is quite great in practical operation. Secondly, the mode controlled by the country in “Revision Draft” slows utilization efficiency of works, which is not proper to be taken into practice. Thirdly, the term of personal rights in copyright is not limited, so the use by the public also should respect personal rights of works.
　　6. The headline of chapter three should be revised as “rights of publishers”, “rights of players”, “rights of phonogram’s producers” and “rights organized by the broadcast”.
　　The reason is that “related rights” is the content of chapter three. However, the title of each section is “publishers, players, producers of phonogram, broadcast stations and TV stations” respectively. The content in each section is involved in related rights. As a result, titles should be in line with their contents.
　　7. The provision of “private copying” in Article 40 involved in legitimate use is suggested to be revised.
　　This expression is suggested to be modified as “works, which have been published by others, are copied for personal learning and researches”. Firstly, legislative experience in foreign countries could be investigated and referred. Copyright Law in German deems that private copying refers to individual copy with any form for personal use. Copyright Law in Japan stipulates that private copying is restricted under legitimate use, i.e. private copying aims for individual use or family sue and that is utilized within a limited range. Copyright Law in U.S. regulates that works with copyright are used for criticism, evaluation, news reports, teaching (including several copies used in classes), academy or researches. Private copying in American law is somewhat rules based on principles. The legality of private copying is judged by judges in accordance to facts and laws. In addition, judges are cases.
　　Secondly, the provision in relation to private copying in Copyright Law in our country is quite simple. The draft eliminates the regulation of legitimate use with a purpose of personal appreciation, which is applied in current law. However, the draft is not improved essentially. In practice, copying the whole book or journalists, which widely exists and aims for personal learning or investigations, actually damage interests of copyright owners. “Private copying” on networks, where downloads widely exist and there is illegal uploads digital works, is not specified. Therefore, amendments at the next step should further limit ways of publishing works, scales and amounts of works to be used and the range and ways of works used by users. This paper suggests that users still copy or use works or in other forms under conditions known to them provided that works have not been authorized to be used, which is not applicable to legitimate use.
　　8. To improve legal approval of phonogram products.
　　Legal approval of phonogram products is suggested to be altered as “six months after the first publication” and“compulsory protection for the right of obtaining payment belonging to authors”. Article 46 in “Revision Draft” could be divided into three areas. Firstly, authors have the right to obtain payment. The problem is that payment is operated by the organization of copyright’s collective management. In practice, the working mechanism of China Music Copyright Association (CMCA) generates to be controversial and leads to dissatisfaction of musicians. Therefore, provisions involved in the organization of collective management of copyright should be improved. Secondly, precedent time could legally belong to those who firstly record. The starting point is from the first publication in “Revision Draft”, which is more reasonable than “legitimate recording” in current Copyright Law. The precedent time is “three months” while the term is six months in American copyright law. The length of precedent time is determined by market investigations. As a result, the time of six months is more appropriate. Thirdly, ways of using music works are limited. Only “recording by copying” is legally approved in practice. The legal approval of direct recording by coping improperly limits neighboring rights. Therefore, ways of use should be identified.
　　9. Relative provision about extended administration of copyright’s collective management and organization in Article 59 and Article 60 is suggested to be altered.
　　In Article 59, “Or on legal provisions” is suggested to be deleted in“the organization of collective management of copyright is based on an authorization of copyright owners and people with related rights or on legal provisions”.
　　“The organization of copyright’s collective management, which obtains obliges to be authorized and is behalf of interests of obliges around the country, could apply copyright or related rights of all obliges for administrative departments of copyright in the State Council, except that obliges declare not to be managed by the collective in paper.
　　The first reason is that collective management of copyright mainly appears in such a field where the cost of solo approval to develop functions is expensive. The trading cost could be reduced by collective management. However, objects of collective management, which should be on the basis of authorization, are private rights. Without authorization, the just causes that authors have rights of controlling works also are not damaged though public interests are the aim. Extended management is an improvement of authorization. At present, only eight countries in the world, mainly cover in north Europe, carry out extended management. However, collective management in our country still is at a primary stage. The time to establish the organization is short. The range to be authorized is not comprehensive. The operative mechanism should be improved. In addition, the conditions of extended management are not mature.
