Eastern China Court Rules on Copyright Infringement in Online Film Streaming Case, Awards 18,000 Yuan
Eastern China Court Rules on Copyright Infringement in Online Film Streaming Case, Awards 18,000 Yuan
Case Overview
A Chinese film production company successfully sued a technology company for unauthorized online streaming of a television drama, resulting in a damages award of 18,000 yuan. The Eastern China court found the website operator directly liable for copyright infringement but dismissed claims against a telecommunications provider that merely provided a link to the infringing content. This case illustrates the legal boundaries of direct versus contributory liability in digital copyright disputes.
Case Background and Facts
Huayi Brothers Media Corporation, a prominent Chinese film and television production company, held the exclusive nationwide information network dissemination rights to the television drama “The Difficult Love of a Diamond Bachelor.” The company discovered that Zhejiang Maishitong Network Technology Co., Ltd. was operating a website called “Kutoo Space” at the domain kotoo.com, which offered the drama for online streaming without authorization or payment of any license fees.
The plaintiff alleged that Maishitong directly infringed its copyright by making the work available to the public. Huayi Brothers also named two telecommunications companies as defendants, claiming they jointly operated the website with Maishitong and failed to verify copyright ownership, thereby contributing to the infringement. The plaintiff sought 30,000 yuan in damages, including legal fees and notarization costs.
Court Proceedings and Evidence
The case was heard in open court in December 2010. Huayi Brothers presented several pieces of evidence, including the domestic television drama distribution license, a production agreement showing the copyright chain, and a notarized record of the infringing activity. The notarization, conducted in November 2008, showed that a user could access the drama through the Kutoo Space website after navigating from the telecommunications company’s portal site.
The notary public documented the entire process, capturing screenshots and preserving the evidence on a sealed disc. The court admitted the notarized evidence as valid, noting that Maishitong raised objections but provided no contrary proof.
Maishitong argued that the notarization lacked proper network cleanliness checks and that the company did not upload the film itself. It also claimed the website was a non-profit user community. The telecommunications defendants argued that their jointly operated service was a different website entirely and that they merely provided a link to Maishitong’s independent site.
Court Findings and Judgment
The court held that Huayi Brothers had established valid copyright ownership in the drama based on the production agreement and license documents. The court found that Maishitong, as the operator of kotoo.com, directly provided the infringing streaming service without authorization. Maishitong failed to prove that a third party had uploaded the content, so the company bore responsibility for the infringement.
Regarding damages, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for 30,000 yuan as unsupported by evidence of actual loss or defendant’s profit. Instead, the court exercised its discretion to award 18,000 yuan, considering the film’s market influence, popularity, release period, the website’s reach, and reasonable litigation expenses including notarization and attorney fees.
The court dismissed all claims against the two telecommunications companies. The evidence showed that the telecommunications company merely operated a portal site with a link to Maishitong’s independent website. The court found no proof of joint operation or that the telecommunications company knew about or was warned of the infringement. Under applicable safe harbor provisions, the link provider was not liable.
Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that a website operator is directly liable for copyright infringement when it provides unauthorized streaming of protected works. The burden shifted to the defendant to prove the content was uploaded by users, which Maishitong failed to do.
The court also applied the safe harbor principle for online service providers. A company that merely provides links to third-party content is not liable for copyright infringement unless it knows or should know about the infringing activity. No liability arises absent actual knowledge or a formal takedown notice.
The court determined damages based on statutory factors rather than actual loss, considering the work’s nature, the infringer’s scale, and reasonable enforcement costs.
Practical Insights
This case demonstrates that copyright holders should secure clear documentation of their rights chain, including production agreements and license certificates. Notarized evidence of online infringement remains a critical tool for proving unauthorized use.
Website operators cannot avoid liability by claiming ignorance of user-uploaded content without evidence. Companies should maintain records of content submission and implement proper copyright review procedures.
For companies providing linking or aggregation services, maintaining a safe harbor defense requires prompt action upon receiving a takedown notice. Without actual knowledge of infringement, link providers may avoid liability.
Legal References
Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Information Network Dissemination, Article 23
Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2010), Articles 48 and 49(1)
Supreme Peoples Court Interpretation on Copyright Civil Disputes, Articles 25(1) and 26(1)
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.