Skip to content

標籤: Case

新闻组服务提供者Usenet.com败诉

  注意,我说的是作为一个服务者的Usenet.com败诉,而不是作为一种新闻组应用的Usenet。“新闻组”当然和“新闻联播”没关系,甚至跟“新闻”也没什么太密切的联系,它是一种Web服务之外的互联网应用,访问新闻组服务器的话,前面加的不是“http://”,而是“news://”。说得形象一些,使用新闻组服务,就好像是你向一个特定的群组论坛发送电子邮件,同时又用电子邮件订阅你想了解的群组信息。至于谁看得见你的邮件,则取决于谁订阅了那个群组。由于群组本身也可以作为帐号订阅别的群组,所以你发送的电子邮件就很可能迅速传播到全球,同时又获得全球的反馈了。在这个web为王的时代,人们最熟悉的新闻组服务恐怕是GoogleGroups了,它实际上是将Usenet的新闻组Web化,让人们通过http的方式去访问过去的Usenet信件存档。

  和Web化的GoogleGroups不同,Usenet.com作为一个服务商,采用的是经典的新闻组通讯方式Usenet,付费的注册者将有权下载Usenet.com上超过12万个群组的资料,畅游在一个Web页面之外的网络世界,在那里人们可以交流信息、传递大数据量的附件,当然其中也会包括大量的盗版文档。

  2007年10月,Usenet.com被美国唱片业协会(RIAA)起诉了——即“ Arista Records v. Usenet.com, Inc.”案。RIAA认为Usenet.com在提供服务的过程中,有包括直接侵权、帮助侵权和代位侵权(vicarious infringement)的所有版权侵权行为。官司打了一年多,2009年7月1日,纽约南区联邦地方法院法官Harold Baer作出了判决:被告的确侵权了,而且其行为包括上述各种形式的侵权。

  这个案件是版权人第一次大规模向新闻组这种古老的互联网应用开炮。和前几年的Napster及Grokster案一样,被告援引了1984年的BetaMax案(Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.)和DMCA法案,以自己所提供的服务有实质非侵权性用途,并且自己只是提供服务而未上载盗版作品为理由,寻求避风港原则的庇护。

Comments closed

案件摘要及评点:删除数字文档不被认为构成软件侵权?

友情提醒:本站的案件摘要内容经过编选提炼和评论,具有著作权,转载请察看本站版权政策

案件名:
游戏米果网络科技(上海)有限公司与赖介婷、罗金海、童卓娟、林杨、赵千里、肖哿计算机软件著作权侵权纠纷
——(2007)沪二中民五(知)初字第82号

来源:中国知识产权裁判文书网
http://ipr.chinacourt.org/public/detail_sfws.php?id=11396
相关案件:
(2007)沪二中民五(知)初字第71号(2007)沪二中民五(知)初字第81号

当事人:原告:游戏米果网络科技(上海)有限公司
被告:赖介婷、罗金海、童卓娟、林杨、赵千里、肖哿

2 Comments

百度法律搜索搜不到不利于百度的案件判决书

BaiDu offered its Legal search Engine recently. I just get this news from China Law Prof Blog since I seldom use Baidu.com.

As I have estimated before trying it, Baidu keeps on artificially controlling the searching results. From Baidu’s legal search engine, one can not get case materials in which Baidu involved and lost, though these cases can be found in baidu’s normal webpage searching results. For instance, a famous case on MP3 downloading issues, in which Baidu was sued by a ShangHai company, dose not exist in Baidu’s legal data base. In another cross action between Baidu and 3-7-2-1 (another Chinese Internet service provider), Baidu’s law engine only records a judgment in favor to Baidu, whilist another judement in favor to 3-7-2-1 is disappeared.

  因为基本不用百度,所以直到今天才从China Law Prof Blog上看见百度建立“法律搜索”站的消息。这个站显然与北大法律信息网有关。

  但是,在百度上,无法搜到不利于百度的案件判决书。例如,在百度法律搜索中,搜索“上海步升音乐文化传播有限公司”,可以发现该公司为当事人的多个案件,却惟独没有其起诉百度的那个著名案子;再如,如果直接搜索百度公司名称“百度在线网络技术 有限公司”,则只能搜到百度起诉北京三七二一科技有限公司的案子,而几乎同时发生的“三七二一公司诉百度网讯科技有限公司”案则不见踪影。不过,在百度网页搜索中,这些案件都还能搜得到。

1 Comment

Case: No fault even mis-lading goods

 Case Name:

New National Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shanghai RIJIN-TOP Express International Forwarding Co., Ltd.
 
Citation:
Shanghai Maritime Court of PRC (SMC), Civil Judgment (2004) TMC (Chu) No. 492
Judges: Xin Hai (C. J.), Qian Xu, Sun Ying-wei
Date: 21 April 2005
 
Rules:
If the shipper did not notified the carrier the special features of the goods, the carrier should not be liable to the damages even there was an inappropriate lading by the carrier and/or his employees for no fault were found in the case.
 

2 Comments

A case on recognizing the arbitral awards in China

Name:
Vysanthi Shipping Company Limited V. China Grains, Oils and Feedstuffs Co., Ltd, etc.
 
Citation:
Tianjin Maritime Court of PRC (TMC), Civil order in Writing(2004) TMC (Que) No.1
 
Summary of Facts:
The dispute between the applicant and the first defendant on the B/L of Joanna V Ship issued on 28 June 1996 had been heard by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and an award was issued on 14 March 2001. According to the award, the applicant should obtain USD 367,136.86 in general average contribution (G.A.C.) and USD 28,500 in damages of resorting. The applicant should also obtain the interest on 7% per year of the above amount. The interest of damages of resorting (USD 28,500) will be calculated from 1 August 1996. The commencement time for calculating the G.A.C interest, however, would depend on the negotiation result between the applicant and the first defendant. If their negotiation failed, the arbitration court would decide the date. The end dates of both damages’ interest are the day when the first defendant made the de facto payment to the applicant. On 20 June 2001, LCIA made the second award in that the commencing date of calculating the interest of resorting damages should be 12 July 1996. In the same award, the arbitration fees in two arbitration procedure were decided to be paid by the first defendant. On 13 February 2002, the third award was made to confirm that the cost of the whole dispute should be paid by the first defendant….
 
Comments closed