　　Secondly, “Revision Draft” stipulates the right of “obliges claiming not to be managed in the collective”. From the surface, obliges could hold a right of choice whether the payment is obtained through such a right. However, the procedure where obliges execute this right clearly violates the rule of copyright obtained automatically in Berne Convention, also supplements responsibility to carry out this right and is not in line with basic law to protect private rights. Furthermore, how to claim, validity of the claim, who should be claimed to and other procedural mechanism have not be built, which influences an expectation of copyright owners.
　　Thirdly, “or on laws” in Article 59 actually provides legality of authorization in extended management. Because extended management in our country should be slowed down, the foundation of copyright and neighboring rights, which are carried out by the organization of collective management, just is an authorization given by obliges. Therefore, this provision is unnecessary.
　　10. Clauses involved in charging standards to use works authorized by the organization of copyright’s collective management is suggested to be altered.
　　It is suggested to revise Article 61 “The authorize use charging standard by copyright collective management organizations should be announced by copyright administrative management department under the State Council for implementation. If there is any disagreement, it is subject to the copyright administrative management department to organize expert committee for judgment which is the final result. Charging standard will not suspended for implementation during the period of judgment.”
　　The reasons are: Firstly, the right of remuneration is a basic right of copyright owners and also an important content of copyright property right. Charging fee of collective management directly relates to author’ right of remuneration. To adopt the administrative final results instead of a judicial one is not in line with the remedy requirement in Trips. Secondly, in market economy, the pricing mechanism of copyright should be market rules and government pricing should serve as supplement as should also comply with market rules. Only in this way can balance the interests of copyright owners and the public. In free permission mechanism, author’s remuneration is based on market rules which basically realize free transaction. Only by referring to market pricing mechanism can government pricing has legitimacy. The current rules vaguely described pricing mechanism and caused too much room for discretionary function. Thirdly, formulating rules and judging by the same party is not in line with the basic requirement of the rule of law. In the pricing mechanism of “revision draft”, the copy administrative management department under the State Council makes the charging fee standard while also organize special committee to judge actually makes the remedy mechanism nothing but empty.
　　11. Network servers do not bear responsibility to examine and check information in relation to copyright or related rights is suggested to be altered.
　　It is suggested to delete Item One in Article 69 “Internet service providers provide storage, search, link and other technical series but don’t assume information view obligation of copyright or related rights”.
　　Reasons are: firstly, the obligation provisions of internet service providers in Provisions of Internet Communication Right Protection and Violation Liability Law is “safe harbor principle” and “red flag principle” both of which have not identified non-investigation obligation. The current regulation causes application problems which is not conducive for coordination in legal system. Secondly, there is problem of the definition of inner meaning of “Internet service providers don’t assume information investigation obligation of copyright or related to copyright”. The position of National Copyright Bureau is if the technology service providers only provide technology services, the principle of “safe harbor” and “red flag” should be followed while if they provide content services, they should assume investigation obligation. However, if Internet service providers don’t voluntarily investigate information content, the “should known” in “harbor principle”and “red flag principle” can’t be investigated clearly while the judgment of “should known” may cause crisis. Therefore, information Internet service provider should assume the“attention” obligation for its services, capacity and revenue. The “non-investigation” obligation means that no obligation to verify the copyright of the information while still need to assume the obligation of obvious violation. The notion of“non-investigation” has reduced the liability of Internet service providers inappropriately. In addition, the provision in this draft undoubtedly claims the wide disclaimer of Internet service providers which is not conducive to prevent violation risks and increased prevention cost of violation.
　　12. Payment referring to standards of using fees adopted by collective management in Article 70 is suggested to be altered.
　　It is suggested to delete “Users should pay remuneration to copyright collective management organization according to contract signed with copyright collective management organization or laws and regulations, when the right owner file suit for the same right or the same way of use, no obligation of remuneration shall be assumed but should stop using it and also paying according to corresponding collective management use fee standard.
　　Reasons are: firstly, the explanation of National Copyright Bureau is that the purpose of this provision is to resolve the problems when no-member enterprises file suit to the enterprises that have paid fee while the compensation standard of court is higher than the use standard set by collective management organization and some members require to withdraw and try to reclaim use fee by law suit. The provision has guided right owners to use collective management system, encourage use works legally, reduce malicious lawsuit and promote legal spread and utilization of works. The resolution is reverse. If the gap between government pricing and market pricing is within the acceptable range of right owners, there will be no problem of right owners seek remedy from the court at expensive cost. Secondly, this provision has deprived the pricing right of copyright owners which allows no extensional management. According to exceptional rule of extensional management, right owners can permit on their own, but whether they allow or not, the users can pay to collective management to get rid of remuneration liability and only pay according to the standard. Thirdly, in terms of copyright violation, there are still cases when enterprises already pay to collective management organization but still sued because the author is not member of the organization. The resolution of “revision draft” is “no assumption of compensation liability but should stop using and paying according to payment standard of collective management organization.” This rule has led to repeated payment and liability avoidance of collective management organization in sharing management benefits. Therefore, the final solution is to increase science and flexibility of collective management pricing mechanism, guide the collective management organization to maximize copyright owners’interests, balance the interests among copyright owners, collective management organization and public so as to satisfy copyright owners in accept collective management which will not only encourage works creation and promote socialist cultural, scientific and economic development and prosperity.
