Eastern China Court Rules on Internet Cafe Copyright Infringement for TV Series Streaming, Awards 1000 RMB

Eastern China Court Rules on Internet Cafe Copyright Infringement for TV Series Streaming, Awards 1000 RMB

Case Overview

An Eastern China court ruled on a copyright infringement dispute between a film distribution company and a local internet cafe. The court found the cafe liable for contributory infringement after it provided patrons with access to an unauthorized streaming website showing the television series The Gem of Life. The plaintiff sought 8,500 RMB in damages, but the court awarded only 1,000 RMB, highlighting the limits of statutory damages when actual losses are unproven.

Case Background and Facts

The plaintiff, a Beijing-based cultural distribution company, held an exclusive license for the information network dissemination right to the television series The Gem of Life within mainland China for the period from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009. The series was originally produced by Television Broadcasts Limited in 2008. In November 2009, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, an internet cafe operator in Eastern China, was allowing its customers to stream the series on the cafe’s computers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s actions, done for commercial profit, infringed its exclusive rights and caused economic harm. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking 7,000 RMB in economic losses and an additional 1,500 RMB for reasonable expenses, including notarization, legal fees, and travel costs.

Court Proceedings and Evidence

The defendant did not appear in court or submit any defense evidence. The plaintiff presented three key pieces of evidence. First, a notarized certificate of ownership and an authorization letter from the copyright owner, Television Broadcasts Limited, granting the plaintiff exclusive rights. Second, a DVD of the series, played in court, showing the copyright notice. Third, a notarized record of the infringement. On November 9, 2009, a notary public and the plaintiff’s agent visited the defendant’s internet cafe. Using a designated computer, the agent clicked a desktop icon labeled “Internet Cafe Cinema,” which led to a website at www.uavod.com. The agent successfully searched for and played The Gem of Life. The website did not display a license for audio-visual program dissemination. Its footer contained a disclaimer stating that content was provided by a third party and a mismatched ICP filing number. The computer screen also advertised a minimum charge of 1.5 RMB per hour. Further investigation revealed that the website was registered to an individual and could be accessed from outside the cafe.

Court Findings and Judgment

The court found that the plaintiff held a valid, exclusive information network dissemination right for the series. The court distinguished the defendant’s role from that of a typical internet user. As a commercial internet cafe operator, the defendant profited directly from providing internet access. By placing a desktop shortcut to the “Internet Cafe Cinema” website, the defendant actively directed customers to a site that lacked proper licenses and had a suspicious disclaimer. The court held that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. A prudent operator would have recognized that the website was likely distributing content without authorization. The court concluded that the defendant contributed to the infringement and was liable. Regarding damages, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim of 8,500 RMB because no evidence showed actual losses or the defendant’s profits. The court used its discretion to set damages at 1,000 RMB, considering the series’ popularity, the nature of the infringement, the defendant’s fault, the fact that the website was accessible outside the cafe, and the cafe’s size and fees. The court also partially supported the plaintiff’s claim for notarization and legal fees.

Key Legal Principles

The court applied the principle of contributory copyright infringement. An internet cafe operator can be held liable if it provides a platform or service that facilitates infringement by third parties. The operator’s duty of care is higher than that of a private user because it operates for profit. The court also applied the principle of statutory damages under Chinese copyright law. When a plaintiff cannot prove actual damages or the infringer’s illegal gains, the court has discretion to set a fixed amount based on factors like the work’s nature, the infringement’s scale, and the infringer’s intent. The court emphasized that a website’s lack of proper licensing and a suspicious disclaimer should alert a commercial operator to potential illegality.

Practical Insights

This case serves as a cautionary tale for internet cafe owners and other commercial internet service providers. Simply providing a link to a third-party website does not absolve a business from liability. Operators must actively verify that the content they make available to customers is properly licensed. A website that lacks an audio-visual program license or contains a broad disclaimer should raise immediate red flags. For rights holders, the case illustrates the challenge of proving monetary damages. While statutory damages are available, courts may award a conservative amount if the infringement is not massive and the link to specific losses is weak. Strong evidence of actual harm or the infringer’s revenue is critical for a higher award.

Legal References

General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 130. Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2010 Revision), Articles 10(1)(12), 48(1), and 49(1). Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Copyright Civil Dispute Cases, Articles 7(1), 25(1), and 26(1). Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Computer Network Copyright Disputes (2006), Article 3. Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007 Revision), 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.