Explore

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.

These industrial standards define ISPs into three categories: original service/connection provider, information provider and processor, and third party intermediaries who do not link to users' personal information directly. These standards preliminarily put obligations on ISPs when collecting, processing, using, storaging, and transmitting users' personal information such as name, address, date of birth, etc.

Holding that the Defendants, developers, and operators of the P2P website and client software “Kuro” liable under Article 130 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, in contributory infringement for intentionally providing assistance to the website users who shared and infringed the copyright holder’s right in its recordings. The Court placed a heavy emphasis on the right compilation and integration between the P2P client software and the system of selection, classification and categorization of the users’ shared recordings which the defendants operated on their website.

(1) In this case, the BBS operated by the defendant “178.com” had a sub-platform for subscribers to upload ePub-formatted e-books, and a copyrighted book owned by the plaintiff had been uploaded without permission, so the plaintiff sued 178.com for copyright infringement. (2) According to the court investigation, the defendant had a policy of rewarding these subscribers who uploaded content or replied to such content with virtual “silver coins”. Further, the defendant also appointed a moderator to manage the materials uploaded by subscribers. In this case, the infringing materials concerned was highlighted and edited by the moderator, so the moderator appointed by the defendant in fact promoted the transmission of infringing materials concerned. Based on the two reasons above, ChaoYang District Court in Beijing held...

Court rejected EMI’s claim against the search engine Baidu because EMI’s take-down notice to Baidu did not comply with the requisite formalities, and thus failed to specify the names of the works, their authors and the web addresses whose the infringing works were found. The Court cited Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Copyright Disputes over Computer Network (2004): “Where any copyright owner who, upon finding out the infringing information, warns the Internet service provider about this or requests for the network registration material of the infringer, but is unable to produce proofs of his the copyright owner’s identification, ownership of the copyright and the circumstance of the...

Court held that defendant search engine Alibaba is liable for taking down 15 of the 26 allegedly infringing recording in accordance with the take-down notices. Although Alibaba claims that it removed all 15 links that the Plaintiff sent them in regards to the take-down, the Court held that Alibaba should know that its 26 recordings are infringing Plaintiff’s copyright and thus Alibaba is negligent in discharging its duty to take steps to terminate the links to all 26 recordings.