406 million punitive compensation, jurisdictional objections ... What are the "knowledge points" of the CBA incident involving the CBA in station B?

New Yellow River Reporter: Giyuanyuan

Recently, a Civil Ruling of Shanghai Kuan Entertainment Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and China Basketball Union (Beijing) Sports Co., Ltd. (later referred to as the "Ruling") issued by the Beijing Higher People's Court and the China Basketball Union (Beijing) Sports Co., Ltd. caused the public Discussion, in the case of suspected infringement disputes, the most eye -catching thing is the largest claim amount in the history of Chinese sports copyrights, which involves 406 million. Words have also become a hot topic now. At present, the defendant's station B has not yet made any response. The case is still in the trial stage, and information such as the final victory and specific compensation amount remains to be announced.

The "theft" cases of sports events have emerged endlessly, and Station B is not the first time

According to relevant media reports, the scale of the Chinese sports competition performance in 2020 was about 31.84 billion yuan, and the size of sports live broadcast users was 138 million, and they were continuously growing. According to relevant research reports, the piracy to the Premier League club brought at least 1 million pounds of losses per game. La Liga officials believed that the piracy caused by a year caused a loss of more than $ 400 million. In addition, due to the blurred legal definition and the protection of the copyright protection of the online live broadcast of sports events, although the new "Copyright Law" has significantly strengthened the protection of relevant rights and laws, it is not easy to manage the Internet. In recent years, such sports events in recent years. The "stealing" case has been endlessly.

In April 2020, CCTV sued Shanghai Juli Media Technology Co., Ltd. Copywal for copyright and anti -unfair competition disputes. Yuan, a rational expenditure of rights protection of 150,000 yuan; in June 2021, the People's Court of Shanghai Pudong New District made a judgment on the copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes of China United Network Communications Co., Ltd. In the end, the defendant compensated the plaintiff's economic loss of 30,000 yuan and 10,000 yuan reasonable expenses ...

In fact, this time is not the first time that Station B has fallen into copyright disputes. According to media reports, Shanghai Phantom Electric Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Kuang Entertainment Digital Technology Co., Ltd., a physical operation company at station B from 2014 to 2016, encountered more than 20 lawsuits related to copyright disputes; After the listing, the number of copyright disputes related to the video platforms such as Tencent, iQiyi, Youku, LeTV and other video platforms has increased rapidly. People interview.

As of press time, the reporter of Xinhuanghe submitted an interviewal needs in accordance with the requirements of Station B, and Station B has not responded to any response to the CBA's infringement prosecution.

4.06 million "biggest claims in history"? It's just that B1 q1 revenue is 8%

406 million claims, the largest claim amount in China's sports copyright infringement case. Compared with the less than tens of thousands or millions of claims of the two sports copyright infringement cases in 2021, 406 million is undoubtedly far beyond. So this claim amount came from? What does it mean to station B?

The "Copyright Law" and its judicial interpretation stipulate that without the permission of the copyright owner and the implementation of the violations of copyright and the rights related to copyright, it shall bear civil liability such as compensation for losses. Regarding the calculation of compensation losses, the infringer shall be compensated according to the actual loss of the right holder; if the actual loss is difficult to calculate, compensation may be given according to the illegal income of the infringer. The amount of compensation shall also include the reasonable expenditure paid by the right holder to stop the infringement. If the actual loss of the right holder or the illegal income of the infringer cannot be determined, the people's court will give compensation for less than 500,000 yuan according to the plot of the infringement.

According to the contents of the "Ruling", Station B has been obtained to 281 CBA videos involved in the case, involving 167 CBA competitions, and 416 highlights of the season of the season. The length is equivalent to 54 CBA league games; the above 221 games. The CBA company sold the copyright price of three new media such as Migu, including Migu in the 2019-2020 season, which is 170 million yuan per game, which is equivalent to about 350,000 yuan in copyright use per game. The license fee for the copyright of 221 games reached 78 million yuan.

In addition, according to the punitive compensation mechanism stipulated in the new "Copyright Law" in 2021, "the infringer maliciously played the audiovisual works of others' rights, the actual losses of the right holder, the illegal income of the infringer, and the use fee for permitted use fees can be Based on the calculation method, it is judged 1 to 5 times to give compensation. " Based on this, the CBA company advocates that the amount of compensation should be three times the amount of compensation, that is, 236 million yuan.

In addition, the CBA company believes that there are improper competition in Station B. According to relevant laws, the loss of competitive interests caused by it should refer to the overall commercial cooperation broadcast right cost of the season, that is, 170 million yuan. Coupled with the cost of evidence collection and litigation costs 570,000, the total amount of compensation for CBA companies is 406 million yuan.

