Eastern China Court Rules on Copyright Infringement in Online Video Streaming Case Involving 18,000 RMB Damages

Eastern China Court Rules on Copyright Infringement in Online Video Streaming Case Involving 18,000 RMB Damages

Case Overview

A court in Eastern China ruled that a technology company infringed the exclusive information network dissemination right of a film studio by offering unauthorized online streaming of a movie on its website. The defendant was ordered to pay 18,000 RMB in damages and legal costs. The court also clarified that an internet service provider which merely provided a link to the infringing website was not liable for contributory infringement in the absence of knowledge or warning.

Case Background and Facts

The plaintiff, a film studio referred to as Huayi Company, held the exclusive information network dissemination right for the film “The Matrimony” (released in 2007). The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant, a technology company called Maishitong Company, operated a website at www.kotoo.com and provided unauthorized online streaming of the film to the public for profit. The plaintiff also claimed that the second and third defendants, telecommunications companies referred to as Telecom Zhejiang and Telecom Hangzhou, jointly operated the same website with Maishitong Company. The plaintiff argued that these two telecom companies failed to verify the copyright of the content and thus contributed to the infringement. The plaintiff sought joint and several liability from all three defendants for 30,000 RMB in economic losses.

Maishitong Company denied the allegations, arguing that the notarized evidence was unreliable due to a lack of network cleanliness checks. It further claimed that its website was merely a user entertainment community and that it had not uploaded the film or profited from it. Telecom Zhejiang and Telecom Hangzhou jointly argued that they operated a different website, “Cool Personality Space” at space.zj.vnet.cn, which did not include video services and had no connection to the www.kotoo.com website operated by Maishitong.

Court Proceedings and Evidence

The plaintiff presented several pieces of evidence. A film projection license and a copyright registration certificate, along with a name change notice and a confirmation letter, showed that Huayi Company owned the exclusive information network dissemination right for the film. A business leaflet from Telecom Hangzhou was offered to prove the three defendants jointly operated the www.kotoo.com website. A notarized certificate from a notary public office documented the process of accessing the film for online viewing through the www.kotoo.com website. The plaintiff also submitted a DVD of the film.

The court admitted the copyright ownership documents and the DVD. The court found that the business leaflet only promoted the “Cool Personality Space” website and did not prove joint operation of the www.kotoo.com website. The court upheld the validity of the notarized certificate, noting that Maishitong Company failed to provide any evidence to contradict it. The court also accepted an agreement submitted by Telecom Zhejiang, which showed that its cooperation with Maishitong was limited to the “Cool Personality Space” website, as the plaintiff could not prove the document had been altered.

Court Findings and Judgment

The court found that Huayi Company held the exclusive information network dissemination right for the film “The Matrimony.” The court held that Maishitong Company infringed this right by providing online streaming of the film on its www.kotoo.com website without authorization. The court rejected Maishitong’s defense that it did not upload the film, as the company failed to provide any supporting evidence.

The court declined to award the full 30,000 RMB requested by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff could not prove its actual losses or the defendant’s profits. Instead, the court considered factors such as the film’s market influence and popularity, the website’s reach, and the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff for notarization and legal fees. The court determined that 18,000 RMB was an appropriate amount.

Regarding the claims against Telecom Zhejiang and Telecom Hangzhou, the court found that the evidence showed Maishitong Company alone operated the www.kotoo.com website where the infringing content was hosted. Telecom Zhejiang merely provided a link to that website from its own “China Star” portal. The court noted that Telecom Zhejiang did not control the content on the linked site. Since the plaintiff did not prove that Telecom Zhejiang knew about the infringement or that it had received a warning, the court applied the safe harbor provision for linking services. The court held that Telecom Zhejiang was not liable for damages, and Telecom Hangzhou was also not liable.

Key Legal Principles

The court applied the principle that the owner of an exclusive information network dissemination right can sue for infringement when a third party provides unauthorized online access to a protected work. The court also applied the principle that a service provider who only provides a link to an infringing website is not liable for damages if it did not know or have reason to know that the linked content was infringing. The court emphasized that the burden of proving actual losses or profits lies with the plaintiff when claiming damages.

Practical Insights

This case illustrates that website operators must secure proper licenses before streaming copyrighted films online. Failure to do so can result in significant financial liability. The case also shows that internet service providers who merely provide links to third-party websites are generally protected from liability for copyright infringement, provided they have no actual knowledge of the infringement and do not control the content. Plaintiffs must present clear evidence to prove joint operation or knowledge of infringement to hold multiple defendants liable. Finally, courts have discretion to award damages based on a variety of factors when actual losses cannot be proven.

Legal References

Information Network Dissemination Right Protection Regulations: Article 23
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2010): Articles 48, 49(1)
Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Copyright Civil Disputes: Articles 25(1), 26(1)

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.