Traditional Internet VS Mobile Internet: Any Difference in Law Application?

By Luo Yanjie

With the popularity of the smart phones in the modern society, we have seen an explosion development of the mobile internet. And by some statistics, the data traffic of the mobile terminal has occupied 10% of the total on the internet, which has been taken as the most important growth point of technology in the coming several years. Meanwhile, the explosion also adds fuel to the firing copyright piracy on the internet, and the convenience of the network also troubles the copyright owner in the right protection. And moreover, it also puzzles the copyright the law application in the mobile internet. Therefore, in today’s post, we would like to share our opinions and experiences on the issue:

I. The difference between the mobile internet and the traditional internet

The mobile internet is kind of combination of both mobile communication and internet. And technically, it could be defined as the access to the internet by the mobile devices like the cell phone or the tablet. But no matter the access is made through Wi-Fi or 3G net, the finally linked object is the internet. For instance, the Wi-Fi in the office or at home enables the connection of phone and PC which could also have a visit to the internet by the 3G net outside. Therefore, the difference between the traditional internet and the mobile internet is not determined by the network, but the devices used. And to the concept of internet, there is no separate mobile internet.

II. The application to the mobile internet by current law

Basing on the existing Copyright Law, I make the following conclusion:

1. Considering the right to the information communication by networks has covered the mobile internet, the Safe Harbor Privacy Principle and Red Flags Rule shall also be applied to it.

As discussed above, for the mobile internet is characterized with the mobile device used rather than the network visited, and since the current law has covered the mobile internet, it is unnecessary to grant the copyright owner a new right with a new legislation.

Now that it is regulated by the “right to the information communication by network”, in the domain of mobile internet, the copyright provider and the service provider shall also be entitled to exercise the Safe Harbor Privacy Principle and Red Flags Rule in the Protection Regulation of the Right to Information Communication by Networks.

2. It’s hard to distinguish “Mobile Internet” and “traditional internet” in right protection

The development of the mobile internet concept and the complexity of the internet itself may make the right owner face a intractable situation when exercising their rights. For instance, in the copyright license, we may find the situation where the right owner separately exercises the right to the information communication by networks, by which the both the transition in the traditional internet and the mobile internet is licensed by the owner. But for the commons shared by the different types of internet and the following development of the technology, such division may lead to the puzzle to some extent. Supposing under the same internet environment, it will be unreasonable to see the visit by computer could not constitute the infringement while the phone does. Also such cases are difficult to judge subjective, because the computer could fulfill the mobile system function and install the phone software with the visual machine and on the other hand the visit to PC pages is also available to mobile browsers.

For these reasons, despite the agreement of the net using shall be within the domain of autonomy of will and shall not be interfered by the law, to our personal opinions, it shall not act to against the third party. That means, when a link is provided by others, like a link for PC terminal is provided to users of cell software and with the technological method the users gain the contents which could only got by the PC users, then it generally shall be liability free for there could rarely be the way for a third party judging the license methods by others. Surely, such liability free shall not be applied in the case where the third party is fully aware of the infringement, but such awareness shall be set with a high standard like on the notice of the right owne of the licensed party.

III. Impossible to distinguish the mobile internet and the traditional internet

More and more equipment could get connection to the internet with the development of the technology, like the CLOUD TV. And the reason why so many people would take there’s a vacancy in law application, including the difficulty in right exercise as described above, is they tend to separate the mobile internet from the traditional one.

But we hold a contrary opinion to it. It’s truly unnecessary to distinguish the Internets, and as said, no matter with what device or through what method, the result is the internet connection. And either from the aspect of nature of the communication methods, so far we have seen little difference between the traditional internet and the mobile internet. And when the right owner exercising the rights, no division or separation shall be made for the right owner has no access to control the connection way by the licensed party.

Lawyer Contacts

You Yunting

86-21-52134918

youyunting@debund.com, yytbest@gmail.com

For further information, please contact the lawyer as listed above or through the methods in our CONTACTS.

Bridge IP Law Commentary’s posts, including the comments and opinions contained herein, shall not be construed as the legal advice on any issues related. The contents are for general information purposes only. Anyone willing to quote or refer the posts to any other publications or for any other purposes, no matter there’s benefits gained or not, shall first get the written consent from Bridge IP Law Commentary and used under the discretion of us. As to the application of the reprint permission for any of our posts, please email us to the above addresses. The publication of this post or transmission of it through mail, internet or other methods does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth here are of due diligence, neutrality and impartiality, representing our own opinions only and are our original works.

Short Link: