As one of the world’s largest markets for software, China faces major challenges related to software piracy, both online and offline. For foreign software rights holders, the key to confront the intricacies often lies in choosing the most effective enforcement path among multiple options that differ not only in their timeframe and cost but also in prospective compensation, level of deterrent effect, evidentiary standards, and sustainability of the enforcement outcome.

This article outlines the main enforcement mechanisms available under Chinese law in this domain, compares them across key metrics, including timeframe, cost, compensation amount, deterrent robustness, and evidence requirements, and offers practical insights to help rights holders navigate this complex landscape.

Foreign Copyright Protection

The Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China protects software created by foreign individuals or entities, provided that it falls within the scope of international treaties, such as the Berne Convention, or that the software is first published in China. Once an infringement is identified, rights holders would have several enforcement options available to them: platform complaints, administrative actions, civil litigation, and, in serious cases, criminal prosecution. Each approach serves a different strategic function.

Below, we summarize these four major enforcement tools under Chinese law, highlight their practical benefits and limitations, and explain how experienced legal counsel can assist in crafting a comprehensive and effective enforcement strategy.

Platform Complaints and Cease and Desist Letter

When infringement occurs on major Chinese e-commerce platforms such as Taobao, Tmall, or Goofish, rights holders can file takedown requests via dedicated IP protection portals of these platforms, and follow up by account verification and submission of proof of ownership.

This procedure is relatively quick, typically taking three to four weeks before yielding results, and cost-effective. The platform having received the filing would review the complaint, notify the alleged infringer, and, if the claim is accepted, remove the infringing links. For repeat infringers who accumulate multiple complaints within a given period (typically one year), platforms may escalate disciplinary measures by suspending accounts, limiting product listings, or reducing visibility in search results.

That said, complaints made to platforms primarily address individual infringing listings and may have limited impact on the infringer’s broader behavior and business operations. To increase deterrence, it is common to have cease and desist letters issued to the infringers, ideally from a local law firm. These letters usually cite applicable legal provisions, demand immediate cessation of infringement, destruction of pirated copies, and disclosure of relevant sales records. Many also include a commitment letter for the infringers to sign, thereby ensuring a formal, documented pledge to stop all infringing activities and to distribute only licensed software. Such letters can be highly effective, especially against small-scale sellers with limited legal awareness, and can later serve as evidence of willful infringement if an infringer continues the misconduct despite having provided written assurances.

This approach is generally best suited for small-scale or first-time infringers, as to deal with these cases, swift resolution and cost-efficiency are priorities. However, it has some notably limitations. Upon receipt of complaints, Chinese e-commerce platforms tend to merely perform perfunctory reviews and only act in the cases where infringing content is overtly visible in the infringers’ product listings. Consequently, complaints may prove ineffective if the infringement is not immediately apparent from the listing itself, as many infringers now sell pirated software using covert tactics such as intentionally vague product descriptions.

Administrative Complaints

Under the Administrative Penalty Regulations for Copyright, Chinese copyright authorities are empowered to impose fines, confiscate illegal gains, and destroy infringing goods if the infringement harms the public interest.

A rights holder may file administrative complaints with the competent authority of the infringer’s location or where the infringing activity has occurred. Upon the authority’s acceptance of the complaint, it will initiate an investigation. If infringement is confirmed, administrative penalties will be imposed on the infringer. The process typically takes about one to two months, providing a quicker resolution than civil litigation, which is discussed below.

Notably, this enforcement mechanism entails the public disclosure of administrative penalty decisions. For corporate infringers in particular, such publicity can result in serious reputational damage and commercial risks, thus creating a more powerful deterrent than monetary penalties.

Although administrative procedures do not result in direct compensations to rights holders, the reputational pressure can incentivize infringers, particularly those with legitimate business operations, to seek settlements. For this purpose, they may take approaches including written commitments to cease infringement and, where appropriate, payment of compensation for past damages.

Compared to platform complaints, administrative enforcement requires a higher standard of evidence and generally involves more extensive preparation and incurs more cost. As such, it is typically more appropriate for confronting mid-scale or repeat infringers whose infringing activities warrant more robust legal action.

Importantly, pursuing an administrative complaint does not preclude subsequent civil litigation. On the contrary, findings obtained during the administrative investigation, such as confirmed infringement and supporting materials, including business registration records and sales data, can be introduced as evidence in court to support claims for damages. For rights holders with limited access to internal information of the infringers, administrative complaints often serve as a strategic first step to gather essential evidence for further legal action.

