Xiao Jia is the creator of a course video. Starting from September 6, 2023, Xiao Jia uploaded the course video to a video platform and sold it publicly at a fixed price, allowing buyers to watch it online on the designated platform. In April 2024, Xiao Jia discovered that Xiao Yi had unauthorizedly distributed the course video to the public via a Baidu Netdisk link at a significantly lower price than Xiao Jia's. After comparison, it was confirmed that the course video files stored in Xiao Yi's Netdisk link were identical in content to those published by Xiao Jia. Believing Xiao Yi's actions infringed upon his copyright, Xiao Jia filed a lawsuit in court, demanding compensation for damages.

Xiao Yi argued that the involved cloud storage link had been deleted, and the sales volume was extremely low, causing no substantial harm to Xiao Jia, thus he should not be liable for compensation.

The key issue in this case is whether the resale of others' course videos in the form of cloud storage links at a low price constitutes copyright infringement and should bear liability for compensation.

The court found, based on Article 10 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, which states: "Copyright includes the following personal and property rights: ... (12) the right of communication through information networks, namely the right to provide works to the public via wired or wireless means, enabling the public to access the works at their chosen time and location." Additionally, Article 3 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Infringement of the Right of Communication through Information Networks stipulates: "If a network user or service provider, without permission, provides works, performances, or audiovisual recordings that the rights holder possesses the right of communication through information networks via the internet, except where otherwise provided by laws or administrative regulations, the people's court shall determine that such conduct constitutes infringement of the right of communication through information networks. If a work, performance, or audiovisual recording is placed on the information network by uploading it to a server, setting up shared files, or using file-sharing software, enabling the public to access it at their chosen time and location through downloading, browsing, or other means, the people's court shall determine that the provider has engaged in the aforementioned provision behavior." It is evident that unauthorized "provision" of works through file-sharing methods such as cloud storage, enabling the public to access the works at their chosen time and location, constitutes infringement of the right of communication through information networks.

In this case, Xiao Jia is the creator of the involved course and legally possesses the right to disseminate information via the internet. Xiao Yi, without permission, sold the course to the public by delivering it through a cloud storage link, allowing purchasers to access the course content at any time by entering a retrieval code. This behavior essentially involves placing the work in the online space for public access, thereby infringing upon Xiao Jia's information dissemination rights for the course. Xiao Yi shall bear the liability for infringement and compensation.  Regarding Xiao Yi's defense that "the link has been deleted and no substantial damage was caused, so no compensation should be awarded," the deletion of the involved cloud storage link after the infringement occurred merely constitutes an act to cease the infringement and cannot exempt Xiao Yi from compensation liability. According to Article 54 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, when actual losses of the rights holder or illegal gains of the infringer are difficult to determine, the compensation amount for infringement of the right to disseminate information via the internet shall be determined by the people's court according to law, without requiring the occurrence of actual losses by the rights holder. Therefore, this defense by Xiao Yi is not supported by this court.

Ultimately, the court ruled that Xiao Yi should compensate Xiao Jia for the corresponding losses. After the first-instance judgment was rendered, both parties accepted the verdict without further appeal. The judgment has taken effect.

This article is reposted from the official account "Shandong Gao Fa," and we extend our gratitude for their permission!