Station A was sued for broadcasting "Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf" without authorization and was ordered to pay 60,000 yuan in compensation

According to the China Intellectual Property News, Beijing Huashijuhe Culture Media Co., Ltd. sued Beijing Danmu Network Technology Co., Ltd. in court for 200,000 yuan, claiming that it had infringed its information network dissemination rights for the works involved by providing the cartoon "Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf: Deep Sea Adventure" through its AcFun platform without authorization.

According to the information released by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, the court held that in this case, the allegedly infringing video was placed in a column on the website involved in which film and television video information from different uploaders was uniformly released and shared. At the same time, considering that the work in question was a film work, and the production process of a film work requires a relatively large investment, it is basically impossible for the right holder to authorize Internet users to upload their works in their entirety to the video sharing website for free and provide them to the public. In addition, the work in question has a high viewership rate and social popularity. The barrage company can reasonably realize that the Internet user provided the work in question without the permission of the right holder by paying general attention.

In summary, as an Internet service provider, Danmu Company should have been subjectively aware that Internet users placed the works in question on the websites in question without the authorization of the rights holders and enabled the public to watch them online at a time and place of their choice, but it did not take reasonable and effective technical measures to block the dissemination of the works in question, thereby assisting the infringement in question and infringing upon China Television Company’s right to disseminate the works in question over the information network. Danmu Company should bear liability for aiding and abetting infringement.

In the first instance, the court ordered Danmu Company to pay 60,000 yuan in compensation, but Danmu Company appealed. In the second instance, none of the parties submitted new evidence, and the court confirmed the facts found by the first instance court, and finally rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.