According to the microblog of Changjiang Daily, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently rejected the appeal of HowNet in the second instance of the dispute between China Academic Journal (CD version) e-magazine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "HowNet") and Zhou xiuluan over the infringement of the right to network communication of works. Microblog screenshot On May 7, China judicial documents network announced 10 civil judgments of second instance on the dispute between HowNet and Zhou xiuluan over infringement of the right to network communication of works information. These final judgments were made by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on April 28. According to the Wuhan client, Zhou xiuluan, who will celebrate her 94th birthday next month, is a retired professor at Zhongnan University of economics and law with her husband Zhao Dexin. Zhou xiuluan also chose to protect her rights after Zhao Dexin included more than 100 articles on HowNet without authorization. Image source: video screenshot of the Yangtze River As the first author, Zhou xiuluan's articles on refuting the theory of "market supply is not as good as it used to be" - reading history and newspapers (about 11000 words), "how high the level of agricultural production in the Han Dynasty - discussing with Comrade Ning Ke" (about 7000 words), "three issues about cloth coins - reading notes on the golden cloth law of Qin bamboo slips from Yunmeng to the soil" (about 8000 words) were published in the first issue of politics and economy in 1960 The second issue of Jianghan forum in 1979 and the fourth issue of Social Science Front in 1980. In November 2021, the Beijing Internet court made a first instance judgment on the dispute between Zhou xiuluan and HowNet over the infringement of the right to network dissemination of works information: it ruled that HowNet would compensate Zhou xiuluan for a single article ranging from 2100 yuan to 2400 yuan; For each case, HowNet will also bear Zhou xiuluan's notarization fee of 29 yuan and lawyer's fee of 1000 yuan. In the first instance, the Beijing Internet court held that the scope of influence of the infringement involving HowNet was large and the degree of subjective fault was obvious; The number of words of the article involved in the case shall be determined according to the number of words in the page, less than 1000 words shall be calculated according to 1000 words and other relevant factors. The amount of compensation for economic losses shall be fully considered and the amount shall be appropriate. HowNet later refused to accept the judgment of the court of first instance and appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. One of the reasons for HowNet's appeal is that the amount of compensation is too high. Photo source: screenshot of the judgment of Beijing Intellectual Property Court There are four main controversial issues in these 10 cases: whether the network reading and downloading services provided by HowNet constitute infringement; Whether the sued use of HowNet constitutes a legal license; Whether zhouxiuluan obtained evidence from different communication ports and prosecuted them separately constituted repeated litigation; Whether the judgment of the court of first instance on the amount of economic losses and reasonable expenses that HowNet should compensate is reasonable. For the above disputes, the court held that: HowNet infringed Zhou xiuluan's right to information network communication of the works involved, and should bear the liability for tort compensation; The act that HowNet uploads the works involved and allows network users to download does not constitute a legal license for the reprint of periodicals; The scope of transmission of different terminals is different, and the damage caused and the scope of compensation that can be claimed are also different. It is not improper for Zhou xiuluan to notarize and obtain evidence and file lawsuits respectively; The court of first instance supported reasonable expenses such as lawyer's fees and notarization fees after equal sharing, with sufficient basis and appropriate amount. In the second instance, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the facts in the first instance judgment were clear and the application of law was correct, which should be maintained; The appeal of HowNet cannot be established and shall be rejected. According to item (1) of paragraph 1, article 177 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the final judgment of "rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment". (Xinhua News Agency)
Edit：Li Ling Responsible editor：Chen Jie
Source：National Business Daily
Special statement: if the pictures and texts reproduced or quoted on this site infringe your legitimate rights and interests, please contact this site, and this site will correct and delete them in time. For copyright issues and website cooperation, please contact through outlook new era email：lwxsd@liaowanghn.com
Sci-Tech
Recommended Reading Change it 
Home