Civil Litigation

Civil litigation remains a key tool for software copyright holders, especially when financial compensation is their primary objective. However, compared to platform complaints and administrative actions, civil proceedings are generally more time-consuming and costly. It often takes at least six months from filing to securing a judgment, and longer if appeals or retrials are involved.

One major challenge is the high evidentiary burden. Plaintiffs usually need to purchase and install the infringing software themselves, record the process through notarization or similarly credible methods, and gather detailed evidence to prove both the infringement and the resulting damages.

Obtaining sales data from an infringer is also difficult in many cases, especially when the infringer operates through private channels or otherwise lacks public financial records. Furthermore, evaluating the software and calculating damages also require careful consideration, particularly where there is no established benchmark or where unauthorized copies are bundled with other products or services.

Despite these challenges, civil litigation offers distinct advantages, and one of them is the potential for monetary recovery. Courts can award damages based on the rights holder’s actual losses, the infringer’s illegal gains, or, where neither can be determined, a reasonably determined license fee. For willful or serious infringement, courts may impose punitive damages ranging from one to five times the base amount. Reasonable enforcement costs, including investigation, notarization, and legal fees, may also be recoverable.

Civil actions can be brought independently or following administrative or criminal enforcement. In the latter cases, evidence from earlier proceedings, such as verified sales volumes or official findings of infringement, can strengthen the civil claim and increase the likelihood of obtaining compensation.

Given the resource demands, civil litigation is most suitable for large-scale or repeat infringers, or where damages recovery is a key strategic goal.

Criminal Enforcement

Criminal enforcement provides the strongest deterrent against software piracy in China, but it also comes with the highest legal threshold. Under the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, offenders may face imprisonment and fines when certain quantitative or financial criteria are met. For example, prosecution may be initiated if the illegal gains exceed CNY 30,000, or the illegal business turnover exceeds CNY 50,000, or if the offender reproduces or distributes more than 500 copies of another person’s work, or disseminates more than 500 works to the public through an information network, or if such works are downloaded more than 10,000 times or receive more than 100,000 clicks.

If the amount of illegal gains or the volume involved exceeds ten times the above thresholds, the conduct will be deemed to involve “huge illegal gains” or “other particularly serious circumstances”, leading to imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, in addition to fines.

Compared with administrative or civil remedies, and unlike many Western jurisdictions, criminal enforcement in China requires more robust evidence from the outset. Rights holders typically need to provide notarized test purchases, detailed sales records, and proof of illegal profits to demonstrate the scale of the infringement. The process can also be lengthy, with the duration from submitting a criminal complaint to formal transfer of the case to the prosecutor’s office potentially exceeding a year.

Despite the longer timeline and greater evidentiary burden, criminal action is particularly effective against upstream actors—such as those who crack software, run large-scale piracy operations, or manufacture and distribute infringing products. It not only penalizes individual offenders but also serves as a strong deterrent to the broader market, discouraging resellers and other intermediaries from further infringement.

Concluding Remarks

In light of the above, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to software copyright enforcement in China. The most effective strategy depends on multiple factors, including the scale and nature of the infringement, the commercial value of the software, and the rights holder’s broader business objectives. In practice, a multi-tiered approach often works best: using swift, cost-effective platform takedowns for isolated or low-value infringement instances; administrative actions to compel compliance from repeat or mid-level offenders; and civil or criminal proceedings to target large-scale or upstream piracy.

This is where experienced legal counsel plays a critical role. Skilled lawyers provide end-to-end support—from proactively monitoring online marketplaces and identifying infringing listings, to designing an enforcement roadmap tailored to specific business and legal contexts. They can assess which enforcement route is most suitable for an industry player, coordinate evidence collection and notarization, prepare persuasive complaints, and engage with infringers in instances where early resolution is possible.

Legal counsel also adds value by advising on jurisdictional strategies, liaising with enforcement authorities, and helping navigate multi-track enforcement options, ensuring that civil, administrative, and criminal tools are deployed in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. Particularly in potential criminal cases, lawyers can determine whether the infringement meets prosecution thresholds, conduct notarized test purchases, and structure the case to improve acceptance by public security or prosecutorial authorities.

By leveraging a comprehensive enforcement strategy that remains adaptable to evolving circumstances, software rights holders can more effectively safeguard their copyright, deter future infringement, and align legal actions with long-term commercial priorities in China.