Anyway, if you’re serious about stopping the counterfeiting, then call the IPO or the publisher, or the Taiwan Book Publishers’ Association, although the first two would be the best.
What is the IPO?
Just a reminder of why nothing ever really gets done here. 
From yesterday’s Taipei Times:
Legal revisions hurt FTA chances, IPR experts say
By Bill Heaney
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003,Page 1
Intellectual-property-rights (IPR) experts said yesterday that a free-trade agreement (FTA) between Taiwan and the US may have been scuttled by changes in the Copyright Law (著作權法) passed by the Legislative Yuan at the beginning of June.
“The changes certainly could halt [FTA] negotiations,” said Jeffrey Harris, co-chair of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei’s Intellectual Property Committee.
“The point of trade negotiations is to move forward, but the changes to the law went backward,” he said.
John Eastwood, Harris’ counterpart at the European Chamber of Commerce Taipei, said, "This could be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
“But it is part of a larger wave of sentiment – there are fake trademark goods everywhere in Taiwan, patents are infringed regularly and trade secrets stolen,” Eastwood said.
The government seems to have woken up to the fact that weak IPR protection is hurting its economy, he said. Not only is the local entertainment industry being killed by bootlegged products, but possible investors are shying away from what is effectively a “piracy haven,” Eastwood said.
Earlier this year, the Executive Yuan completed a draft of the new Copyright Law in close consultation with its critics. The most significant change in the law was that copyright infringement became a “public” instead of a “private” crime, meaning that police can now initiate arrests without receiving a complaint from the copyright holder as required before.
“This is a law we’d been trying for 15 years to have passed and we’re delighted that it went through,” Harris said.
But the draft did not pass the Legislative Yuan intact. Legislators made a total of 53 changes to the law, some of which have brought fresh criticism on Taiwan.
[b]An alliance of the movie, music and software industries said in a statement to the Taipei Times on the weekend that the law is now “worse than the law as it existed before.”
The group’s biggest gripes are that minimum penalties were removed for some offences, and making unauthorized copies “not for profit” was decriminalized. A threshold of five copies or NT$30,000 in original value was set under which prosecutions will now not be sought, according to critics. [/b]
But one IPR official said the law’s detractors have to accept the results of a democratic process.
“Taiwan is a democracy with a parliamentary system,” Margaret Chen (陳淑美), director of the Copyright Department at the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ Intellectual Property Office, said yesterday.
“The entire country has to accept the results of the changes and we have to implement the law accordingly,” she said.
There are ways that Taiwan can stick to the original meaning of the law despite the changes, Chen said.
For example, complaints that the five-copy/NT$30,000 threshold will allow street vendors to get off scot-free are unfounded as the law states that any unauthorized copy that is placed on display for sale on a stall, in a brochure or on the Internet violates the law even if no actual financial transaction takes place.
To prove the point, law enforcement agencies launched raids on night markets on Aug. 6, Chen said.
“Generally speaking, the new Copyright Law is acceptable and feasible and better than the old law,” Chen said. “Give us time to prove its feasibility.”
Asked whether it was fair for the US to halt FTA negotiations as a result of the changes, Chen said it was not a one-way process.
“The negotiations are bilateral and are not just in Taiwan’s interest,” she said. “They are also in the US’ interest.”
The IPO is the Intellectual Property Office, part of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. I’d guess you’d be better off calling the publisher. It’s their books being ripped off. If they care, and I’m sure they do, they’ll look after contacting the police, IPO, lawyers, etc.
[quote=“blueface666”][b]An alliance of the movie, music and software industries said in a statement to the Taipei Times on the weekend that the law is now “worse than the law as it existed before.”
The group’s biggest gripes are that minimum penalties were removed for some offences, and making unauthorized copies “not for profit” was decriminalized. A threshold of five copies or NT$30,000 in original value was set under which prosecutions will now not be sought, according to critics. [/b][/quote]
Okay, at first I thought that action could only be taken by the police if the case involved five copies or NT$30,000. But based on the rest of the article, I take it that it is only a criminal offence when these thresholds are met. In smaller cases, it is still illegal, but is not classified as being a criminal offense.
[quote=“blueface666”]
For example, complaints that the five-copy/NT$30,000 threshold will allow street vendors to get off scot-free are unfounded as the law states that any unauthorized copy that is placed on display for sale on a stall, in a brochure or on the Internet violates the law even if no actual financial transaction takes place. [/quote]
Boomer, I assume your school of 5,000 students was making more than 5 copies with a value of over NT$30,000?
Not just one school but three schools. Basically all the public schools that had a contract with Wagor bilingual school to provide teachers and materials.
It’s worth keeping in mind that many infringements are still considered to be “indictable only upon complaint” – in other words, a rights holder actually has to decide that they want to take action. Basically if the infringer is copying optical media (DVDs, CDs, VCDs, etc.) or if the company/person does it “as a vocation”, then they can face a police raid without the copyright holder filing a complaint. That said, the police don’t often want to intervene unless a rights holder will come up eventually to ID the fakes and support the prosecution. Some of the companies belong to industry associations that handle antipiracy work for them – movies are usually handled by the MPA (Motion Picture Association), records by the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), and I think some publishers are represented by the AAP (Association of American Publishers).
If the textbook is copied from a well-known textbook why not send a report to the publisher or to the AAP (American Association of Publishers)
The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office primarily exists for the registration of patents and tradmarks and for the effort to try to keep Taiwan’s IP policies up with its new WTO-based international obligations. However, there is a new Intellectual Property police task force that may be worth approaching. Many local police departments also have a lot of incentives for cracking IP cases – individual officers get “points” toward promotion and departments can get extra budget based on IP busts.
AmCham and the ECCT (European Chamber of Commerce Taipei) are good groups for sharing intelligence about, and not all the members are huge multinationals. That said, they don’t really intervene in individual cases but may write up a companies particularly sad story into their annual position papers. Those definitely get read – the U.S. and E.U. go through these with a fine-toothed comb, the CEPD holds hearings, etc. The chambers provide a means by which to consistently nudge Taiwan to do something about your problems – every so often they actually respond in a helpful way.
Boomer,
Good advice in the posts above. Do you actually have physical proof of copied textbooks? Are other teachers willing to provide evidence? If so, definitely contact the publisher and/or file a case with the police or IPO, Taipei City government Education Dept., Mayor Ma’s office, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Justice or whoever. Or all of them.
Don’t completely blow off AmCham. While they can’t help you directly in pursuing this case, unless perhaps the publisher happens to be a US firm, AmCham should be keenly interested in all examples of IP theft, which they could compile in their annual report or use to lobby in Washington. So find out which one of their member committees deals with IP issues, then contact whoever chairs that committee. See what they suggest. Then just keep them up to date with the progress of your ex-school’s case.
And keep us posted on the progress as well.
AIT was a little more supportive than I expected.
[quote=“This is what they”]Our Commercial Section has forwarded your message to the AIT Economic Section, which handles general trade issues including IPR, and to the AIT American Services Section, which handles issues related to American safety and well-being in Taiwan. If our ACS Section has not contacted you already, I am sure they will soon do so.
Thank you for reporting to us the possible copyright violations occuring at your former employer in Taichung (Taizhong). As I am sure you are aware, this kind of behavior is not uncommon in Taiwan. Unfortunately, IPR protection continues to be one of the key areas of concern in our bilateral relationship with Taiwan. You may be aware that Taiwan recently passed a new copyright law. A key shortcoming of this law is that the scope of punishable offenses was narrowed, in part due to lobbying from so called “students rights” groups who sought to make the copying of texts, software, and optical media legal as long as there was no intent to profit, no more than 5 copies were made, and the value of the copied works was less than 30,000 NT$. We are working with the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (IPO), trade associations, and others to ensure that crucial provisions are resubmitted to the Legislative Yuan in the fall.
