Gong Wen is?a visiting scholar in School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University.

After 50 writers accused it of violating copyright, Baidu finally apologized and promised to delete the offending works. But from the company's statement we can see that it is sticking to its old logic of claiming that Baidu is not infringing copyrights – only providing a platform for netizens to share files. In other words, it is the netizens who are infringing copyright, not Baidu. With the help of this argument and the corresponding legal principle of "safe harbor", Baidu has evaded punishment time and time again.

Of course, netizens who upload or download unauthorized files should bear the consequences of their actions. Writers and composers also have families to feed, as the famous Chinese writer and blogger Han Han says. Their hard work ought to be rewarded. The argument that books are too expensive just won't wash. If every one refused to pay for books, no one would write them. Despite this obvious truth, it will take time to educate people about the value of copyright, especially those who have become accustomed to downloading material for free.

But if the question is whether netizens are solely to blame, the answer is definitely no. Baidu should take responsibility for its actions and stop playing the innocent.

According to Baidu, the disputed online library (Wenku in Chinese) was established on the basis of the "sharing spirit" of the Internet and Baidu has not sought any economic gain from it. But let us take a closer look. Baidu is not a charity, but a company seeking profits. Wenku brings in huge advertising revenues that are directly related to the number of clicks on the site.

And contrary to its statement that it does not compile or edit any uploaded files, Baidu, in fact, classifies the files and makes recommendations. And it encourages netizens to upload files by limiting download rights to those who have accumulated enough points by uploading material. That is to say, Baidu is not just playing the role of an ISP (Internet Service Provider), but also acting as an ICP (Internet Content Provider), which means of course that the principle of "safe harbor" does not apply.

Above all, the biggest difference between Baidu and ordinary netizens who use Wenku is that Baidu sets out to make a profit while netizens' only motive is to download material for personal use. In this sense, it is Baidu that was, and is, infringing copyright.

The question is will it continue to do so?

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn