Really? ! Playing music like this is an infringement?

Intelligent audio-visual screen and intelligent software

Joint tort

How to determine?

Take a look at this case!

The case was selected as the "China Court Case 2022"!

Basic case

The plaintiff, a media company authorized by a stone International music company, has the information network communication rights of some stars' 5 albums and 31 songs.

The plaintiff found that a smart audio-visual screen sold in the market can play songs from the above five albums on demand through supporting software. The manufacturer of the intelligent audio-visual screen is a defendant technology company, and the operator of the supporting software is a defendant computer company. When the user uses the supporting software to demand a song, the intelligent audio-visual screen will send a request to the server of a computer company and a music company.

The plaintiff believes that the three defendant companies, for commercial purposes, the plaintiff has the right to information network communication license 31 songs, through the intelligent audio-visual screen and its supporting software to spread, its behavior constitutes infringement, should bear the civil liability to stop the infringement, compensation for losses and so on.

The plaintiff appealed to the People's Court of Shenzhen Qianhai Cooperation Zone to order the three defendant companies to jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

Results of judgments and rulings

After hearing, the court ruled that the defendant, a technology company and a computer company, should compensate the plaintiff, a media company, for economic losses and reasonable expenses to stop the infringement, totaling 186,000 yuan.

Abbreviature of adjudication

This case is a dispute over infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works.The plaintiff submitted the Letter of Authorization and other evidence to the court to prove that it has been authorized by a music company to enjoy the exclusive right of information network communication and the corresponding rights to protect the 31 songs of the 5 albums involved in the authorization period, and has the right to file a lawsuit in its own name, which is the proper subject of the case.

Determination of infringement

As one of the infringement cases, the dispute over infringement of the right of network transmission of sound recording information has inevitable requirements for the identification of the act elements. The Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes concerning the Infringement of the right of Information Network Communication has made a detailed interpretation of the "providing behavior" of the infringement of the right of information network communication.

These "providing acts" without the permission of the right holder can be divided into two kinds of direct infringement and indirect infringement. Direct infringement can be understood as the provision of content without the permission of the right holder, that is, the works, performances, audio and video recordings are directly placed on the information network by various means and means, so that the public can download, browse or obtain them by other means at the time and place selected by individuals; Indirect infringement refers to the network service provision act that plays a substantial role in promoting the direct infringer's infringement, including abetting the infringement act and aiding the infringement act. At this time, the people's court shall determine whether the network service provider bears the liability for abetting and aiding the infringement according to the fault of the network service provider. The fault of the network service provider includes knowing or should have known that the network user infringes on the right of information transmission through the network.

In this case, the intelligent audio-visual screen produced by a technology company of the defendant and the supporting software can be interconnected to enable users to play the songs involved in the case at a time and place selected by individuals, which undoubtedly constitutes the "provision act" of the audio recording and is a content provision act. Without the permission of the right holder, The "providing act" further constitutes a direct infringement of the right of information network transmission, and the subject of the act shall bear the corresponding tort liability according to law.

The determination of the subject of infringement

Article 4 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues relating to the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes concerning Infringement of the Right of Information Transmission through the Network provides: "Where there is evidence that network service providers and others jointly provide works, performances, audio and video products by means of division of labor, etc., constituting a joint infringement, the people's court shall order them to bear joint liability." If the network service provider can prove that it only provides automatic access, automatic transmission, information storage space, search, link, file sharing technology and other network services, and maintains that it does not constitute a joint infringement, the people's court shall support it."

In this case, the defendant, a computer company, has the identity attributes of both network service provider and content provider, and identifies a computer company as the subject of infringement according to law. Because playing the songs involved in the case requires the intelligent audio-visual screen and supporting software to be distributed to each other and implemented, the two are indispensable. The defense of "only the manufacturer of intelligent audio-visual screen, but not providing the public with network communication services of the songs involved" proposed by a technology company of the defendant is obviously not valid. From the function Settings of "including music, video calls, video learning and other multi-functional uses", it can also be seen that the predictability and operability of song transmission. Based on the purpose of joint cooperation, and on the basis of common intention and communication, through different division of labor, the defendant directly infringes the right of information network transmission enjoyed by a media company of the plaintiff to the song involved, and shall jointly bear the corresponding infringement liability. However, the evidence in the trial of the case cannot prove that the defendant, a music company, committed the infringement, so it should not be identified as the subject of infringement.