The Publisher’s Association in Taiwan is a good place to voice your concerns. I also encourage you to report these alleged violations to local law enforcement. You may also wish to report these allegations to the Taiwan IPO office:
Intellectual Property Office
Ministry of Economic Affairs
Hsi-hai Rd., Section 2, #185
Taipei, Taiwan, 106[/quote]
If the school, itself, made the copies (more than 5 copies), then the new Article 91 illegal copying provision would allow the higher “with intent to profit” penalties to be applied.
Turning over the information to the police will likely not do any good because they are limited by the provision re: public crimes. Optical-disk infringements and infringements done “as a vocation” (the defendant basically has to make a living from it) can theoretically get independent police action without a complaint being filed. However, it’s quite unlikely they would do anything without a rights holder pointing the way and basically gift-wrapping the whole case for them.
The IPO is under so much heat over the massive optical-disk problem that the textbook guys are not a priority right now. If the AIT people are sending you to the IPO, it’s probably because they will take some amusement from the idea of sending some foreigner in to befuddle them.
The IPO can’t do anything and so will probably try to send you to the police, who won’t be able to do anything, as noted above. To achieve a triple crown of copyright powerlessness, you can cap off the day with a visit to AIT.
For faster results by somebody who can do something (if they choose to), you can send the info about the copying activity on to the original publisher, to the AAP, or to the Publisher’s Association in Taiwan.
[quote]The IPO can’t do anything and so will probably try to send you to the police, who won’t be able to do anything, as noted above. To achieve a triple crown of copyright powerlessness, you can cap off the day with a visit to AIT.
[/quote]
I feel like I am wasting my time just writing about this here. Why anybody would put themselves through the above mentioned task is beyond my comprehension.
If you inform the publisher, I think you have done your duty. It is their right that has been infringed upon, and it is their responsibility to take action, unless they decide to hire you on some kind of fat retainer to take care of the problem for them as their Agent in Taipei, or something.
I’ll do it!! I love fat retainers!
Question though: This was a public school? Can they argue no profit therefore no crime?
There is one case now underway that the US definitely won’t let slide.
The Hongye Grape Wine Co in Beijing has tried to register a brand name of Na Pa He Gu. (That is Napa Valley to the Mandarin challenged.)
Obviously that name is more than a little similar to the exclusive US wine district of Napa Valley in California. In fact, the name is identical to the way wine producers Napa Valley translate wines they export to China.
The Napa Valley Vintners Association filed the objection to prevent the China company from cashing in on the Napa Valley name.
[quote=“Boomer”][quote]The IPO can’t do anything and so will probably try to send you to the police, who won’t be able to do anything, as noted above. To achieve a triple crown of copyright powerlessness, you can cap off the day with a visit to AIT.
[/quote]
I feel like I am wasting my time just writing about this here. Why anybody would put themselves through the above mentioned task is beyond my comprehension.[/quote]
Boomer, I know how you feel. I feel like everyone here is wasting their time responding to you. I don’t know how many times people have suggested you call the publisher, which is the person losing the money. But you’re running around talking to Amcham and AIT. Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us that Amnesty International is supporting you.
Of course I called the publisher, I write EFL books.
The problem I have is that so much is being said about the problem but so little is being done by the people and organizations who encourage these ineffectual solutions.
If there is one thing everybody involved with this problem can agree on it is that the current actions being taken by the government to correct this problem will not work.
The current policy implemented by the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan to combat IPR violations, is like trying to kill a swam of bees with a sledge hammer.
[quote=“Boomer”]Of course I called the publisher, I write EFL books.
The problem I have is that so much is being said about the problem but so little is being done by the people and organizations who encourage these ineffectual solutions.[/quote]
If you mean AmCham, I think the point has been made that they push IPR issues in general, but as a policy do not take on individual cases. AIT has no legal power in Taiwan. The power rests with those who can enforce the law (the Taiwan authorities), who will act only if those who are having their rights violated (the publishers) step forward. I’d love to know how this all ultimately plays out.
Take a guess.
My guess: Boomer will still be posting about this in 2008. But seriously, if you get the publisher involved, it may turn out with the school getting busted.
By the way, which publisher is it?
Long Man,Cambridge,Houghton Mifflin