What does huge claims mean to station B? According to Bilibili in the first quarter of 2022, its total revenue was 50.54 billion yuan, an increase of nearly 30%(29.56%) year -on -year. Among them, gross revenue was 807 million yuan, a decrease of more than 10%from the first quarter of last year; operating costs exceeded 4.2 billion yuan, and sales management costs were close to 2.8 billion yuan; net profit was -2.282 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 152.56%. In other words, the 406 million yuan claimed by the CBA company is about 8%of the revenue in the first quarter of 2022. Suspected of intentional infringement? Let's take a look at what the new "Copyright Law" says

Article 54 of the New "Copyright Law" stipulates that if it violates copyright or rights related to copyright, the infringer shall be compensated by the actual loss of the right holder or the illegal income of the infringer; the actual loss of the right holder or the infringer If it is difficult to calculate the illegal income, it can be compensated by referring to the use fee. If the circumstances that deliberately infringe on copyright or related to copyright, the circumstances are serious, and can be compensated by more than double the amount of the amount in accordance with the above methods. If the actual losses of the right holder, the illegal income of the infringer, and the use fee for the use of the rights are difficult to calculate, the people's court shall give compensation for 5 million yuan and more than 5 million yuan or less than 5 million yuan.

"The purpose of punitive compensation in terms of copyright protection is that one can increase the enthusiasm of rights protection, which is conducive to the infringement of copyrights in the face of copyrights and can stand up to defend their rights. Rights protection; the second can curb the intentional behavior of the infringer and effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner. "Tan Mindao, a lawyer of Beijing Zhongwen (Xi'an) Law Firm, explained:" The prerequisite for the application of punitive compensation is' intentional infringement 'and' plot plot Severe ', the Supreme People's Court stated in the "Explanation of the Instead of Powering Punishment Compensation for Instead of Intellectual Property Civil Cases", and the' defendant and the plaintiff or the stakeholder have business exchanges or to reach a contract, and have been in contact The infringed intellectual property rights can be identified as "intentional infringement". In this case, whether the defendant has intentional infringement, it also needs to further verify the judicial authority, and then make a judgment based on the intentional degree of infringement. "

"This time the plaintiff's claim was 406 million, which did far exceed the amount of claims of many such cases." Tan Mintao said in an interview with the reporter of the new Yellow River. " Some facts and basis, such as the popularity of the event involved, whether the defendant's infringement has intentional and intentional fault, the benefit of the defendant's infringement, the plaintiff's market quotation of similar programs, etc. In this case, 406 million claims have the largest claims. One item should be economic losses. The specific judgment amount will eventually be decided by the court according to the above situation. "

Objectives for jurisdiction? There are more than 50 stations in Station B in 4 years

In the "Book", another keyword has attracted the attention of netizens, that is, "jurisdictional objection." New Yellow River reporters browsed China Judgment Document Network and found that the "jurisdiction objection" case involved in Shanghai Kuan Entertainment Digital Technology Co., Ltd. since 2018 to the present is more than 50 cases. What is the role of the "jurisdictional objection"? Is station B the dislike of abuse of jurisdiction?

"Jurisdiction's objection is a right to the defendant given to the defendant. Under the circumstances of the actual compensation amount involved in the actual compensation of intellectual property, the defendant will propose jurisdiction objections. The proposed jurisdictional objection, which is finally determined by the court. "Tan Mindao told Xinhuanghe reporter:" The proposal of the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction can generally give the defendant's buffer opportunity to negotiate with the plaintiff. Essence

In judicial practice, the defendant's malicious litigation behavior of the objection to jurisdiction over jurisdiction is also common. It is also an illegal act in abuse of objections to jurisdiction and waste of judicial resources. In April 2020, a people's court in Chongqing accepted the plaintiff He Mou and the defendant Ruan Mou's labor contract dispute. The defendant Ruan Mou was rejected by the People's Court of Chongqing in the Chongqing District People's Court. The court proposed to have jurisdictional objections. The People's Court of Jinsha County rejected Ruan's jurisdiction's jurisdiction and made a fine of 20,000 yuan in a fine of 20,000 yuan in accordance with the law. Was B in this infringement lawsuit suspected of abuse of jurisdiction objections, and would it be punished because of this?

In this regard, Tan Mintao believes that the right of jurisdiction as the right of the party's party is proposed to the plaintiff's violation of copyright disputes that the court generally does not punish enterprises unless the enterprise abuses this right. Tan Mintao also said that in practice, the reason for the objection to jurisdiction over jurisdiction is relatively easy to find, and it is better to propose it, but it is another matter if it can be agreed by the court. The defendant was abused by this right. "

Edit: Weekend

- END -