Reading guide
The increasing functionality of mobile phones has given rise to the new fashion of listening to books with your ears, such as audio reading. Compared with ordinary copyright disputes, audio infringement is more hidden, and the "scan code" function of WeChat is a typical example of audio platform piracy of others' audio content, and the infringement of audio products disseminated to the public through information networks.
Related Perspectives:
Audio ** platform and its copyright infringementThe so-called audio platform refers to the network service provider setting up the audio file storage space on the ** it operates, and the audio file is uploaded to the audio file storage space by itself or the network user, and the smartphone user can log in to the ** in the state of the Internet, and then the audio ** software (operating system) on the ** is carried out on its smart terminal by operating the mobile phone. In this case, the smartphone user can take advantage of the audio software and go through certain steps to finally decode the audio file or the audio file.Related CasesFor copyright infringement cases involving audio platforms, it is necessary to clarify the nature of the rights that may be infringed and choose the rights that comply with the law, which is the basis for winning this type of case. Article 42 of the "Copyright Law" stipulates that "producers of audio and video recordings shall have the right to license others to reproduce, distribute, rent, disseminate to the public through information networks, and receive remuneration for the audio and video recordings they produce; The licensee shall also obtain permission from the copyright owner and performer to reproduce, distribute, or disseminate audio or video recordings to the public through information networks, and shall pay remuneration." Judging from the provisions of this article, if the actor uploads the audio recording products to the audio platform for network users to enjoy on demand without permission, it is possible to infringe the information network dissemination right of the copyright owner of the (textual) work, the information network dissemination right enjoyed by the person who reads the work for his performance, and the information network dissemination right enjoyed by the sound recording producer for his audio recording. If the actor reads aloud and records the sound without the permission of the copyright owner, and uploads the audio recording product to the audio broadcasting platform for network users to enjoy on demand, this is an infringement of the information network transmission right of the copyright owner of the (textual) work.
The alleged infringer (defendant) who can become the copyright infringement case of the audio platform may involve two parties, one is the network user, and the other is the operator of the audio platform.
If the operator of the audio platform uploads the audio file of the copyright of the work to the server of the audio platform it operates without permission, the operator constitutes direct infringement under the copyright law.
If the network user and the audio platform cooperate through the division of labor without permission to jointly complete the upload and dissemination of the audio file, the two constitute joint infringement and will bear the legal responsibility for joint infringement.
If the network user uploads the audio file of the copyright of the work of others to the server of the audio platform without permission, and the audio platform does not have a collusion relationship with it, the network user constitutes direct infringement under the copyright law. To determine whether the audio platform constitutes infringement, it can only be judged from the perspective of aiding infringement, that is, when the three conditions of "direct infringement, objectively providing assistance for direct infringement, and the actor being subjectively at fault" are met, it can be determined that the operator of the audio ** platform constitutes aiding infringement.
Excerpted from "Problems and Solutions in Copyright Infringement Disputes on Audio ** Platforms", author: Zhu Jianjun, published in People's Court Daily, April 26, 2017, 7th edition).
1.Refusing to delete the linked sound recordings knowing that they are infringing infringes on the right to disseminate information on the network of the right holder of sound recordings.
Universal International Record Co., Ltd.*** v. Beijing Alibaba Information Technology Co., Ltd.*** copyright infringement dispute appeal case.
Gist of the case:According to Article 23 of the "Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Information Network Transmission", even if the right holder does not submit to the network service provider a notice of infringement as provided for in Article 14 of the Regulations and requests the deletion or disconnection of the link, the network service provider that provides search or link services shall bear joint infringement liability if it knows or should know that the linked works, performances, audio or video recordings are infringing. In this case, Alibaba, as a professional company, only deleted a number of search links with specific URL addresses provided by Universal International Music Company when Global International Music Company informed it in writing several times that the sound recordings of the songs involved in the case obtained through the various forms of search services provided by it were infringing and requested deletion, but did not delete other search links related to the sound recordings of the songs involved in the case. If it infringes on the information network dissemination right of the Global International Record Company, it shall bear joint infringement liability.
Case No.: (2007) Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 1190 Trial Court: Beijing High People's Court **Selected Cases of the People's Court, Volume 4, 2008 (Volume 66).
2.Where a network service provider clearly knows or should know that a network user is illegally disseminating a work, helping others to commit infringing acts, or failing to perform a strict duty of care, it shall bear liability for infringement.
Guangzhou Shulian Software Technology v. Beijing Ciwen Film and Television Production, a dispute over infringement of the right of information network transmission.
Gist of the case:P-P (also known as P2P) network service providers know or should know that network users are illegally disseminating works, but still help others to commit infringing acts through the network; or those who have the right and ability to supervise and terminate the user's infringement and directly benefit from the user's infringement, but fail to fulfill the duty of strict care, shall be liable for infringement compensation.
Case No.: (2006) Yue Gao Fa Min San Zhong Zi No. 355 Trial Court: Guangdong Provincial High People's Court **People's Justice, Cases, No. 22, 2009.
3.Uploading the sound recordings of others' works to ** is in line with industry practice, and the due duty of care has been fulfilled, and the actor does not constitute an infringement of the right of information network dissemination of the work.
Beijing Feitong Cultural Communication v. Heilongjiang People's Broadcasting Station, a dispute over infringement of the right of information network transmission.
Gist of the case:It is the practice of the production company to provide free use of sound recordings to radio stations, etc., and to use the media under its own management to publicize the sound recordings of the production company free of charge. There is a business cooperative relationship between the right holder and the accused infringer, and the sound recording products and their introductions involved in the case are provided by the right holder to the host managed by the accused infringer, and the right holder has not made a special explanation for the use of the sound recordings, and the accused infringer has the right to use them in accordance with the common understanding and previous practices. The accused infringer uploaded the song involved in the case to its ** for *** failed to provide ** path and did not provide ** service, and fulfilled its due duty of care to prevent the use of technical means ** The song involved in the case exceeded the scope of the alleged infringer's obligations, therefore, the act of the accused infringer did not violate the agreement of both parties and did not constitute infringement.
Case No.: (2005) Ha Min Wu Chu Zi No. 81 Trial Court: Intermediate People's Court of Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province **Selected Cases of the People's Court, Volume 4, 2007 (Volume 62).
4.Without permission, the sound recordings of others' works are disseminated to the public through **links, which constitutes an infringement of the right of information network dissemination of the sound recording producer.
Zhengdong Records*** v. Beijing Century Yuebo Technology***, a case of infringement of the rights of producers of sound recordings.
Gist of the case:In the name of **, the act of disseminating to the public the searched, arranged and arranged works used by the linked ** on the page of ** constitutes an infringement of the copyright owner of the linked works. Case No.: (2004) Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 713 Trial Court: Beijing High People's Court **Selected Cases of the People's Court, Volume 1, 2005 (Volume 51).