(By You Yunting) Recently, in the proceeding litigation alleging copyright infringement, Beijing China Youth Book Inc. vs Baidu Library, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court issued a judgment requiring that Baidu compensate Beijing China Youth Book Inc. 350,000 Yuan. When compared with the 20,000 Yuan compensation required for a pirated movie, the ordered compensation is much larger than expected. This simultaneously reflects the strengthening of legal sanctions against internet copyright infringement and suggests that the standard on which copyright infringement compensation is judged lacks rationality in China.
Introduction to the Case:
Plaintiff: Beijing China Youth Book Inc. (the “Youth Book Inc.”)
Defendant: Baidu
Court of first instance: Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court
Youth Book Inc. claimed that Baidu was unauthorized to provide various versions of three of its popular books for online users of Baidu Library, on the grounds that it is entitled to the exclusive right to publish these three popular books and also has the right of communication via an information network.
The defendant argued that the safe harbor principle should apply in this situation, exempting it from liability, as they had immediately deleted the electronic copies of the three books upon the receipt of a copyright complaint from the owner. The safe harbor principle means that any network service provider has the obligation to delete works that the owner regards as constituting infringement, upon being informed of the copyright infringement by the owner. However, if this is applied successfully the network service provider can avoid infringement liability.
The court heard the case and decided that, with respect to Baidu Library, Baidu Library provided a network service, indirectly infringing the right of communication via an information network owned by the Youth Book Inc. Baidu library is a service that provides online storage where books are uploaded by internet users to the Baidu Library.
Furthermore, the court also held that, even though laws and regulations entitled the network service provider to apply the safe harbor principle, this does not mean that the network service provider has the obligation to cease infringement only after receiving a written statement from the owner.
The three books involved were popular ones in the Baidu Library, and as such, the court considered that Baidu should have sufficient information about them and focus on them. However, in the period from January 2012, when the first document was uploaded, to August 2013 when Baidu acted to spread the documents without ever taking action against any infringement.
Concerning whether Baidu must have known the accurate information about the views and downloads of every document, under the current level of technology, when views and downloads of a file have achieved a certain scale, the network service provider could track information related to these popular documents. If there is a likelihood that these documents constitute copyright infringement, the network service provider should contact the uploader to check whether the said document is original, or whether the document is legally authorized by the owner. For these reasons, the court determined that Baidu should compensate 350,000 Yuan to Youth Book Inc.
Lawyer’s Comment:
A vertically-integrated website has a greater duty of care than a generalized website.
Baidu Library, developed by Baidu, provides a network service for users to share their documents with others. At the same time, Baidu provides an information storage service as well as an indexing and searching function, with many users searching the title and content of the documents and downloading them. Furthermore, Baidu also developed a rating system where users can award points based on the quality of the upload and then use these points to download other documents.
As the aforementioned books were uploaded by a network user instead of Baidu itself, Baidu should, acting as a service provider, theoretically not be required to undertake liability for copyright infringement. However, as a vertically-integrated search tool, Baidu should have a higher duty of care for the infringed documents in the Baidu Library. In this case, the judgment ruled that Baidu had a high duty of care with regard to those documents with a high number of views and downloads. For such a vertical service provider, it is fair to assume such high duty of care.
The amount of infringement compensation for other copyrighted works appears to have been improved.
It is true that China’s courts have applied a low compensation standard for copyright infringement. For example, a popular movie that was played by a pirate website may be ordered to compensate only 20,000 Yuan, and the producer of a hot sound recording could only be compensated 2000 Yuan. However, in this case, the amount of compensation of more than 10,000 Yuan for each book is a big breakthrough in practice.
In our opinion, this amount of compensation is good news for copyright owners, as they are always unsure of how best to combat network infringement. This ruling proves that China’s courts are attempting to strengthen the legal sanctions against literature piracy. Conversely, the huge difference in the amount of compensation awarded between cases further suggests that China lacks a rational compensation standard for copyright infringement. In the end, we truly hope that the courts can improve compensation for infringement as soon as possible.
Lawyer Contacts
You Yunting：86-21-52134918 youyunting@debund.com/yytbest@gmail.com
Disclaimer of Bridge IP Law Commentary
You Yunting：86-21-52134918 youyunting@debund.com/yytbest@gmail.com
Disclaimer of Bridge IP Law Commentary
Short Link: