This time Baidu is really scared

Recently we in http://mp3.baidu.com no matter enter any keyword for search can not get any results, at first thought that Baidu internal failure caused, and even published such an article, this is not the case, but because Baidu is accused of music search infringement.
Http://hi.baidu.com/see7di/blog/item/f2c20338691210eab311c76c.html

The details are as follows.
Event: the "seven major recording companies sued Baidu MP3 for infringement" first-case judgment. In the end, the lawsuit against the seven major recording companies around the world was rejected. It is said that this is a lawsuit that affects multiple parties. Search Engine service providers, including China Telecom, are all paying unprecedented attention to this case, the record industry uses this case as a "far-reaching copyright case ". After the verdict of this case, there were various discussions and mixed reactions. Some people were surprised, excited, helpless, and expressed their understanding ...... (Excerpted from: Baidu MP3 infringement case first-case judgment of Global recording Giants lost)
The first-case judgment of the "seven major recording companies sued Baidu MP3 infringement cases" has been discussed by various parties. Several Legal persons have analyzed and interpreted the case, you are welcome to share your views on this matter:
Zhang Fan, a lecturer at Xiangfan University, is a associate researcher at the Center for Intellectual Property Studies at China University of Political Science and Law. He has been engaged in online legal teaching and research for a long time.
MP3 search Lawsuit
The world's seven major record companies sued Baidu for infringement, which seems unacceptable compared to the one that rose a year ago. However, the escalation case is still in the second review and there is no final result yet. In fact, the results of the second review are still unpredictable. However, from the rise to the provisions of the Regulation on protection of the right to communication of information networks, to the first-case judgment of the First Intermediate People's Court today, all reflect a trend: the nature of the search engine technology changed from "Help infringement" to "Technical neutral" by the administrative and judicial authorities ".
The biggest reason for the failure of the-degree bid case was that the court of first-case held that Baidu's webpage showed that the downloaded MP3 song came from Baidu. However, today, under the "Notice-Delete" program in the "Protection of Information Network Communication Rights Regulations", Baidu seems to have a very simple responsibility, which is also the cause of the loss of the seven major record companies in the world, they did not fulfill the "Notification" obligation under the "Notification-Delete" program, while Baidu is a search engine service provider technically neutral. In the case of negligence, you may be exempted from legal liability.
However, the legal issue of MP3 searching has not ended. The biggest question to be discussed now is whether Baidu orchestrates MP3 song directories and manually orchestrates infringing links? This raises questions about whether Baidu's current MP3 app is applicable to the "Notification-Delete" program, because this app is technically neutral from search engines, it is impossible to review the rights and attributes of the link information, but Baidu manually orchestrates the MP3 directory with obvious subjective intent. Therefore, the MP3 search lawsuit has to be fought.
Zhao fujun, content director of Internet Law Network, Bachelor of Law from Central South University, special member of the Information Network Law Research Association of Shanghai Law Association, and a part-time researcher at the Institute of Intellectual Property of China University of Political Science and Law.
Record companies VS search engines: Why did they lose after winning?
Seven major record companies, including global, Baidai, Warner, and Sony, sued Baidu MP3 for infringement. The court rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit and held that Baidu was not infringing. At this time, some people questioned and celebrated the lawsuit, I contacted the Shanghai busheng's decision to win the Baidu MP3 infringement case last year. What are the inconsistencies between the two statements?
First, the legislative and judicial background of litigation decisions has changed. When the Shanghai busheng Company v. Baidu infringement music copyright case was ruled in last September, the right of information network communication is only a conceptual legal right of the copyright holder. As to the scope, expression, and infringement of the right, the copyright holder is in the theoretical exploration stage. Therefore, Baidu is defeated by an auxiliary infringement judgment, however, in July 1 this year, the Regulation on protection of information network communication rights was implemented. The Regulation clearly stipulates that "network service providers provide search and Link Services, if the link to the infringing work is broken immediately after receiving the notice from the right holder, no liability is assumed. That is, the "safe haven" principle provides Baidu and other search engine providers with a legal justification, before the seven major recording companies performed their notices in advance-before the procedures were deleted, the Court was difficult to identify Baidu as having subjective faults, and rejection was inevitable;
Second, justice is a conservative force. In the face of the ever-changing IT network technology phenomenon, IT often shows helplessness and lag. However, after legislation is made, IT is sensitive and direct, in addition, the direction and ultimate goal of legislation and justice must be to promote the development of the new industry and will never be a hindrance. This may also be worth reflecting on the future litigation strategies of the seven major recording companies.
Li Junhui, a special researcher at the Intellectual Property Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, is mainly engaged in theoretical research and practical work in the field of information network law. He is committed to using words and actions to witness and promote the IT rule of law process in China.
MP3 search dispute case: Inspiration from the two judgments
Baidu and the seven major record companies filed a lawsuit against the MP3 Search Engine service. The lawsuit was rejected by the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court for the first time, and has come to an end. We will make a simple comparison between this first-case judgment and the previous first-case judgment of the same type of case "Shanghai busheng v. Baidu" to analyze the reasons.
In the case of "seven major recording companies v. Baidu", the court of first-case held that Baidu's legitimacy of the search content was not predictable, identifiable, or controllable. The MP3 search service provided by Baidu does not violate the subjective faults of others' information network transmission right.
Because the audition function is to display or display the search results, the purpose is to enable the queryer to identify and judge. The work to be tried and downloaded is not from the Baidu website, but from a third-party network server that has not been banned. Therefore, the Court held that MP3 auditions and downloads provided by Baidu and other search engine service providers do not infringe on the information network communication rights of record companies.
In the case of "Shanghai busheng v. Baidu", the court of first-case held that the defendant (Baidu) provided the MP3 file download service for the aforementioned songs (involved songs) on its website for profit purposes, the Act has exceeded the scope of its defined Search Engine service and prevented the plaintiff from spreading its recording products on the Internet. It shall be an infringement, therefore, the defendant shall immediately stop the infringement and assume the tort liability in accordance with the law to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses.
From the verdict, we can see that the two courts have slightly different focuses. First, the court of the "seven major recording companies v. Baidu" case mainly talks about the search engine service. In the "Shanghai busheng v. Baidu" Case, the Court paid more attention to Baidu's provision of MP3 download services for profit purposes. Second, in the case of "seven major recording companies v. Baidu", the Court held that these services were irrelevant to Baidu, whether they were search services or subsequent auditions and downloads, the reason is that the illegal file source is not stored on Baidu server. In the "Shanghai busheng v. Baidu" case, the Court held that Baidu automatically arranged its songs and so on, so that users could find infringing songs and download them without submitting a search service.
Obviously, the review and download services provided by the Search Service and the search service provider are still controversial in the Court's internal determination. We must see that Baidu and other search service providers provide MP3 searches, audios, and downloads, making the network a disaster recovery location for the music industry, it has brought a devastating blow to the development of China's digital music industry. If the final verdict in the case of "seven major record companies v. Baidu" is still the result of the loss of a record company, it will undoubtedly encourage the spread of illegal online music. The final victim is not only a record company, it is also the music industry and all Internet users.