Music wins the Millet box and then hit the gun

Music as sued millet box Pirates of its "harem Zhen

<< Biography >>, << romance 33 days >> and other ten films won the case, in the above cases, accounting for 70% of the works by the Haidian court ruled that the millet box will bear the joint and several liability.

From a number of video sites before the timing of prosecution, coincided with the millet has entered the layout of the living room screen from the phone screen, the intention behind the claim, on the one hand in order to safeguard their rights, on the other hand also intended to be behind the copyright war "living room war" .

It is understood that the recent lawsuit millet millet technology Pirates of the case, in all cases of prosecution of pirate cases of piracy for the first time won the case; the case of the victory means that in the box terminal in the future, even for the content providers infringement, the terminal manufacturers Will also be the corresponding responsibility.

According to the relevant materials of Haidian court, among the ten works in which LeTV accused Xiaomi Box of infringing its right to broadcast information, "Jinling 13", "I am a special soldier", "benevolent medical practitioner", "mother-in-law meets mother" "Man help", "hawthorn love", "Palace Lock heart jade" seven films, the court ruled that millet companies lose 150,000 yuan loss of music net.

In this series of cases, the most typical case is the case of Leslie Cheung, the case of "Leslie Cheung Chuan", as the exclusive distributor of the exclusive information network of "Leslie Cheung", while providing the on-demand service to the public for the millet box and infringes the legal status of LeTV rights and interests.

In fact, there have been many companies including Youku, including the prosecution of millet box Pirates of the broadcast, but Xiaomi response is that they are only hardware manufacturers and vendors, not content providers, the content by the future television companies unilateral and full power Responsible for the review, through the integrated broadcast platform and the network directly to the end user, so there is no infringement.

Why this time, Haidian court decided millet box must bear tort liability?

In the "First Financial Daily" Haidian court judgments obtained by the relevant judgments showed that although Xiaomi companies only provide hardware and technical services, but as a future and television companies with a single directional cooperation in the enterprise to provide massive genuine as the main promotional content , Using the Internet TV platform to promote its own products and services, and providing toll-free services to the platform through its Moxian system to share revenue with future TVs. Therefore, Xiaomi Co. should take joint and several liability for the enlarged part of the infringement. At the same time, Xiaomi Co. takes the administrative requirement of SARFT as an excuse and fails to take the necessary measures against the apparent infringement. Such a practice runs counter to the original intention of SARFT in issuing administrative rules and requirements.

Although the amount of judgment in this case is not large, the significance of the benchmark in this case far exceeds the economic significance. In this case, Wu Zi-fang, a lawyer with Beijing Dongwei Law Firm, believes that the case broke through the original verdict and ruled that the company is jointly and severally liable for the case, which means that the court has already ruled that both the terminal manufacturer and the content provider have infringed their rights. That is to say, in the future, all companies can not ignore the act of pirating content providers under the pretext of being their own terminal manufacturer.

For businesses that produce TV boxes, selling boxes is in some sense the same as selling content. Relevant experts in the smart TV industry think that this judgment has the vane significance for the future development of the TV box and the Internet TV so that some boxes or TV manufacturers that collaborate or cooperate with the platform clearly define the red line of infringement and are in favor of the Internet The healthy development of television industry.

However, despite the small amount of compensation in this judgment, it posed a serious problem to Xiaomi. Assuming that there is no content support for the millet box and the TV, it will change back to the traditional TV market with weak competition. Especially in the video site has basically established the pattern, millet, if no video content line support, it is difficult to make a difference in the box and television.

Triple play fusion expert, fusion network editor Wu Chun-yung told the "First Financial Daily" reporter said, "Especially with the Chinese OTT box market, the smart TV market and other information transmission channels of the rapid rise of such infringement cases will also be The current single to diversified, complex changes. "He predicted that no matter the OTT box or smart TV, the core of its information transmission channel for the Internet, the regulatory difficulty is greatly increased.