Online Copyright Infringement: Court Awards 10,000 RMB for Unauthorized Streaming of Film
Online Copyright Infringement: Court Awards 10,000 RMB for Unauthorized Streaming of Film
Case Overview
In a copyright infringement dispute heard in Eastern China, a court ruled that the operator of a video streaming website had infringed upon the exclusive information network dissemination rights of a film copyright holder. The court ordered the defendant to pay 10,000 RMB in compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses. The case highlights the legal responsibilities of online platforms that offer unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content.
Case Background and Facts
The plaintiff, a Beijing-based internet technology company, acquired the exclusive right to disseminate the film “Open Your Eyes” over information networks. This right was obtained through a chain of valid licensing agreements from the original production company. The defendant company, which operated the website pipi.cn, provided an online streaming service through its proprietary media player. Users could search for and watch the film “Open Your Eyes” directly on the defendant’s platform.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had not obtained any permission or license to stream the film. The defendant argued that the plaintiff did not possess valid exclusive rights for mainland China and therefore lacked standing to sue. The defendant also claimed that its software could play content from various sources online, suggesting the film’s availability might have originated from a third-party website.
Court Proceedings and Evidence
The plaintiff submitted several pieces of evidence to support its claim. These included notarized certificates proving the chain of copyright authorization from the original production company to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also presented notarized records of the defendant’s website, showing that the film could be searched for and played using the pipi media player. A lawyer’s letter and proof of delivery were submitted to show that the defendant was notified of the infringement but failed to stop the service. The plaintiff also provided evidence of legal fees and a service contract.
The defendant challenged some of the authorization documents, pointing out a date discrepancy in the notarization. However, the plaintiff produced the original authorization letters, which the court accepted as genuine. The defendant did not submit any counter-evidence. The court found the plaintiff’s evidence, including the notarized records of the streaming service, to be credible and admissible.
Court Findings and Judgment
The court determined that the plaintiff held a valid, exclusive license for the information network dissemination rights to the film “Open Your Eyes.” The court found that the defendant, by hosting the film on its website for public streaming without the plaintiff’s permission, had directly infringed upon these rights. The defendant’s argument about the film being sourced from another website did not absolve it of liability, as it was the platform actively providing the service.
Since the defendant had already removed the film from its service by the time of the trial, the court did not issue an order to stop the infringement. Regarding damages, the court noted that the plaintiff could not prove its actual losses or the defendant’s profits. The court used its discretion to set the damage amount. Considering the film’s popularity, the website’s influence, the nature of the infringement, and the plaintiff’s necessary legal expenses, the court ordered the defendant to pay 10,000 RMB in total compensation. The plaintiff’s claim for 40,000 RMB was partially rejected.
Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that the owner of an exclusive copyright license has the right to sue for infringement. The unauthorized public performance or dissemination of a work over a network constitutes a violation of the copyright holder’s exclusive rights. When calculating damages, if actual losses or illegal gains cannot be determined, the court may consider the circumstances of the infringement and award a reasonable sum, including the rights holder’s reasonable expenses for stopping the infringement.
Practical Insights
This case serves as a clear warning to website operators and content platforms. Simply providing a player that accesses content from various sources does not shield the platform from liability if it actively facilitates the streaming of copyrighted material. Businesses must ensure they have proper licensing agreements for any content they make available to the public. For copyright holders, maintaining a clear and documented chain of title is essential for enforcing rights. The case also shows that courts will award compensation even when exact financial losses are difficult to calculate.
Legal References
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2010): Article 10, Paragraph 1; Article 48; Article 49, Paragraph 1. Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright: Article 7, Paragraph 1; Article 25, Paragraph 1; Article 26, Paragraph 1.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.