Fast play against Shenzhen regulatory Bureau, call ticket
Original title: fast unicast request the Shenzhen authority to cancel 260 million tickets
On June 26 this year, the Shenzhen market authority (hereinafter referred to as the market regulatory authority) on fast play, Shenzhen science and technology company limited (hereinafter referred to as multicast) out of the 260 million dollars “through ticket”. yesterday, the fast play the plaintiff versus defendant market Oversight Office to cancel a fine of 260 million yuan in administrative litigation case in the Shenzhen intermediate people’s Court heard. Two days of trial, the defendant will be in court to “history’s most expensive Internet copyright infringement on administrative fines” are lawful, reasonable debate. Result of commercial secrets, the case was not heard in public.
Fast play claims, on June 26, 2014, the Shenzhen supervision Bureau on fast play amounted to 260.148 million dollars out of the ticket, and ordered to fast play to stop the infringing act immediately. Fast play after receiving the administrative sanctions, administrative reconsideration, but was rejected by the copyright Bureau of Guangdong Province. Penalties for market supervision Council, fast play to take proceedings before a court, asked the Court revokes the market authority the decision on administrative penalty made on June 26, 2014.
Shenzhen market regulatory board were of the view that the decision on administrative penalty made the facts clear, irrefutable evidence and applied the law correctly, programs, legal, requests the Court to dismiss the fast play claims.
Text/Guangzhou daily reporter Wang Na
Court debates focus
Fast play VS market supervisory authority
1 fast play haven principle can apply?
Fast play believes that its safe haven principle should be applied. So-called safe haven principle is when the Internet service provider only provides space services, not Web content, if the alleged infringement of its links, store, in that they can prove that they meant no harm, and promptly remove infringing links or content of the case, network service providers are not liable for.
Accordingly, the fast play believes that only provide services such as search, linking, utility services, to link works if the infringement does not know, there is no subjective fault. Shenzhen Tencent computer system limited (hereinafter “company”) to whom a notice of infringement, fast play delete measures have been taken.
Authority considered that the Shenzhen market, fast play with infringement of subjective intent and committed the infringement of the right to network dissemination of information act. Fast play over the network from the more obviously cannot be authorized specifically to provide active capture playback address piracy works website and established chains, recommended by a categorized, sorted, and compiled into fast play in mobile terminal equipped with Yun-fan site for searching for users. These facts show that the fast play has obvious intent. In addition, Tencent was sent three times fast play, affirms its right to seek cessation of infringement. But when the Shenzhen market supervisory authority for investigation, fast play continued to established chains, edit the infringing work.
2 market authority has no right to punish?
Fast play believes that Shenzhen supervision Bureau on fast play, the punishment was not entitled to penalties as denial of penalties. Because broadcast companies such as Tencent copyright, that only a civil tort, not harmful to the public interest. According to the 48th article of the Copyright Act‘s provisions, only violations when the harm to the public interest, entitled to administrative departments in order to exercise the right of administrative law enforcement, therefore, the market authority has no right to be punished.
Secondly, the fast play the infringing Web site links are numerous and scattered, undermines law and order to protect the copyright.
3-260 million Yuan is legitimate?
Fast play, on December 27, 2013, the national copyright administration for infringement, as the network administrative punishment case of the right to network dissemination of information. Market supervisory authority in March 2014, against violations of the right to network dissemination of information about, and then make a decision, does not comply with the provisions in administrative enforcement of law without being punished.
In addition, fast play believes that 260 million yuan in punishment inappropriate and unreasonable. In this case, the market supervisory authority in accordance with the “13 works 86.716 million Yuan authorized average price total” as the basis for determination of the defendant’s illegal business turnover, up to 3 times times the fines, which is obviously wrong. Relevant judicial interpretations have been clearly specified amounts of illegal business operations, does not require authorization as illegal operation amount.
Market supervision Council thinks, NCA’s decision is aimed at sowing and violations of music depending on the interests of the company, is on fast play violations of Tencent in this case in connection with the work made on the right of communication through information network, covered by two penalties decided the infringed works completely different and, therefore, does not belong to the same infringement in the case of repeated penalties.
Market authority considers, fast play, although not to the watch the commercials charging users and does not appear in the video, but the profit is obtained by other forms of supplementary remain illegal business turnover, the market authority on fast play of the correctness of the determination of the amount of the illegal business turnover. Market supervisory authority after careful investigation determined that broadcast illegal business turnover 86.716 million Yuan, three times the amount of the fine penalty is appropriate.
Via: NetEase science and technology Source: Guangzhou daily