VFine believes that the compensation is too low and will continue to appeal.
Papitube’s short video soundtrack infringement case has a follow-up.
September 2, VFine Music announced that it will continue to appeal after suing the papitube company for infringement of music infringement, and is expected to complete the case within this week.
Before VFine Music sued the papitube case, it was the first short-video MCN commercial music infringement case in China. It was opened for the fifth time on August 30 and made a first-instance judgment. The Beijing Internet Court found that papitube constituted an infringement, and the defendant compensated the plaintiff’s copyright party VFine. Music and Lullatone have an economic loss of 4,000 yuan and a reasonable expenditure of 3,000 yuan, totaling 7,000 yuan.
VFine continues to appeal because the amount of compensation is too low to cover the cost of VFine. VFine said that the general minimum payment standard for infringing incidents by domestic streaming media platforms and other institutions is one thousand clicks, and the short video playback volume involved in this case is nearly 6 million times (converted to 6,000 yuan), and it is impossible to agree with 4000 yuan in the first instance. Compensation for economic losses.
This case can be traced back to last year. Papitube’s video blogger “Bigger Institute” uploaded a short video of “2018 Strongest Domestic Mobile Phone Review”, which was unauthorized use of the original Japanese music label Lullatone. The song “Walking On the Sidewalk” is used as a background music, and the video plays nearly 6 million times. Due to difficulties in transnational rights protection, Lullatone discovered that he entrusted VFine to defend his rights.
VFine Music was established in 2015 as a commercial publishing platform for music copyrights. It has copyright management services such as music licensing, monitoring and confirmation, and acquired Douban music business in 2018.
After the two sides failed to reconcile this year, VFine sued the operating company of papitube to the court, claiming more than 250,000 yuan. On July 23, after the first trial of the case, the topic read more than 300 million, and on the microblogging hot headlines, the Bigger Institute responded that “it was really not very copyright-conscious at the beginning, and used music without permission” .
Image Source: VFine Blackboard
Because of the connection with papi sauce, the papitube infringement incident continues to ferment and was once misrepresentedInfringement for papi sauce. In contrast, the third anniversary of the launch of papitube a few days later did not have such a big splash.
The 7,000 yuan compensation in the first instance judgment has a clear gap with the VFine appeal. This case will also be representative of the MCN institution music infringement, and the final appeal result is also worthy of attention.