Home >> Copyrights Sort By: Order:
File
Effective Date

Universal International Music B.V. v. Beijing Alibaba Information Technology Co., Ltd (Appeal) - Case on Copyright Infringement

The defendant provided downloading and audition services to the public and categorised works on its website including the plaintiff's copyrighted works. The court interpreted "known or should have known" stipulated in the Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information and set up the Red Flag Standard in this case.

Zhejiang Flyasia E-Business Co., Ltd. (Appeal)

The defendant provided the works copyrighted by the plaintiff through links and free downloading without authorisation from the plaintiff. The court ruled that where "known or should having known" of the defendant is not proved, a search engine service provider will not be held liable for copyright infringement.

Shanghai Busheng Music Culture Communication Co. Ltd. V. Beijing Baidu Wangxun Science and Tech. Co. Ltd (Trial) - Case of Infringement on Record Producer’s Rights

In this case of infringement of a record producer’s rights, the defendant provided mp3 files copyrighted by the plaintiff without his authorisation. The court ruled that where the defendant fails to prove the legitimate source of the file, he shall be held liable for copyright infringement.

WEA INTERNATIONAL INC v. Beijing Baidu Wangxun Science and Tech. Co. Ltd (Trial) - On the Infringement on the Right to Dissemination on Information Network

In this case on infringement of the right for dissemination via information networks, the defendant, without the permission of the plaintiff, provided a downloading service for the plaintiff's work, and accorded relevant content with sorting and editing. The court ruled that the defendant did not have fault, and that "audition" and "download" are from a third party service provider which has been prohibited. As the plaintiff did not perform the duty of informing, their complaint cannot be upheld.

Shanghai Youdu (51TV) v. Shengzheng Xunlei (Trial)

The defendant is a company which provides internet searches and links, and provides hyperlinks to the work of the plaintiff. The court ruled that the service provided by the defendant is a search facility for movie downloads, and its duty of care of legality should be higher than that of ordinary search engines. Using embedded technology to independently provide the content of third parties, the defendant was held to have the duty of care of legality for the content it provides.

Zhejiang Flyasia E-commerce Co. Ltd v. Beijing Baidu Wangxun Science and Tech. Co. Ltd (Trial)

The defendant is the search engine provider, by using the cached providing the lyrics which the plaintiff enjoys copyright. The court ruled that, using "cached" to provide lyrics infringed plaintiff's copyright.

Ciwen Picture Co., Ltd v. Beijing Zhenglejia Technology Co., Ltd (Appeal)

The defendant produced p2p software, the work for which the plaintiff has copyright was provided to the user of the defendant for uploading and downloading. The court ruled that the defendant assisted others to communicate works without legal authorisation, and therefore constitutes infringement.

Wang Meng V. Century Internet Communication Technology Co., Ltd. - Case on Copyright Infringement

This is the first case regarding internet communication rights. The novel for which the plaintiff has copyright was made available on the website and can be copied and downloaded. The court ruled that the defendant did not perform the duty of care, and has fault objectively. Copyright infringement is therefore established.

Guangzhou Shulian Software Technology Co., Ltd V. Guangdong Zhongkai Culture Development Co., Ltd. - Case on the Right to Dissemination on Information Network (Appeal)

The defendant provided p2p software service, its users download and upload the copyright works of the plaintiff. The court ruled that the defendant knew or should have known of the infringing fact and did not adopt any measures, which constitutes infringement.

Beijing Wufengshiyu Advertising Co., Ltd. v. Mu Bifang (Appeal) - Case on Infringement on the Right to Dissemination on Information Network (Appeal)

The defendant provided BBS service. Its users, without permission, uploaded the works of the plaintiff onto the BBS web site. The Court ruled that as the BBS service provider is not a content provider, it should not be responsible for infringing acts. However, in this case, the defendant reviewed the content uploaded by its users and undertook classification and editing work in providing the BBS service, which was considered by the court as an act of providing an internet content service, and therefore should be held liable.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5

Disclaimer & Copyright  Support
All reference materials provided on the IP Law Search site come from open official sources and the EU-China IPR2 Project, except for a few documents, for which their copyright is referenced accordingly and is authorised by their respective copyright owners.

Where translations are not freely available (e.g. open government sites), we acknowledge the services of commercial providers in particular lawinfochina.com, links to which are provided for commercially available translations.

For China IP Search, the official Chinese versions are authoritative: English versions are provided for reference only, due to differences in language and legal systems etc. For the Europe Law Search the official version is, in most cases, in English; with the Chinese translation provided for reference only.

Subject to permission being obtained from the holders of copyright of the material provided where applicable, content may be reproduced and disseminated as long as it is attributed to the original source.

IP Law Search is a free-of-charge service. While it aims to be as comprehensive and accurate as possible, it does not claim to be exhaustive, invite reliance upon, nor accept responsibility for the information it provides.

IP Law Search makes every effort to provide a high quality service. However, neither IP Law Search, its host, its partner universities, nor the providers of data give any guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up-to-date nature of the information provided. Users should confirm information from another source if it is of sufficient importance for them to do so.

Hypertext links on IP Law Search are inserted and updated regularly by the EU-China IPR2 Project and its partners, not by the data providers, which means that links may not be accurate in all cases. Neither IP Law Search, its host, its partner universities, nor its providers of data, give any guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning hypertext linking.

This facility has been provided with the assistance of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the EU-China IPR2 Project, and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union nor the relevant authorities of the People’s Republic of China.

Your opinions, comments and suggestions are valued in order to continue to improve the quality and expand the quantity of references provided. We welcome your feedback at info@ipr2.org.