　　13. Conditions for legal compensation are suggested to be altered.
　　“Revision draft” has added terms to seek legal compensation which is “registered under copyright or related right or with exclusive permission or transfer contract”. Although Article 6 in the General Principle stipulates voluntary registration system, yet if voluntary registration system cause definite effect of legal compensation, it is undoubtedly preenforcement which directly conflict with basic principle of automatic protection of copyright. This kind of provision seems to provide strong driver to strengthen registration procedure of copyright which is not recommendable.
　　II.Modification Suggestions for Non-covered Contents in “Revision Draft”
　　1. To modify architecture works and practical art works in the third clause is suggested.
　　The definition of architecture works is suggested as“unique architecture works expressed by certain space structure, layout, shape and line”. The reasons are the following: Firstly, since the clause that constructing and producing based on project and production designing papers doesn’t belong to the behavior of copy was deleted in the copyright law of 2001, the relationship between project designing papers and project works becomes indistinct, which should be modified in the present modification. Secondly, the difference between project works and project designing papers mainly exist in the aspect of supporter. The former is space layout of architecture material, and the latter is plan layout of lines and measurement. But different supporters are not considered in the copyright law. Thirdly, to put project designing papers and project works into the concept of architecture designing is significant to understand the copy relationship between architecture designing papers and architecture works, to deal with the relationship between architecture works and three-dimensional works.
　　The clause of folk literature art works is suggested to be modified as “the copyright of folk literature art works belongs to organizer. But other people still can organize the same piece of art works and then obtain the copyright”. During the publishing time of the works, organizers should notice the givers of main material and then give them proper rewards according to their contribution of their given material” and“The protection methods of folk literature art works should be made by State Department”. The reasons are that the related law made by State Department hasn’t appeared yet, and the present law cannot solve the problems in real life. Therefore, people can only depend on law principles. Increasing operational clauses not only can make the problems in real life have law support, but also can limit the discretional power of the judge.
　　2. To increase the protection of brief-expressed copyright law is suggested.
　　The protection of copyright law about works name, micro web, text message, lyrics, advertising slogan should satisfy the condition of originality. The reasons exist in the following three aspects. The first one is that many similar disputes appear in real life. For example, to <> and <>. different courts give different results, which should be avoided. The second one is that to protect works names, Spain, Egypt, France and other countries have given specific standards that it is necessary to satisfy the originality condition of works, which can be mirrored. The last one is that the standard of copyright law protecting object is original. Once satisfied the condition of originality, no matter the amount, the works should be protected.
　　3. To add types of works uncovered in copyright law in the seventh clause is suggested.
　　It is suggested that the copyright exception of political documents needs changing into the formal collection of formal documents of proposals, decisions, orders made by law, rules, country or public organization, and the documents with lawmaking, administration or justice factors, and the formal translation of official. The first reason is that the formal documents of public administrative institutions mainly reflect the policy of a country, which deserves the widespread among all people. The second reason is that assembling formal documents always becomes a significant way to collect money, which is opposite to the opening function of governmental information. The last reason is that the copyright law in TaiWan district of our country, Japan, and Italy has similar rules, which could be adopted in our mainland.
　　It is suggested that the test papers and emergency papers made by the country and public organizational institutions are not appropriate for the protection of copyright law. Three reasons exist. The first one is that the public have the hope that the test papers and emergency papers can be widespread for their preparation the examination. The second one is that these contents have been rewarded through public finance. It is not suit to copyright law. Lastly, this rule doesn’t affect copyright sharing of non-public organizational institutions.
　　It is suggested that patent instruction books, bulletins, index, sorted tables and drug approvals are not appropriate to copyright law protection. The first reason is that no matter the copyrighters of scientific works are encouraged by copyright law or not, these works will spread with related productions. The second reason is that the spread of these works is beneficial for the widespread of scientific knowledge and later discoveries.
　　4. To enlarge the general definition of economic and rewarding rights is suggested.
　　The economic right is suggested to be changed into the rights obtained by any original or deductive means to use the production economically by the authors or other copyrighters. The reasons are the following. Firstly, from the aspect of economic rights, the control rights of production and the obtain rights of benefits belong to two different rights. The former lays emphasis on the control of production by authors, such as copy right, publish right, performance right, spread right and others. The latter lays emphasis on the reward to authors. The above two rights should be taken as the basis contents of copyright law. Secondly, the present rights are scatted, which is not beneficial for understanding the content of economic rights in a broad way, and is easy to incur deviation about right types understanding. Especially, to the clause of other rights, it is very obscure. Thirdly, to enlarge the general definition can include the two aspects of law system openness and logic conscientiousness.
　　It is suggested that the rewarding rights should be protected. That means the author has the right to give their whole or part economic rights to others for rewarding, and the author has the right to require the real production users can take part in the benefit division when the conditions made in the contract is out of proportion with the practical usage of the production, and the first, second and third clauses can not be rejected based on former convention. The reasons are the following. Firstly, obtaining the rewarding rights is the last guarantee to copyright of the author. However, in the contract of rewards, the author is in a disadvantage position. Depending on the meaning completely to solve the rewarding right is not benefit for the author. According to Gore’s Intellectual Property Report, in present, lots of bands can not get any taxes of copyright after making music innovation. The same situation even happens in Britain and America. The majority of copyright taxes flux into Britain and America. Most countries can only keep a small part of copyright taxes. To the people in these countries, the main income is not the copyright taxes. Secondly, the tendency of present law making is to consider the benefits of disadvantaged group, which is the embodiment of constructing harmonious society. Copyright law also has the necessity to protect the authors’rewarding rights. Thirdly, if the law has made related rules, but it can not protect the rewarding rights of authors in real life, the law is opposite to copyright encouragement. Fourthly, in 2002, Germany paid attention to enlarge the rewarding rights of authors when modifying copyright amendments. This tendency deserves the attention of our country.
　　5. To modify the definition of publication right.
　　The definition of publication right is suggested to be modified as the right to make the production public to certain major people or uncertain people for the reason that the effects of opening the production to certain major people or uncertain people in a limited area is similar. Both of them can make the production known to the public. If the author doesn’t want to make his production pubic to too many people, it is appropriate to take the method of making contract. In practical, the films to reporters made by audiovisual works people belong to contract system.
　　6. To increase legal rules of web publishing.
　　It is better to increase legal rules of web publishing. That means web publishing is to copy and publish under the environment of information web. The reason has two. The first is that the concept of web publishing and e-publics has been adopted in the newly-modified “the publication regulation rules”. To protect the copyright of these publications is also the responsibility of copyright law. The second reason is that the publication under web environment is single-way made by internet companies, which is different to the mutual way of information web spread, radio sound spread and live performance. The present law can not explain the above rights, which should be give specific attention.
　　7. To improve restriction system of copyright is suggested.
　　This paper suggests to supplement a regulation on parodies that “works which have been published could be cited legally and appropriately, in order to introduce or evaluate one works, or to explain some problem, or to be used rightly and be suitable for creation”, which is reasonable to be used. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, reasonable utilization of this clause aims to be exempt from creation. With postmodern literature and arts appearing, lots of creative manners, where the extent and the amount of citation do not fit for traditional creation, are adopted. As a result, it is necessary to supplement an elastic clause, so as to realize an encouragement of creation. Secondly, disputes, like Murders Resulted from Steamed Bread, which appear in practice, can not be exempt from the perspective of legal application and further not be beneficial to prosperity of creation.
　　This article suggests supplements of connotative limitation and manifestation in articles of current news.“Articles of current news, involved in politician, economy, religion and others, which have been published by the Party and governments in other newspaper, journalists, broadcasts, TV stations and other medias, are published or broadcasted by newspaper, journalists, broadcasts, TV stations and so on, and works or abstracts with the same nature are open to the public but for those that authors declare not to be published or broadcasted”, which is reasonable to be utilized. The first reason is that there is a misunderstood of articles of current news in practice, where it is reasonable to use any article of current news. In fact, this misunderstood leads to harm for reviewers of news. This clause aims to encourage articles of certain events published by the Party and governments to be widely spread. Therefore, this objective should be identified. Secondly, there are other forms of articles or abstracts on current news except for articles of current news in practice. For example, the program of Newspaper and News Summary probably is involved in articles’ abstracts of current news. Therefore, courts should be given discretion, which is in line with the Berne Convention as well.
　　The present paper suggests supplementing a reasonable range of public conference and speaking to be applied. “Speeches, which have been published in public conferences or on broadcasts, TV, internet and other media, could be published or broadcasted in newspaper, journalists, broadcasts, TV stations and so on, except for those that authors declare not to be published or broadcasted”, which is reasonable to be utilized. The reason is that speeches, which have been published or broadcasted, are the same as speeches given in public conferences. Public characterizes both of them. This kind of information to be known is a significant protection of citizens’ participating in the society and politician and to realize a right to know.
　　This paper also suggests an addition of a reasonable application to trades of works. “Trustees copy, publish or provide openly those that are exhibited publicly or are used for public exhibitions, or publicly sell certain arts works, movies and audiovisual works, in order to prepare necessary paper or electronic materials for propaganda and for an improvement of holding activities”, which is reasonable to be applied. The first reason is that our country will adhere to the principle of “innovating the system, transforming the mechanism, facing the market and advancing the vitality” in accordance to basic requirements in Planning of Promoting Cultural Industry, in order to promote profit-driven cultural organizations to be transformed to be enterprises and to improve bodies of cultural markets. Moreover, an application of this clause could develop appropriate circulation between cultural products and productive elements, so as to make modern organizations of circulation be the main power in the field of cultural circulation gradually, and further develop ways and networks of foreign trades, for purpose of promoting an increase of cultural products and services. Guided by this cultural policy, the legislation in our country should facilitate a healthy development of copyright trading. Sellers could be authorized to copy or to spread works with public exhibitions as an objective for the public, and should not harm for interests of copyright owners within proper limits. Secondly, with the modern internet developing fast and electronic trades booming gradually, trades of cultural products and similar trades are breaking regional limitation. These trades exist around the world. Therefore, it should be allowed provided that electronic materials for propaganda do not harm for interests of authors.
　　The provision on an improvement of electronic construction of libraries is suggested. “Works collected in libraries, achieves, memorial halls, museums, galleries and others are necessary to be copied or digitalized for purpose of an exhibition or a collection of the version, or digital works, which are collected, legally published and provided for who are served by these libraries, should adopt technological measures to prevent others from copying or spreading collected works illegally”. The first reason is that“digital works, which are collected in these libraries and published legally and digital-copied works legally for purpose of an exhibition or a collection of the version” are allowed to be provided in accordance to Article 7 in Regulations of Protecting Rights of Communication in Information Networks. Furthermore, applicable range of this works has been restricted in this clause. Digital version should be allowed to be accessible to readers through information networks, so as to facilitate readers and to develop advantages of internet communication. Secondly, “revision draft” regulates ways of digital copy and the right of “digital copy” belonging to authors, digital construction of libraries to be protected, in order to protect that the convenience brought by digital technology is shared by the public, and to develop the function of libraries to spread knowledge. Thirdly, digital works should only be restricted within libraries. Illegal communication is not beneficial to protect interests of authors, so limitation for illegal communication should also be given.
　　To improve a proper use for art works in public places is suggested. “Art works, which are built or exhibited outside in public places permanently, are copied, drawn, shot and recorded, and achievements are re-used by a proper way and within an appropriate range”. The first reason is that art works, which are exhibited or placed outside in public places permanently, are difficult to ask for an approve given by authors, or that the cost of an approve possibly given by authors is relatively high, which is generated by failure of the market. Secondly, it should be legitimate to obtain achievements to be used, not to damage interests of authors. Moreover, a proper use of art works in public places is determined by a balance mechanism including interests of copyright owners and public interests. Profit-making by works is lacking in corresponding basis in legitimate use.
　　To improve ways of using works by those who suffer paropsia is suggested. “Works, which have been published, could be translated into braille or be communicated by other forms designed by people with visual impairment, with no purpose of making profits”, which is legitimate to be used. As for reasons, firstly, ways of using works by those who suffer paropsia also include audio-works except for works in braille. With computer technology developing, works that are particularly designed for people with visual impairment and that could be played automatically are advanced gradually. These measures with features of humanism are quite important for satisfying that works are accessible to people with visual impairment and for them to obtain information.
