IFPI plows ahead with Chinese court action against Baidu, Sohu

Despite a high court order last month finding Baidu not liable for copyright infringement, the recording industry's international representatives are renewing their complaint that it provides "deep links" to pirated MP3s.

Today, the recording industry's international representative agency IFPI is backing the efforts of three record labels that have decided to go forward with legal proceedings in China against that country's leading search engine, Baidu, and its #2 portal Sohu. The suit, according to IFPI, renews allegations from 2006 that the two companies provide "deep links" to unlicensed MP3s, and may profit from at least providing advertising alongside those links.

"The music industry in China wants partnership with the technology companies," said IFPI Chairman and CEO John Kennedy this morning, in a prepared statement. "But you cannot build partnership on the basis of systemic theft of copyrighted music, and that is why we have been forced to take further actions."

Three of the "big four" record labels -- Universal Music, Sony BMG, and Warner Music -- initiated fresh proceedings this morning in Beijing's No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, joined by Hong Kong-based Gold Label Entertainment, Ltd. This after the No. 2 Intermediate Court there last November found Baidu not liable for infringement, just months after finding Yahoo China liable. Both rulings were upheld in December by the Beijing Higher People's Court, which explained to the Chinese press at the time that the laws binding Yahoo China's conduct and Baidu's were separate.

Specifically, the high court ruled, Yahoo China was bound to different principles because it was found to be knowingly aiding and abetting the conduct of third parties who traded unlicensed files on that service. Baidu, by contrast, was found to have been an unknowing participant in the process, having successfully proven that its business model was not constructed around the trading of unlicensed files.

But even the high court's own explanation appeared to fault the law itself, according to an English translation of a December story on the Chinese news service Sina, for being in such flux as a result of rapid changes in technology. That led to the IFPI's Kennedy alleging at the time that legal precedent for the Baidu case was based on "an old law that is no longer in force," and it would appear the IFPI is positioning its action today as being based on either some new law, or an extension of the law that applied to Yahoo China so that it applies against Baidu and newly-acquired adversary Sohu.

An article published by the industry blog Music 2.0 last December examined Chinese law at the time, and argued that the same law applied to Baidu as applied to Yahoo China, though in different ways. That article went on to illustrate why the high court decision may be valid, though it vindicated absolutely no one else in the matter, taking not only Yahoo and Baidu to task but also Microsoft for providing Chinese users with "deep links" to unlicensed music.

The IFPI statement this morning cited non-sourced statistics as saying 99% of all music files distributed in China are illegitimate. To that end, the organization also said it's backing new efforts today against Yahoo China, which it now claims is failing to cooperate with last month's high court ruling.