Explore

This Judicial Interpretation provides the detailed rules on deciding Internet intermediary’s liability for copyright infringement. (1) First, whether an Internet intermediary ought to be liable mainly depends whether it is at fault for the copyright infringement in question. In light of Article 8, the fault means Internet intermediaries actually know or should know the copyright infringement concerned. (2) Second, the Judicial Interpretation (Article 8) clarifies that Internet intermediaries have no obligation to actively monitor their services, and if they have already taken reasonable and effective technical measures but still could not know the infringement, they should not be held as being at fault. (3) Third, regarding what constitutes “should know”, the Judicial Interpretation (Article 9, 10 and 12) enumerates...

Holding that because Mobile Communications were merely providing a technical and passive service of network dissemination for receiving ringtones sent by Netease and forwarding them to its subscribers, it was not liable to an infringement. The Court further considered evidence that Mobile Communications was unable to select, examine or selectively delete the contents of the messages. Therefore, Mobile Communications has no duty and not at fault for the occurrence of the infringement when Netease used Mobile Communications’ services to transmit unlicensed (copyrighted) ringtones to its subscribers.

Imposing further regulations on ISPs and business enterprises, and non-profits to handle electronic personal information including: (1) stating explicitly the purpose, means and scope of such personal information collection and usage, (2) publicizing widely relevant policies and obtain consent of such collection, (3) prohibiting disclosure, alteration, selling, or destruction of collected electronic personal information, (4) adopting technical and other necessary measures to ensure the safety of electronic personal information, and must promptly take remedial measures when such information is disclosed, damaged or lost, (5) promptly taking any remedial measures if anything of the above occurs, (6) and requiring ISPs to mandate users to furnish authentic identity information when providing access or information related...

Holding that the defendant, who operated the website chinamp3.com, was not liable for disseminating the plaintiff’s sound recordings by merely linking to them, by selecting, organizing and finalizing the various links to infringing third party sources. However, because the Defendant could discriminate between licensed and unlicensed recordings, and that the Defendant ignored his duties and intentional participation in the illegal dissemination of unlicensed recordings, Defendant is jointly liable with the third party websites under Article 130 of the General Principles of the Civil Law.

Clarifying the "Fair Use" Exception under the PRC Copyright Law (article 6), standards of network dissemination of information including how to address a potential violation. Establishing a more stringent standard for continued violators including civil and criminal liabilities for illegal network distributions and cyber equipment associated with such distributions/disseminations.

Holding that if the right holder did not exhaust her obligations to notify an intermediary providing referring services vis-a vis take-down notices, and that there is no evidence to suggest that the intermediary knows or should know that the material he has linked to is infringing, the rightholder cannot maintain a secondary liability claim against the intermediary.