Recently, I came across a rather intriguing judicial interpretation provision. Article 11 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Audio and Video Recording of Court Hearings states: “Parties, defense lawyers, litigation representatives, and others may, in accordance with regulations, copy the audio or transcribe the audio and video recordings of court hearings, and the people’s court shall provide the necessary facilities when required.” To some extent, this reflects the evolution of judicial philosophy over the past decade.
Copying Court Hearing Recordings Was Originally Uncontroversial
The Supreme People’s Court issued this regulation on court hearing recordings in 2017, with the original intent of safeguarding the litigation rights of participants and promoting judicial transparency.
In fact, it was around this time that courts across the country began large-scale live broadcasts of court hearings.
For example, the Zhejiang High People’s Court’s operational rules for live-streaming court hearings stipulated that in principle, all publicly held criminal, civil, and administrative cases should be live-streamed, while cases heard in closed sessions would not be broadcast. After the live broadcast, the recordings would remain on the platform for public access, retrieval, and viewing.
During the peak years of live-streamed hearings, the question of whether court hearing recordings could be copied was hardly a topic of debate.
At the time, most hearing recordings were readily available on court websites, and parties could easily download or screen-record them. Disputes over copying such recordings were rare.
However, as policies tightened, practices like live-streamed hearings and the publication of court judgments—once seen as key measures for judicial transparency—have seen a partial reversal in recent years.
During this shift, many hearings are no longer live-streamed, making it difficult for the public to access recordings.
Yet, the Supreme Court’s 2017 regulation appears to explicitly allow the copying of recordings, creating a conflict.
Can Court Hearing Recordings Actually Be Copied?
A closer look at the Supreme Court’s 2017 regulation reveals a paradox: while Articles 10 and 11 seem to facilitate access to recordings, Articles 15 and 16 impose restrictions.
- Article 1: People’s courts shall conduct full audio and video recordings of court hearings.
- Article 10: Courts shall provide parties, defense lawyers, and litigation representatives convenient access to review hearing recordings through judicial transparency platforms, litigation service platforms, and other public legal service channels.
- Article 11: Parties, defense lawyers, litigation representatives, and others may copy audio or transcribe hearing recordings as per regulations, and courts shall provide necessary facilities when required.
- Article 15: No one may record, photograph, copy, delete, or transfer hearing recordings without court permission.
- Article 16: The recording, storage, review, copying, and transcription of hearings involving state secrets, trade secrets, or personal privacy must comply with confidentiality regulations.
— Judicial Interpretation [2017] No. 5, Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Audio and Video Recording of Court Hearings
However, when the regulation was first publicized, the emphasis was clearly on facilitating access to recordings for parties.
For instance, media reports at the time carried headlines like “Supreme Court Mandates Full Recording of Hearings; Parties May Copy Recordings as per Regulations.”
An official Q&A on the Supreme Court’s website, titled “Using IT to Advance Full Recording of Court Hearings—Responses from the SPC Judicial Reform Office,” explained:
The Provisions are designed to facilitate public participation in litigation. By improving platform and hardware infrastructure, they ensure that parties and litigation representatives can conveniently review hearing recordings and exercise their rights to copy audio or transcribe recordings, while also requiring confirmation signatures to safeguard procedural rights.
Coupled with the widespread adoption of live-streamed hearings, copying recordings became routine in practice.
As a result, when policies later tightened, the public was left puzzled: Why were courts now refusing to provide copies?
The Problem Lies in the Word “Transcribe”
In the years following 2017, few questioned the meaning of “transcribing court hearing recordings.” After all, hearing videos were publicly available on the Supreme Court’s “Court Hearing Live” platform, and clips proliferated across social media. Naturally, people assumed “transcribe” simply meant “copy.”
However, in recent years, courts have begun interpreting “transcribe” literally—as “verbatim written transcription.” Parties are now often barred from copying videos and may only review them in person at the court.
This is baffling.
In an era where video sharing is ubiquitous, why must a simple copy request devolve into an archaic process of manual transcription?
Under this interpretation, “transcribing court hearing recordings” can only mean one of three things:
- Converting the video into a paper flipbook.
- Creating timed subtitles for the video.
- Drafting a screenplay-like document, including dialogue, scenes, and actions.
In practice, courts typically allow parties to view the video and manually note down selected excerpts, which are then verified and signed.
It’s as if we’ve time-traveled back to imperial examination halls, where “sealed-name transcriptions” (huming tenglu) were the norm.
“Transcribe” Is a Rarely Used Term
Consulting modern Chinese dictionaries, the term “誊录” (tenglu) appears almost exclusively in historical contexts, such as the imperial examination system’s “sealed-name transcription” process. Outside of this, it’s virtually absent from everyday language.
A search of legal databases reveals that aside from the Supreme Court’s regulation, the term only appears in Ministry of Culture and Tourism guidelines on archaeological work and project funding, referring to “document transcription.”
The pairing of this archaic term with the modern concept of “court hearing recordings” is striking.
One can’t help but admire the drafters’ ingenuity—or perhaps their legislative finesse.
A single regulation can be interpreted flexibly to serve opposing purposes, ensuring long-term stability without frequent amendments.
Often, the wisdom of the clever is spent on such things.