It can be seen that the judgment of "division of labor and cooperation relationship" plays a key role in the identification of the infringing subject in this case. Generally speaking, cooperation agreements and other forms are an important basis for judging whether there is a division of labor and cooperation between network service providers and others. However, in the face of increasingly complex network service chains and competitive cooperation relations, obvious cooperation agreements are not easy to appear. At this time, the people's court shall combine the specific circumstances of the case and make a reasonable judgment on the operation mode of the infringement according to the available evidence materials to determine the infringing subject.

Peng Fajun said

In order to meet the individual needs of users, the intelligent audio-visual screen series products are committed to providing a variety of complete audio recordings, which are originally beyond reproach, but may fall into infringement disputes. This case is a relatively common dispute case of infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works arising from the combined application of smart devices and smart software. The judgment of the case focuses on the elements of the liability for infringement of the right of information network dissemination, proceeds from the direction specified by law, clarifies the facts of the case, and captures the key to the identification of the infringing acts and infringing subjects. Identify the division of labor and cooperation between intelligent audiovisual screen manufacturers and intelligent software operators, judge the subject of infringement to bear joint infringement liability according to law, provide corresponding ideas and references for the judgment of class cases, and promote the existing intelligent product market to explore more reasonable application models of intellectual property rights.

Source: Qianhai Cooperation District Court

More intellectual property information and services

Pay attention to [Shenkexin Intellectual Property] Official subscription number

More deeply credible dynamic news, important data/report/case, etc.

Pay attention to the [Shenkexin Intellectual Property Service Platform] official service number

Related Cases

Learn to appeal to know network infringement, court decision!

June 27 news, China Judgment documents network recently disclosed that Beijing Century Super Star Information Technology Development Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Learning Pass") and "Chinese Academic Journals (Optical disc Edition)" electronic magazine Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Know Network") eight infringement of the work information network transmission right of the first instance legal documents.

2022-06-28

Detail

If the lesson plan is used by others, is it a violation of trade secrets?

Because it believes that the teaching curriculum system and related materials used by others to run art training institutions have infringed its trade secrets, Beijing Festive Culture Communication Co., Ltd. will Sue Beijing Xinxing Technology Co., LTD., Beijing Changsheng Culture Media Co., Ltd. and relevant employees to the court. The defendants are required to stop infringing trade secrets, apologize, eliminate the impact, compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses. After hearing, the Haidian Court found that the teaching teaching plan advocated by the company in this case did not belong to the trade secret protected by the Law against Unfair Competition, and rejected all the litigation claims of the company.

2022-06-13

Detail

Case of copyright infringement and unfair competition between Shenzhen Chuangmeng World Technology Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Hifan Technology Co., LTD., Hangzhou Youbige Technology Co., LTD

Appellant Pinchuang Company and appellant Yuan Desheng Company and other utility model patent infringement disputes Yuan Desheng Plastic Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Yuan Desheng Company) is the patentee of patent No. ZL201420522729.0, the name of "an integrated selfie device" utility model patent. Zhongshan Pinchuang Plastic Products Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Pinchuang Company), mainly accept foreign processing orders, production of related products. On May 9, 2017, in the (2016) Yue 73 Minchu No. 2351 case, Yuan Desheng Company reached a settlement agreement with Pinchuang Company and Zhongshan Rigao Precision Industry Co., LTD., agreeing that Pinchuang Company stopped producing, selling and promising to sell the accused infringing products, and compensated Yuan Desheng Company 35,000 yuan.

2022-06-07

Detail

CASE

Really? ! Playing music like this is an infringement?