Spreading music works on the Internet also constitutes infringement —— On copyright protection of online music works from Napster lawsuit Im3 and Napster.
MP3 is a new audio file compression standard. Because of its small size, less distortion and easy to spread, a CD made by this technology can accommodate hundreds of songs, and it has been recognized by the majority of users as soon as it appears. If the emergence of MP3 has become a revolution in the music record industry, then the birth of MP3 exchange software-Napster is an epoch-making event in the history of music communication.
Napster is a multifunctional tool software, which has the functions of searching, play online and online communication. Netizens can exchange their own music files in MP3 format with other netizens through Napster, so as to realize the enjoyment of music resources. Napster perfectly combines MP3 file format with Internet communication mode. After it appeared, it immediately swept the world. Up to now, it has nearly 40 million users, which is enough to change the sales model of traditional music and affect the music sales of major record companies.
Second, Napster litigation.
The emergence of a new technology will always have an impact on the whole law, among which there is no doubt that the laws related to intellectual property rights are the most affected. Copyright protection is widely used in music and its products all over the world. The appearance of MP3 and Napster once again makes us face such changes. Napster makes the spread of music convenient and fast, and the public does not have to pay for it, and the interests of record companies are infringed. This has formed a pair of contradictions.
Music producers, rights transferees and record companies bear the brunt, representing the interests of copyright owners. The users and disseminators of music works are the other side of the contradiction. Copyright owners should strive to safeguard their rights and interests in order to get the maximum benefit from their own creations and works. The public wants to get these things at the least cost, and copyright law is a tool to reconcile this contradiction. This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, copyright owners need to get benefits from their works to encourage further creation; On the other hand, it is necessary to spread the creative achievements among the public and give full play to their maximum benefits. The development of human history always repeats this process: the emergence of radio, the invention of video recording rights, and the emergence of photocopiers. The emergence of a new technology will always cause confusion in a certain period of time, and then the law will make the final adjustment. The balance of interests is the fundamental motive force and foundation for the existence and continuous development of copyright law.
Record companies must seek legal relief when their own interests are damaged. 199965438+In February, RIAA filed a lawsuit against Napster, the largest MP3 music exchange website on the Internet, on behalf of time warner Inc., Sony Music, Universal Music and EMI. Napster claims that it is only a network service provider and is not responsible for users' behavior. Moreover, according to the Family Recording Law of 1992(AHRA), (1) it is not a violation of the copyright law that his users * * * enjoy music files for non-commercial purposes, but a "fair use" of intellectual property rights-allowing people to copy music, files and artistic works for personal non-commercial purposes. (2)Napster regards itself as the mouthpiece of the music industry and thinks that their services can help the growth of the music market.
Third, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of the United States.
American courts are extremely cautious about this lawsuit, and the Supreme Court even thinks that "it should be decided by Congress", so the lawsuit in this case is quite difficult. After more than a year of marathon litigation, on February 12, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of the United States finally ruled that Napster must stop the music trading in copyright registration, and Napster may bear the "agency tort liability" because the Napster case is not inapplicable to DMCA. (3) According to the relevant provisions of DMCA, when the copyright owner has clear evidence to prove that he enjoys rights, the service provider has the obligation to stop the infringement, but does not assume the liability for compensation. The Court of Appeal also overturned the District Court's decision to close Napster.
It is worth mentioning that the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of the United States requires Napster to stop the infringement, not the service requested by the obligee. (4) There is an essential difference between the two: the consequence of stopping the infringement means that if the copyright owner points out to Napster that he is the right holder and provides relevant evidence, Napster must stop enjoying the service of the relevant music files. Stopping the service means that Napster's music exchange software itself is illegal. Napster must stop using Napster's music exchange software in addition to stopping the infringement.
It can be seen that although the judgment finds that Napster constitutes infringement, it is positive for the innovation of Napster's music communication mode and does not want to stifle the development of new technologies through judgment. In fact, this is in line with the interests of the plaintiff, the record company. As Bertelsmann Company of Germany said after its subsidiary formed an alliance with Napster, file sharing service provided an ideal marketing platform for music works and improved the artist's popularity in the public.
Therefore, the infringement of Napster may only mean the end of the free era of online music dissemination, not the death of Napster itself. (5)
Fourth, the enlightenment to us.
In fact, there have been similar cases in China. 1999, IFPA, on behalf of its global 1400 member companies, filed a lawsuit against several domestic websites providing MP3 uploading and downloading services. Later, the case was settled under the mediation of Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court, and the website involved deleted the infringing content and stopped making related links. At that time, the domestic research on the nature and legal significance of online copyright had just started, and the case in the United States had not yet reached a conclusion, so it was very difficult and unknown because of the low-key handling of all parties concerned.
Napster's loss has a global impact. Although foreign precedents are not legally binding on China. However, it should be noted that in recent years, the research and understanding of this field in all walks of life in China is gradually deepening. There will probably be a large number of similar lawsuits in the future, and domestic MP3 players should fully realize that online music also has copyright to avoid disputes and losses.
At present, MP3 related technology vendors can be roughly divided into three categories: hardware vendors, software vendors and websites. Because hardware manufacturers generally don't solidify music files on MP3 players, it mainly involves other intellectual property issues such as patents, which has nothing to do with the judgment of this case. (6) No discussion for the time being. At present, there are some MP3 softwares in China, which can be divided into two categories. One is a conversion tool, which is to convert music files into MP3 format. One is the search exchange tool, which is used to find MP3 files and provide exchange tools. However, I have always emphasized a problem in the previous analysis: the law should protect the interests of copyright owners, but it will not arbitrarily expand the scope of responsibility and prohibit the development and use of new technologies, so the problems faced by software vendors are not great.
Only websites that provide music file uploading and downloading services are the focus of the problem. Interpretation No.65438 issued by the Supreme People's Court in February, 2000 has absorbed a lot of foreign legal achievements of intellectual property network protection, especially the pre-determination of the responsibility of network service providers, which is basically consistent with the spirit of relevant provisions of DMCA in the United States. According to this explanation, websites should do the following as much as possible to avoid infringement:
1. For the music files provided by the website itself, it is necessary to obtain sufficient authorization, that is, to obtain the consent and written authorization of the copyright owner as much as possible, and at the same time pay attention to protecting the rights management information of the copyright files. The name, address, author's signature, copyright statement and other information of the publishing unit belong to "copyright management information", because the Interpretation stipulates that deleting or modifying "copyright management information" is also an infringement. (7)
2. For websites that upload music files, it is necessary to fully register the user identity, and once the infringement is found, sufficient evidence can be provided. The website itself should establish perfect service measures, check the content of the website regularly or irregularly, and delete the infringing content in time. If a network service provider takes timely measures to delete the infringing content, according to the provisions of Article 8 of the Interpretation, the network service provider shall not be liable for infringement.
3. When the copyright owner issues a warning to the website, it should be checked in time and take measures. According to the relevant provisions of the Interpretation, the copyright owner may request the Internet service provider to delete the infringing content. To achieve this goal, the copyright owner first needs to fulfill an obligation and put forward a "proof warning" to the network service provider. What is an "evidential warning"? Article 7 of the Interpretation stipulates that three kinds of certificates, namely, proof of identity, proof of copyright ownership and proof of infringement, are regarded as "conclusive evidence". Therefore, when a website receives such a warning, it should first check whether the supporting documents are complete, and if they are complete, it can delete the infringing content, so deleting the infringing content does not constitute a breach of contract between the website and the content provider.
4. Once the website is sued for infringement, effective measures should be taken to actively respond. Article 6 of the Interpretation stipulates a legal obligation of network service providers, and violation of this legal obligation constitutes infringement. This legal obligation means that when the copyright owner does have evidence to prove the infringement and makes a request to the network service provider, the network service provider has the obligation to provide the right holder with the registration information of the infringer on the network. In case of violation of this obligation, the people's court may investigate its tort liability according to Article 106 (8) of the General Principles of Civil Law.
5. Websites that only provide links cannot constitute infringement. The Interpretation doesn't define internet links as infringement, so merely providing links to MP3 websites can't be regarded as infringement. Because link is one of the fundamental characteristics of the Internet, without link, the Internet will lose its vitality.
Precautions:
1. Audio Home Recording Act 1992, which is the tenth chapter of the current copyright law in the United States.
2. It is similar to the "legal license" method for the use of copyright works determined by China's copyright law.
3. 1999 Digital Millennium Copyright Act promulgated by the United States.
4. There are two versions of news provided by domestic websites. The author found the judgment from the internet, and the content of the judgment, as quoted in the article, is to stop the infringement.
This can also be seen from the cooperation between Bertelsmann and Napster in Germany.
6. 1998 10, RIAA thinks that MP3 player equipment is one of the digital recording equipment that may constitute infringement, and according to AHRA, the diamond company which is the largest and earliest manufacturer of MP3 player equipment is brought to court. The court finally ruled that the defendant should deposit a certain right deposit with the US Copyright Office to distribute it to the relevant copyright owners as compensation, but at the same time, it believed that the losses suffered by the plaintiff were not "irreparable damage" and therefore refused to pay compensation. There is no such regulation in our country.
7. See the explanation of Article 9.
8. Article 106 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that citizens and legal persons who violate contracts or fail to perform other obligations shall bear civil liability.
Source: