Watching movies, TV dramas, sports events with you, reading novels for you, and teaching you how to cook and do handicrafts... Currently, live streaming on the internet, as a highly interactive video entertainment method, is loved by many users. However, it is worth noting that these online live streaming application scenarios may constitute a new type of infringement. In recent years, the Beijing Internet Court has accepted cases involving webcast copyright, including live entertainment, e-commerce live broadcast, live reading, live teaching and other scenes. The infringement modes in different scenes are also different. The live streaming platform provides live streaming and playback services for film and television works in the form of "accompanying you to watch", or constitutes infringement of the exclusive information network dissemination rights and rights protection rights of a certain popular TV drama enjoyed by a certain online company. However, the internet company discovered that a certain technology company has set up a "Accompany You to Watch" section on its website, providing broadcasters with film and television works, allowing broadcasters to accompany internet users to watch the involved TV dramas and provide playback services. The work involved in the case has extremely high market value. In order to obtain legal authorization, the company incurred high copyright fees and high promotion costs. ”The internet company believes that the behavior of a certain technology company has infringed its right to information network dissemination and caused huge losses, so it has filed a lawsuit with the court demanding that the technology company compensate for its economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding its rights. We only provided neutral technical services and did not directly provide the works involved, nor did we manually review, edit, recommend or modify the works involved. ”A certain technology company argued that it has fulfilled its reasonable review and management obligations by providing online live streaming platform services, and has not committed any infringement, and should not be held liable for compensation. Is it technology neutrality or infringement? The court ruled that a certain technology company set up a "Accompany You to Watch" section and promised to provide corresponding film and television resources to the anchor, with the aim of increasing user stickiness and ultimately obtaining business benefits through the above-mentioned business activities. This business behavior is not equivalent to its claim of only providing online live streaming platform services, and the risk of infringement by the anchor has already been recognized. The court determined that a certain technology company uses the "Accompany You to Watch" section as a website business model, allowing users to save live streaming and playback videos, and has noticed the copyright infringement risks arising from this business model. Therefore, the technology company should bear the obligations and responsibilities that match the profits obtained from this business model. Therefore, the company's behavior constitutes infringement of information network dissemination rights, and the court ordered compensation of a total of 80000 yuan for the economic losses and reasonable expenses of the network company. Against the backdrop of continuous innovation in service models and improvement of user experience on live streaming platforms, this case further clarifies the judicial attitude of not infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of others under the guise of innovation and not seeking improper benefits under the guise of service. ”Beijing Internet Court Zhu Ge introduced. Does the live streaming method of "accompanying you to watch" constitute infringement if the anchor broadcasts the TV or online TV series in real time? The behavior of broadcasters accompanying online users to watch film and television works during live broadcasts, if not authorized, will constitute infringement of broadcasting rights. Zhu Ge reminded that broadcasters should strengthen their legal awareness, adhere to the principle of "authorization before use", and strengthen self-regulation. Unauthorized live streaming of books by broadcasters constitutes infringement, and the platform timely and effectively manages it without assuming legal responsibility. Currently, some broadcasters attract users through "live streaming of books" without authorization from the authors of their written works in order to increase the popularity of their live streaming rooms and monetize their traffic. The case of Zhang suing a live streaming platform and anchor Liu is like this. Zhang is the copyright owner of a certain novel, and Liu is the anchor of a certain live streaming platform. Without authorization, Liu broadcasted a novel in a certain live room and provided the live content for unspecified netizens to play at a selected time during the live replay. Liu broadcasted novels without authorization, and the live streaming platform profited from the content of the anchor's lectures, constituting joint infringement. ”Zhang filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the live streaming platform and Liu apologize and jointly compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights. The court ruled that the alleged infringement, which allows the public to watch Liu's live program simultaneously through a live streaming platform, constitutes an infringement of the broadcasting rights of the copyright owner of the written work. Regarding Liu's provision of live streaming playback, it conforms to the characteristics of providing works to the public through wired or wireless means, so that the public can obtain the works at their own chosen time and place, which infringes on Zhang's right to information network dissemination of the involved works. Liu is ordered to compensate Zhang for economic losses and reasonable expenses of more than 20000 yuan. Should live streaming platforms bear joint and several liability? According to the backend records submitted by Zhang Lianyong, which show the deletion time and the sending time displayed in the response email from the live streaming platform, the live streaming platform has already deleted the video in question at a reasonable time and fulfilled the reasonable duty of care of the network service provider. Therefore, Zhang Lianyong's lawsuit request for the live streaming platform to assume joint liability is not supported. The development of emerging formats such as live streaming and audiobooks cannot cross the red line. ”Zhu Ge said that online live streaming platforms should take necessary measures to promptly and effectively manage infringing accounts, based on their relationship with online hosts, control over live streaming content, and level of participation. They should bear direct infringement or assist in infringement liability in accordance with the law, or not bear liability in accordance with the law. When using someone else's recorded products as background music during live streaming sales, compensation should be paid to the recording creators. The Collective Management Association is a copyright collective management organization, and after authorization, has the right to obtain compensation for the involved recorded products and protect rights against infringement in accordance with the law. Company B is the operating entity of a well-known e-commerce live streaming account. During the live streaming sales, it played the involved song as background music, but did not pay any usage fees to the Collective Management Association of Company A. The A Collective Management Association advocates that Company B compensate for its economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding its rights. According to the Copyright Law, if a sound recording is used for wired or wireless public transmission, or for public broadcasting through technical equipment for transmitting sound, remuneration shall be paid to the sound recording producer. In the era of digital economy, online live streaming is an important type of behavior regulated by the aforementioned terms. ”The presiding judge Xiong Zhigang said that in this case, Company B, as the operating entity of a well-known e-commerce live streaming account, used the involved song as background music during the live streaming and did not pay any compensation to the plaintiff, and should bear legal responsibility for compensating for losses. In the end, the court ruled that Company B should compensate the Collective Management Association A for economic losses and reasonable expenses of more than 800 yuan. The works involved in the copyright case of online live streaming cover common types such as music works, audio-visual works, and written works. Among them, there are relatively high cases of music works being infringed, and singing other people's songs in live streaming rooms and playing other people's songs as background music are still the main ways of infringement. ”Jiang Ying, president of the Beijing Internet Court, said that this reflected that the operation of the live broadcasting industry was highly dependent on music works, but a mature music works live broadcasting authorization model had not yet been formed. The Beijing Internet Court reminded that platforms and anchors should firmly establish the awareness of "authorization before use", and actively seek authorization and pay authorization fees when using other people's music, film and television clips or files; When there is a dispute over infringement, timely measures should be taken to resolve it, and active adjustments should be made to avoid the occurrence of secondary infringement. (New Society)