　　 Secondly, this provision that let those who suffer paropsia enjoy the convenience and benefits brought by technological developments actually would not damage interests of authors improperly provided that the copy and publication “do not aims to make profits”.
　　This paper suggests adopting the provision that works are approved to be used on the basis of poverty reduction from Regulations of Protecting Rights of Communication in Information Networks. The reason is that this regulation is applicable only when “works is involved in the farming, cultivation, diseases prevention and cure, disaster prevention and mitigation and so on in relation to poverty reduction and is in line with demands of basic cultures. Furthermore, this clause also stipulates a system that obliges “declare to maintain works” and “obtain payments”, which is in line with basic spirits of humanism and also does not violate basic responsibility of international convention. This article is a comparatively mature statement, and could be specified in Copyright Law in particular.
　　The right of authorship should be restricted, which is suggested to be added. “Names of authors could be omitted provided that parties agree on works without signatures or no signature is based on ways of using works, further does not violate just convention, not harm for authors’ requests that interests of authors are acknowledged and respected.”The first reason is that no signatures does not violate just convention in accordance to ways of using works. For instance, works of buildings commonly are without signatures, which has formed to be a convention and also has been approved by authors in practice for a long time. Therefore, this convention should be identified by laws. Secondly, this way does not damage authors’ views that authors’ interests should be confirmed and respected. In fact, although works are lacking in signatures, authors also could claim their interests through other manners.
　　The present paper suggests supplementing a limitation of protecting the right of works’ completeness. “Users could necessarily alter works only if copyright owners approve others to change their works into movies or into other forms through approaches similarly to produce films, or if works are used to be complied into textbooks for nine-year compulsory education and for national planning of education and are used as tests organized by public institutions. However, original works should not be altered or distorted at random.”As for reason, firstly, copyright owners approve others to change their works into movies or into other forms by similar approaches to produce movies, which means copyright owners allow relative obliges to alter works appropriately, for purpose of demands of movies or other creation. Otherwise, the representation of arts and an expression of value in movies would be badly influenced. Secondly, the premise of restricting this right is whether authors’ rights are damaged and whether public interests of the public are benefited. Based on characteristics, aims or manners of works, they have to be altered, in order to compile textbooks for nine-year compulsory education and for national planning of education. Appropriate amendments are determined by public interests. However, these revision should not do harm for authors’ other spiritual interests, such as deprecating authors’ creation, slandering authors and so on.
　　8. Distinguishing relieving ways of copyright is suggested.
　　This paper suggests that the provision of “compensation”should be independent, distinguishing from the provision of“infringement to be prevented, bad effects to be eliminated and apology”. The reason is that copyright is imperium. Ways of relief include the relief of property rights and the relief of creditors’ rights. Different ways of relief are judged by different factors. The relief of property rights is applicable to those that do not result in damages whereas the relief of creditor’s rights is applicable to those that lead to damages. Moreover, different elements are identified for clarifying the infringement and for helping laws to be applied.
　　9. Suggesting reducing the protection with technology.
　　Regarding technological protection, indirect protection in Clause 2, Article 74 is suggested to be deleted. The first reason is that protection range through technological measures evidently is expended in Regulations of Protecting Rights of Communication of Information Networks and in Interpretations of Legal Applications to Treat Distributes Involved in Copyright of Computer Network. The requirement also is evidently stricter than that in WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and in other national conventions. Secondly, technological protection in itself includes absolute prohibition that is close to the freedom, makes legitimate application which is characteristic in copyright law and permission system which is legal not be taken into practice. As a result, it is not beneficial to protect public interests. Moreover, technological protection makes the structure of interest imbalance and also leads to the problem of legitimacy.
　　III. Conclusion
　　The third amendment to Copyright Law in our country should be based on conclusions of practical experience from copyright law. The amendments should basically aim to solve practical problems, fundamentally explore a system where rules are actively designed, conform to international conventions that our country joins in, properly learn from legislative experience of copyright in foreign countries and consider to improve a protecting system of copyright at the same time, in order to make this law become a basic law truly to adjust relations in copyright law in China. “Revision Draft”represents tend to protect works’ communication, in line with significant development and prosperity in cultural industry that are encouraged and advanced in our country at present, which is quite influential. Nevertheless, provisions in relation to legal approve and collective management and organization also are queried. The definition of works, limitations of copyright and other in “Revision Draft” are insufficient and required improving. Rules involved in technological protection, legitimate use under digital conditions and so on should be further examined when Regulation of Rights of Communication of Information Network is integrated into this law.