Category Archives: Litigation

Why China Should Revoke the Regulations Which May Put All the Piracy Selling Vendors into Jail?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) You could find the vendors selling the pirated films, TV dramas, music or software in almost each single street in the cities of China. And according to the current regulation that the amount of the sales totaled 500 discs could be prosecuted for the criminal law violation, any vendors who has been selling the pirated discs for at least one month could constitute the crime of copyright infringement, and to be sent in to jail. Despite what the vendor has done may damage the IPR of the copyright holder, it is fair to combat them under the laws and regulations. But it seems that the existing judicial interpretation has a too wide governing scope, and could have damaged the purpose of the Criminal law. And in the practices, the vendors who have been prosecuted for their piracy selling could be less than 1% of all. Thus it has made the vendors do not care the punishment regulated in the criminal law, and that on the other hand has broken the principle “any violation against the criminal law shall be prosecuted and punished”, and thereafter it may promote the law enforcement upon the selection or the law enforcement in the political campaign or the rule of man. And the at the same time, it could harm the IPR protection.

READ MORE

How does the U.S. Government Guide Companies Registering IPR in China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) This March, at the invitation of the U.S. government, Mr. You Yunting, the founder of Bridge IP Commentary began his journey to the United States. The main purpose of this visit was to better understand the system of intellectual property rights in the United States. Mr. You would like to share with our readers his experiences there in several posts here on our website. Of course, the content of the posts may not be truly comprehensive or strictly accurate; that being said, if you find any mistakes or comments that can be corrected or improved upon, please let us know. We encourage more dialogue with the IPR community and welcome all constructive commentary. The following is the first post in a series of Mr. You’s visit to the United States: 

READ MORE

The Development of China Court’s Judgment over Criminal Offence of Online Game Cheating Programs, III

Posted on by

Today, our website will introduce the most recent crime adopted by courts in some regions of China to combat online game cheating programs: the crime of damaging computer information systems.

III. The crime of damaging computer information systems

Although there problems with all of the crimes previously discussed for combating cheating programs, with the strengthening of legislation, the online game industry finally found a suitable crime in 2011. According to Article 286 of the Criminal Law:

“Those who violate the law by deleting, modifying, adding, or interfering with the function of computer information systems so that information systems are unable to run normally, which leads to severe consequences, may be sentenced to imprisonment of no more than five years of detention; when the consequences are especially severe, the violator may be sentenced to imprisonment of more than five years. Those who violate the law by deleting, modifying, or adding data or applicable procedures to the storage, processing, or transmission programs in computer information systems, which leads to severe consequences, may be punished as per the preceding paragraph.”

READ MORE

The Development of China Court’s Judgment over Criminal Offence of Online Game Cheating Programs, II

Posted on by

Today, we will introduce the second crime adopted in China to combat cheating programs in online games: criminal copyright infringement.

II. The state of criminal copyright infringement

After years of combating cheating programs using the crime of illegal operation, the judicial organs in some regions tried to use criminal copyright infringement from Article 217 of the Criminal Law to combat cheating programs. The subjective aspect of criminal copyright infringement requires the unlicensed copying and distribution of the copyrighted work of another for profit.

READ MORE

The Development of China Court’s Judgment over Criminal Offence of Online Game Cheating Programs, I

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Since Shanda imported the massively popular online game, MIR, from South Korea in 2001, the online game industry has gradually become one of the most profitable businesses in China, and has made a fortune for tycoons such as Chen Tianqiao and Ding Lei. On the other hand, all kinds of illicit activities have arisen with the development of the online game business, among which cheating programs to assist players is the most troublesome for the game companies.

According to information acquired by the writer while working in a game company, cheating programs are software that run with the game software, thus giving them their name as game cheating programs. Cheating programs have several harms. First, they incur Gresham’s Law (bad money chases out good money), which makes rules-obeying players easily defeated and thereby damages the fairness of the game. Second they put more burden on the server and force the operator to purchase more servers and the bandwidth, which undoubtedly increases costs and decreases the stability of the server. Third, they enable players to fulfill game objective more quickly, which abnormally speeds up the progress of the game and could force the game company invest more human resources into developing new game content or elements. Although it is possible that some cheating programs are used to make up for the defects in the game, most have harmed the gaming experience, added costs of the company’s development and operation, and could jeopardize stable running of the game.

READ MORE

Analysis of the Assumption of Liability for E-Merchants in IPR Disputes in China, II

Posted on by

—Interpretations on Solutions to Several Issues in Hearing E-Commerce IPR Infringement Cases

In today’s post we will continue to discuss the standards to be considered in determining the liability of e-merchant platforms.

III. Standards in Determining the Indirect Infringement Liability of E-Merchant Platforms

As discussed above, an e-merchant platform may only assume indirect infringement liability under the law, and therefore it would not be necessarily always be liable for infringement occurring on its platform. The pressing question then, is what standards shall be utilized when determining their liability? In response to this question, we would like to share our analysis based on a comparison of similar statutes:

READ MORE

Analysis of the Assumption of Liability for E-Merchants in IPR Disputes in China, I

Posted on by

—Interpretations on Solutions to Several Issues in Hearing E-Commerce IP Infringement Cases

(By Luo Yanjie) In recent years, E-Commerce in China has thrived along with the development of online shopping. According to some news reports, the volume of the transactions from 360buy.com totaled more than RMB sixty billion Yuan, and Suning’s online sales achieved a comparatively paltry RMB 18.336 billion Yuan. With respect to Taobao.com and its affiliated websites, their business gains have vastly superseded all other rivals. By November 2012, Taobao.com and Tmall had sales of over RMB 1000 billion Yuan, which is almost three times that of Bailian Group, Suning and Gome’ s annual income in 2011 combined. The aforesaid three companies are currently the top three retail chains in China.

READ MORE

China Revised Its Law on Jurisdiction of Internet Infringement Involving Foreign Elements

Posted on by

 (By Albert Chen) On the issue of jurisdiction in online infringement cases, Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning Application of Law in Hearing Network Copyright Disputes Involving Computers (the “Network Dispute Interpretation”) previously stated that:

“Online copyright infringement dispute cases are within the jurisdiction of the court in the place where infringement occurred or the residence of the defendant. The place where infringement occurred includes the place where the network server or computer terminal used to conduct the accused infringement is located. For situations where it is difficult to determine the place where the infringement occurred or the residence of the defendant, the place where the computer terminal or other device that the plaintiff used to discover the infringement is located may be used as the place where the infringement occurred.”

READ MORE

Is It Necessary to Receive Approval from the Rights Holder of an Original Work in Order to Use Adapted Work?

Posted on by
s2366722

(By Luo Yanjie) Recent internet news has stated that the film adaption rights for Big Breast & Wide Hips, the work of 2012 Nobel laureate, Mo Yan, have sold for RMB 11,180,000 yuan, and the film will be directed by Zhang Yimou. Although Mo Yan’s agency ultimately confirmed that this was a false rumor, the cinematographic adaption of Mo Yan’s work has garnered public attention. With the trend of greater diversity in forms of work, we have seen more and more works recomposed in other artistic forms. Legally speaking, this re-composition actually belongs to adaption under the Copyright Law, and the work created is therefore adapted work. Today’s post will introduce the Chinese system for adaption of the film and cinematographic works.

READ MORE

Comparison of Administrative and Judicial Methods of Domain Name Dispute Settlement in China

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) Currently, the main dispute resolution channels for domain name disputes include semi-administrative settlement and judicial settlement. In terms of regulation, the Measures for Settlement of Domain Name Disputes (the “Measures”) were promulgated as early as 2002 and then amended in 2006. The Measures are the primary basis for semi-administrative settlement of domain name dispute. As to judicial methods, the main basis is the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning Application of Law in the Hearing of Computer Network Civil Disputes” (the “Interpretation”) promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court.

READ MORE

Are New Rules on Internet Publication from GAPP against State Council’s Regulations?

Posted on by
GAPP

(By You Yunting) Abstract: By the “Management Measures of Internet Information Services” (the “Measures”) issued by the State Council, China will carry out a new system of filing and recording to those non-operating Internet information services, namely those services involving the open sharing of information. These websites falling within the measures shall undertake the recording and filing procedures laid out before publishing any and all information. Yet, the situation seems to have undergone some changes with the promulgation of the working draft of the “Management Regulations of Network Publishing Services” (the “Regulations”), wherein most information released onto the network would be deemed so-called “network publishing.” As provided in the Regulations, no matter whether the service is operating or non-operating, the requirements for a Network Publishing Service License (the “License”) shall apply. It can be easily seen that such regulations are being made that are essentially beyond any lawful authorization, and are in fact contrary to rules previously issued by the State Council.

READ MORE

Why a Chinese Court Judged Apple Inc. to Be the Actual Operator of the AppStore Rather than iTunes S.A.R.L?

Posted on by
u=2609607523,3788351582&fm=23&gp=0

(By Albert Chen) Recently, in the right to network dissemination of information dispute between Li Chengpeng, a well-known Chinese writer, and Apple, a Beijing judge held Apple as the actual operator of the App Store, even though the company had maintained that iTunes S.A.R.L (“iTunes”) is the actual operator, a fact afterwards admitted by iTunes. So, today’s post will introduce the reasoning used by the first instance court in its decision.

Li filed the lawsuit with the Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court (“Intermediate Court”) on January 16, 2012, claiming that his latest work “李可乐抗拆记” was made into an app downloadable in App Store for free reading, which infringed his right to network dissemination of information. Additionally, as the operator, manager, and owner of the App Store, Apple should assume liability. Based on these points, Li demanded compensation for economic damages in the amount of 305,000 yuan and reasonable expenses in the amount of 5,425 yuan.

READ MORE

How to Determine Infringement Conducts in Copyright Disputes in China Courts?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) The Getty Images (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Getty”) provided the court with a product brochure naming defendants Shanghai Shuote Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Shuote”) and Shanghai Yikang Co., Ltd. (the “Yikang”). Getty claimed that the brochure was procured from the 6th International Tire Exhibition in Shanghai during 19th to 20th of May 2009. The defendant argued that they had neither printed nor used the brochure. However, the plaintiff provided substantial evidence to prove that the brochure could only have been printed by the defendant; regardless, the defendants failed to provide any explanation proving otherwise. On the other hand, the court had solid reasons to presume both defendants had engaged in the printing and using of the brochure.

READ MORE

Analysis on the Assumption of Liability in the Serv-U Infringement Lawsuit in China

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Serv-U is a kind of widely adopted FTP server terminal software, and its main function is to help the transmission of documents on websites. Because the software is relatively small and the normal user has no way to sense the server terminal, many domestic websites in China are now using pirated Serv-U. For this reason, Rhino Software Inc., the developer of Serv-U has been continuously fighting against the piracy of its software, a story which has recently been widely reported. The list of companies sued includes LockLock from South Korea, as well as Netac and eMule, among others. The compensation claimed in these cases ranges from half a million yuan to 1.99 million yuan.

READ MORE

Is It Copyright Infringement to Perform “Gangnam Style” at a Corporate Annual Gala in China?

Posted on by
506313c1c4cc11b2309016

(By You Yunting) PSY, the most popular South Korean Artist, has achieved more than 1 billion clicks, or views, on Youtube for his music video “Gangnam Style,” and has earned a global reputation. To perform Psy’s signature “horse-riding” dance has become an integral part of domestic corporate annual galas in China. In fact, the partners of our law firm have been encouraged by colleagues to perform the dance for everyone’s amusement. The problem was that none of us could actually perform the “horse-riding” dance properly. When facing such horrible demands from coworkers, a question raised by one of our associates interested me: would a performance of “Gangnam Style” infringe others’ lawful rights?

READ MORE