Music as the pinnacle of mutual support when millet is the end

Recently, according to the Voice of the Economy, "The World Company" reported that Internet companies seem to particularly like pinch planes, and the latest Internet pinch-rack incident is as optimistic about millet. A few days ago, the Beijing Haidian Court ruled that the box of rice infringed on the information network broadcasting rights of seven film and television works of LeTV and compensated LeTV for 150,000 yuan. Although won the lawsuit, but seems to be enough to let the music, they are ready to shot again.

Liu Xiaoqing, director of music as legal affairs, said that so far, there are more than 60 infringement millet box movie and TV series without shelves, and in some media rumors to divert attention, bad attitude. This week, LeTV will continue to file a copyright lawsuit against Xiaomi. Today, Liu Fei, public relations department of millet company, said to "World Company" that the legal subject of LeTV should be icntv:

Liu Fei: Because we are in strict accordance with the document No. 181 compliance broadcast control agreement, millet does not have the video content operations (qualification), all video content is provided by the licensee, so the subject of the litigation should in fact be Videovision icntv, millet is jointly and severally liable. He said we pirated, I think this is nonsense, we are done in accordance with state regulations, the recent progress is that we will and icntv, to appeal this matter.

According to the document No.191 of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, Xiaomi Company believes that the millet box must cooperate with a licensed Internet TV broadcasting platform such as iCNTV, and can only access the video content through a broadcasting platform to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. In other words, what is on the iCNTV platform, there is nothing in the millet box, so millet can not deliberately pirate other people's content. So, is iCNTV pirated music? Liu Fei, public relations department of millet company said that this needs to be determined by the court:

Liu Fei: He has been evaded, broadcast source is in icntv there, we can not directly pirated music, icntv is not piracy? Because they were originally content partners, before the court did not judge, how can we determine icntv is pirated him? The key to him clearly, in the end he and icntv is going on, in the end he is not with the icntv canceled cooperation, how to give the original contents of the content with the icntv content music as the old users, because the pre-closed a year or two years Fare, how can this content be guaranteed? I think this issue only music can answer.

Earlier, millet companies have expressed their views through a statement, and now they have to jointly iCNTV filed an appeal. In this regard, music and what is the response? Now, we live stream connection news party music as legal director Liu Xiaoqing. Originally thought to be music and millet there is a lawsuit between, may now join a third party icntv, just heard that millet said, as the subject of music seems to be the wrong music, it should be icntv. As the music side this side agree with such a view?

Liu Xiaoqing: For this statement of millet, we think it is an argument to evade responsibility. Millet millet boxes of this product, millet millet products company is the direct sales and operator box. In fact it is the first defendant, but also the first responsible person, several judgments in the court, apparently a few key words is very important, first, it believes that Xiaomi box products provide massive genuine works as the main propaganda content, and Through its system development, the platform to provide fee-based support, and future TV companies to share revenue. In fact these few keywords is the main content of the infringement millet, also found its infringement facts. The court's decision is obviously a common infringement. Therefore, this understanding of Xiaomi apparently does not accord with the court's ruling and the facts found. The so-called joint and several liability in terms of law, it is a burden of joint tort liability, presumably it contains several meanings. First, it is a common ground, and second, is the common implementation of behavior, and the third is to damage the common result. Obviously millet in all three have, and the court's decision to stop the infringement of millet, in fact the implication is that millet content control, subjective malicious, should bear the tort liability, so the argument is millet Emancipation of the argument.

Before seeing millet said that they have this content with icntv is cooperation, that icntv something, millet box can take over these things directly, how to see this point?

Liu Xiaoqing: Actually, in the whole matter, millet come out with a contract agreement with icntv music, the court also clearly determine the verdict above, the music as icntv cooperation only contains music zone, does not include millet with icntv current this cooperation mode, Does not include this category. Obviously this can not have enough evidence, but now seems to be using a millet policy as a shield, in fact, the control is an administrative control of the administrative rules. Content or to yourself or authorized. Apparently did not give music millet this license, did not give any third party authorization, it allows such a way with millet cooperation. Millet can not say that selling a box, he gave the majority of users in the box, it must be content-based sales, if there is no content or from the content, the box will be an empty box, there can be no market. So I can not say that I took the proceeds and then evaded my responsibility. This is a conscience experience that does not conform to social rules.

Millet icntv together to appeal, on this matter and icntv music before there is a communication? What kind of view each holds on this issue?

Liu Xiaoqing: For millet previously had to appeal the issue, as the same music will respect their right to appeal, we are in the second instance, will be very strict to continue our rights. For millet there is still a lot of piracy, Music has now started a new lawsuit that will likely sue millet a defendant, then we have to look at millet on this matter, the court is how to determine its infringement. If the court directly determines that millet has the infringement of responsibility, this time asked millet not to say how innocent oneself, or the so-called joint.

The music video millet, is the wrong person? Just as the music side also has a response, which in the end is pulled what the gourd?

Zhang Chunwei: I think LeTV and Millet fight is a copyright lawsuit, but Millet was sentenced to compensation 150,000, how to see such a result is to kill chicken monkeys, like LeTV box for all other boxes in the box, a vigilance, Let everyone be careful not to touch my fire rope. But I think a deeper level, that is, they always mention the icntv, in fact, music and millet are around it, carefully not want to have a positive conflict with it, so this is a copyright dispute more like Ah Q and younger brother In dispute, this is my sphere of influence, this is your sphere of influence. But in any case, Ah Q and younger brother has never solved the problem of copyright licenses, the reason why I dare not go positive and icntv friction, what is the core? It is a licensee. As a content provider with a license, anyone can not easily offend it. However, it must be playing millet because it not only spans the rivers of communication but also the rivers of the living rooms of intelligent families . In fact, we have seen LeTV in the past few years, it has been successful for the smart TV industry prices fell by 30%. And the performance of the first half of this year, Skyworth is a 16% decline in profits such a few statements to illustrate that we have seen the smart TV to the entire industry is a loss of blood. Therefore, now more hope to protect music is his own long-term copyright, so it is not necessarily against millet copyright, just be wary of millet, we must carry out an industry standard, you can not be more in-depth access to my field.

The reason why Internet companies will pinch frame, usually because they have business in a cross, there is competition. This conflict between LeTV and Xiaomi is no exception. LeTV is devoted to building a complete ecosystem of "platform + content + terminal + application" of the video industry and intelligent terminals. Millet entered the Internet box and smart TV across industries. Not long ago, it took 31.8% shares of Thunder to make up for the millet In the content of the short board, which basically finished millet ecological layout.

Peer is the enemy, music and millet ecological layout, there are too many conflicts of interest, so both sides see each other as rivals and enemies. According to Wang Ruchen, an IT commentator, the copyright dispute is only a superficial phenomenon. In the future, the two companies will surely have even more fierce conflicts:

Wang Ruchen: copyright is only the surface, just a starting point, for music, the copyright is that it has the advantage part, grasping this part of the capacity of how much compensation? 150,000 it! In fact, very few. It is just a deterrent, while dwarfing the competitiveness of millet content. Copyright is just an excuse, the two companies have not started fighting, but the future will come to this stage.