There are two theories that support the interpretation of “the right to prohibit” of a broadcasting organization in Chinese Copyright Law as meaning that it does not have “the right to authorize”, namely “the theory of preventing infringement on other people’s rights” and “the theory of complying with international treaties”, and neither of them is tenable: the former cannot explain why other neighboring rights, as well as the right to derivative work, contain “the right to authorize”, while the latter fails to understand the legal effects of the terms “the right to authorize”, “the right to authorize or prohibit”, “prohibit” and “the right to prohibit” in international treaties. “The right to prohibit” used in the TRIPS Agreement on the protection of broadcasting organizations means that WTO members are allowed not to provide for the property rights of broadcasting organizations, but they should at least provide for related civil remedies. The right of a broadcasting organization, which is defined as a property right in Chinese Copyright Law, should be interpreted as containing “the right to authorize”. In addition, the scope of the right of making broadcasting available enjoyed by a broadcasting organization should be limited to the programs produced by the broadcasting organization itself. Such an interpretation may lead to the overlap of rights, but it can effectively solve the legitimacy problems caused by the protection of the broadcasting organization’s right of making broadcast available that contains “the right to authorize”. |