Eastern China Court Rules on Copyright Infringement: Internet Cafe Ordered to Pay 1,000 Yuan for Unauthorized Streaming

Eastern China Court Rules on Copyright Infringement: Internet Cafe Ordered to Pay 1,000 Yuan for Unauthorized Streaming

Case Overview

An Eastern China court has ruled on a copyright infringement dispute between a film distribution company and an internet cafe operator. The plaintiff, a Beijing-based company holding exclusive digital rights to a television series, alleged that the defendant internet cafe allowed patrons to stream the series without authorization. The court found the internet cafe liable for contributory infringement and ordered it to pay 1,000 yuan in damages and costs, significantly less than the 8,500 yuan sought by the plaintiff.

Case Background and Facts

The plaintiff obtained exclusive information network dissemination rights for the television series “Mu Yi Tian Xia” for mainland China, effective from May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2011. The series was jointly produced by Guangdong Television, China International Television Corporation, and Beijing Yahuan Film and Television Production Company.

In November 2009, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, which operated an internet cafe in Eastern China, was providing online streaming of the series to its customers. The internet cafe had approximately 90 computers and charged customers 2 yuan per hour (or 1.5 yuan for members) at the time of the alleged infringement. The plaintiff claimed the defendant’s actions were for commercial profit and caused economic losses, seeking 7,000 yuan in damages plus 1,500 yuan in legal costs.

The defendant argued that after renovations in October 2009, their computers no longer displayed shortcuts to the infringing website. They claimed the plaintiff’s evidence was collected during the renovation period, that they lacked malicious intent, and that the infringement period was too brief to generate direct profits.

Court Proceedings and Evidence

The plaintiff presented several pieces of evidence to support its claims, including a domestic television series distribution license, notarized agreements establishing the chain of copyright ownership, and a notarized record of the infringement. The notarization showed that on November 16, 2009, a notary and the plaintiff’s representative visited the defendant’s internet cafe. Using a randomly selected computer, they accessed a website called “Internet Cafe Cinema” through desktop icons and successfully streamed the television series.

The defendant challenged the validity of the notarized documents, arguing that notarizations conducted in Beijing were improper for evidence collected in Eastern China. The defendant also suggested the plaintiff may have used technical manipulation during evidence collection.

The court rejected these arguments, noting that the plaintiff was based in Beijing and that notarization by Beijing authorities was appropriate. The court emphasized that under procedural law, notarized documents are accepted as evidence unless rebutted by contrary proof, which the defendant failed to provide.

Court Findings and Judgment

The court determined that the television series’ copyright holders were China International Television Corporation and Beijing Yahuan Film and Television Production Company, with Guangdong Television holding only attribution rights as the production coordinator. The plaintiff had validly obtained exclusive information network dissemination rights through a chain of authorization.

The court found that the “Internet Cafe Cinema” website was specifically designed to provide影视 content to internet cafes. As a professional internet cafe operator generating direct revenue from its services, the defendant held a different legal status from ordinary internet users. By setting up desktop shortcuts that facilitated access to the streaming website, the defendant commercially exploited the website’s content.

The court held that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable diligence. The streaming website lacked required broadcasting licenses and explicitly disclaimed responsibility for content legality, which should have alerted the defendant to potential copyright issues. The court concluded the defendant contributed to the infringement and bore fault.

On damages, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for 8,500 yuan, finding no evidence of actual losses or defendant’s profits. Instead, the court considered the series’ popularity, the defendant’s fault degree, operational scale, and fee structure, along with reasonable legal costs, awarding 1,000 yuan in total compensation.

Key Legal Principles

The court applied the principle that internet service providers, including internet cafes, must exercise reasonable care when providing access to third-party content. Contributory infringement arises when a party knowingly facilitates or materially contributes to another’s infringing activity. Courts have discretion to determine damages based on case-specific factors when actual losses or illegal profits cannot be proven.

Practical Insights

This case demonstrates that internet cafes and similar businesses cannot avoid liability by claiming ignorance of third-party content providers’ legal status. Operators should verify that streaming services have proper licenses and copyright clearances. The case also illustrates that courts will carefully examine evidence chains for copyright ownership and may reduce damage claims significantly when plaintiffs cannot prove actual losses.

Legal References

General Principles of the Civil Law: Article 130
Copyright Law (2010 Amendment): Articles 10(1)(12), 48(1), 49
Supreme Peoples Court Interpretation on Copyright Civil Disputes: Articles 7, 25, 26
Supreme Peoples Court Interpretation on Network Copyright Disputes (2006): Article 3
Civil Procedure Law (2007 Amendment): Article 64(1)

Disclaimer

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