Would Tencent Take the Copyright of Contents Published by Users on WeChat?

u=1067239759,558848060&fm=21&gp=0

(By You Yunting) Recently, a news report titled “My WeChat, But Not My Copyright?” (note: the article is in Chinese) has raised wide suspicion over the copyright of the messages posted on WeChat, a LBS messaging software by Tencent. The reporter checked the User Agreement of Tencent and interviewed a representative from the company. Unfortunately, ultimately the reporter was still unable to reach a conclusion  on the copyright ownership for messages posted on WeChat.

The author also examined the User Agreement of Tencent’s WeChat, and verified the dou
bt of the reporter. With regards to the copyright ownership of the content published by the user, Tencent’s User Agreement included very little information  and does not answer the question. As regulated in Article 11.1 of Tencent Service Agreement and Article 9.1 of Tencent Public Platform Service Agreement:

READ MORE

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

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

Is It Illegal for Microsoft to Use Firefox with Firebug Plugin in Evidence Preservation in China?

According to news reports, Microsoft along with Autodesk, filed a lawsuit in the Foshan Intermediate Court (note: the link is in Chinese) against a renowned company admitted in Foshan City, claiming computer software copyright infringement. The plaintiffs stated that the accused company had been using their software without any licenses or approvals. Based on this, the plaintiffs demanded compensation of RMB 8 million yuan, elimination of influence, cessation of infringement, and an apology. This case is not black and white and the court certainly has its own opinions, but today I would like to take this chance to discuss how to determine the legitimacy of evidence collection in cases of computer software infringement.

READ MORE

Encyclopedia vs Apple: Why AppStore Could Not Ship into Safe Harbor?

By You Yunting

As reported by media, Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court made the first instance decision for infringement claims made by Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (Encyclopedia) agains Apple’s AppStore. With the decision, Apple shall compensate Encyclopedia RMB 520, 000 yuan and immediately cease the infringement. In current, no intention to appeal has been expressed by Apple.

Case: Encyclopedia discovered Apple’s user could purchase and download apps of its copyrighted works, which could be read in iPhone and iPad. With the anger of the infringement, Encyclopedia filed a lawsuit against Apple, who counter-stroke that the actuall operator of AppStore is a company registered in Luxembourg, not Apple. And Apple provided no services in the process of software uploading, and therefore Apple shall be with no engagement in the dispute.

READ MORE

Legal Risk of Unlicensed User Data Disclosure by Internet Companies

By Albert Chen

It has been a chronic social problem that personal information could be released with no license, and that has brought widely seen information harassment, also a threat to the security of personal asset. The Economic Investigation Squad of Shanghai Police Department published a case in recent, in which the crime of illegally selling personal information has been investigated, and there involved more than 200 million pieces of information and thousands of corporate information. In an era of information, the Internet companies have a wide command of personal data compared with normal companies. Therefore, through today’s post, we would like to express our opinions on the risk and risk prevention of the information leakage.

READ MORE

App Store: Duty Free for Safe Harbor Principle in China?

By You Yunting

In March of 2012, 22 Chinese authors filed a lawsuit against Apple in Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court and claimed  compensation of more than ten million. In the case, the plaintiffs stated that their works have been adapted into apps used on iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch, free of being charged at App Store. The case is the first lawsuit with the operator of App Store being the defendants, and will produce a prominent influence on the newly developed online store, which was launched in 2008 and with more than 360 million users . Now the litigation is under the spotlight, and this essay is focusing on the legal status of Apple and the defects in the process complaints of the store.

READ MORE

Analysis on the Copyright Infringement on Microblog

On 30th December, the Annual Conference of Sohu Weibo Client (weibo is just kind of microbloggng service like twitter in China), 2011 was held in Beijing, and Sohu (NASDAQ: SOHU) first issued the Weibo Copyright Protection Convention among the four main microblogging platforms in China, which verifies that the author may enjoy the copyright over its tweets, and accordingly Sohu will provide protecton on it, respect its authorized use and offer aids in the legal protection. However, for the tweets tend to be brief, therefore its protection by Copyright Law has been long argued. And here is the analysis from Bridge IP Law Commentary on it.

READ MORE