Search

Although Uber's arrival in China has resulted in disruptive competition for incumbent taxi companies, it offers an attractive alternative in China's supply-demand-imbalanced urban passenger transport system. China's regulatory regime for Uber has evolved in three stages: from the regulatory vacuum prior to 2015 to its official legalization in 2015–2016, and the enactment of numerous local regulations in 2016, with specific and more demanding requirements for Uber. This policy is a part of the Chinese approach to the gradual liberalization of the urban passenger transport market. Policymakers should consider ‘fair competition’ as the guiding principle to balance the interests of sharing firms and incumbent service providers, as well as between different sharing firms. The core value of this principle lies in the benefits it provides for consumers and the way it engenders a pro-competitive market environment. The labor protection arrangements for sharing firms’ laborers should be more flexible and diversified. In order to recognize whether an Uber-Driver is an employee or independent contractor, a new standard taking into account a range of factors should be established through collective negotiations between the participants of the sharing economy, and dialogues between members of the judiciary, academics, and the policymakers. Further, consumer protection law and personal data protection provisions should apply when sharing firms misuse their distinctive algorithmic management model to compete unfairly to the detriment of consumers and other users. Ex ante regulatory measures designed to protect the personal data of users should be introduced for deployment in the context of the sharing economy. When enforcing these rules, a balance should be struck ensuring free data flow that is essential to sharing firms’ innovation and competition, and the need to ensure the level of data security required to underpin a well-functioning sharing society.

In the ‘Metall auf Metall’ case, the German Federal Constitutional Court recently deliberated the permissibility of sampling, an essential tool of musical borrowing in pop music production. The court reiterated that the freedom of art stipulated in Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the German Constitution requires that the ‘sampling’ of bits of sound recordings be recognized as artistic expression and creation instead of an infringement of rights. Thereby, the ‘per se infringement rule’ applied by the German Federal Supreme Court in this case (2013) was rejected. The note argues that more careful consideration must be given to the extent to which musical borrowing can and has been a source of innovation within the music industry. Copyright law must recognize and incorporate musical borrowing by developing commercial practices, such as ‘sample clearing’, for music that samples existing works in its creation. Moreover, the judiciary in Germany and the EU must endeavour to develop conventional practices to balance the interests of rights holders and users in disputes resulting from the challenges of modern digital technology to the traditional copyright framework with an enumerative and exhaustive list of copyright exception and limitation rules.

The so called “three-step test”, that the limitations and exceptions of copyright shall be allowed in certain special cases, provided that they do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author, grants copyright flexibilities to balance the interests of all stakeholders, especially within the European system of circumscribed limitations and exceptions. This is essential for the domain of computer law, confronted by rapid and unpredictable global technological developments, and is, thus, enshrined in the most important international intellectual property (IP) treaties. Through the proposed third amendment to the Copyright Law of the PRC, the legislature intends to adopt this test while also introducing an open-ended list of limitations and exceptions that constitutes a China-specific “two-step test.” This contravenes prima faciethe thesis endorsed by the WTO Panel in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act in 2000. In contrast, court decisions in China frequently apply the fair use doctrine of US copyright law, neglecting to consider its peculiar context of the US common law tradition and, thus, unduly expanding the Chinese courts' discretionary power.