签合同英文作文

The United States has “judicial protection” as its only form of legal relief. Judicial protection is either civil or criminal. China’s judicial protection is, of course, also either civil or criminal, and in this respect there is not a great distinction. Section 504 of the American Copyright Law states that a rights holder may be awarded damages, including actual damages and profits gained by the infringement in 504(b) and statutory damages in 504(c). The purposes of this established copyright principle, that is, punitive damages, in which the amount of damages exceeds the direct economic damages caused to the infringed party by the infringer, are conciliation, severe punishment and warning, evidencing a moral outlook. In China, according to Section 11 of the “Supreme People’s Court Interpretation of Several Problems as to the Application of Law Regarding Decisions on Illegal Publication in Criminal Cases” (Judicial Interpretations, 1998, No. 30), publication, printing, copying and issuing illegal publications is interpreted to be “other illegal business acts that seriously disturbs market order,” as specified in Article 225 of the Criminal Law. Illegal business acts is a crime specified by Article 225 of the Criminal Law: “Article 225. Whoever, in violation of the state stipulations, has one of the following illegal business acts, which disrupts the market order and when the circumstances are serious, is to be sentenced to not more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, and may in addition or exclusively be sentenced to a fine not less than 100 percent and not more than 500 percent of his illegal income and, where the circumstances are particularly serious, be sentenced to not less than five years of fixed-term imprisonment and a fine not less than 100 percent and not more than 500 percent of his illegal income or the confiscation of his property. As it is difficult to procure evidence in crimes of copyright infringement and the sale of copied infringing material, the decision in most copyright infringement cases rests on illegal business acts for counterfeiters (including sellers of copyrighted infringing material). Even though the decision is not based on the crimes of copyright infringement and the sale of copied infringing material, sentencing on this basis is more severe than in the crimes of copyright infringement and the sale of copied infringing material. The only point on which legal relief between the United States and China differs is that China, aside from judicial protection, also allows for administrative protection. The government can administratively punish infringing activity that is serious but does not rise to the level of a crime, including confiscation of infringing products and illicit income, destruction of the infringing products and fines. There are two conclusions regarding the differences in copyright policy and practice between the US and China: the rate of copyright infringement in the US is not high, and China’s in comparison somewhat higher. Of course, these two conclusions cannot be completely ascribed to differences in copyright policy and practice. There are many other factors -- economics, the character of the nation’s people, education, traditional culture, geographic locale, etc.

天,有5000字拉

大陆法系和英美法系的比较It is commonly believed that there are several classifications of legal system, according to various standards and criterions, among which historical traditions and law modalities could well be deemed as one universal practice. As is much accepted, there could be 2 prominent legal systems in the world of capitalism. One is Civil law system, and the other is Anglo-American law system. More details would come as follows: Civil law system (also named as Continental law system, Roman law system, or Codification law system). It started with the Rome lex, but its solid foundation is French or Gallo Civil Code. It is no doubt that French law and German law should be its two profound feature lex. --------Based on Civil Law and codification oriented Anglo-American law system (Also called as common law system or British law system) It started with the Norman Conquest (11-14 century), with the common law as its sole and most important foundation. America and Great Britain are the two outstanding leges. -------Great emphasis is put on the Case law, not the statutory law. The fast development of society has witnessed great progress in law, much more mature and stable .Different legal systems have come to understand each other, and learn from others. But their inner distinctions should never be neglected. Herein is the general comparison between Civil law system and Anglo-American law system: 1. Different sources of law . The former tends to give authority to Constitutional Law and other statutory ones , though it respect the important role cases play, never would it credits cases to be one source of law. While the latter thinks the other way, both cases and statutory laws as well are treated as sources of law, which delivers the massage-----Judges could make law rules . 2. Different inner structure or classification The former tend to put its law into Public law (Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Criminal Law ,and Procedure Law) and Private one( Civil Law , and Commercial Law) , but the latter makes no such categories, and it comprises the common law as the staple and equity law as a supplement for inadequate remedy. 3. Different compilation methods The former has a special favor for codex, easily put, the codification .While the latter takes to singular rules. That is to say, the compilation of the former is much strict, compared with the flexibility enjoyed by the latter. 4. Different legal procedures and formulae The formal adopts the inquisitional proceedings , with the judge be the anchor . The latter choose the adversary system , the judges and jury plays the role of impartial fact-finders. 5. Difference in legal terminology and concepts For example , the civil law system rules that the common law should be the whole set of laws except the Constitutional Law ; while the latter thinks the common law is equal to case laws , with some trivial distinctions ( the interpretation made by judges). All in all , their difference is narrowing down , but it is absolutely impossible for the two to achieve absolute accord .