From the war of words to the war of litigation, Tencent changed its always gentle image and tried to knock down its opponents with heavy punches. The newspaper said that Tencent claimed 800 million yuan from Tik Tok in court this month to obtain the copyright of Douro Continent. The amount previously disclosed was 601.6 million yuan, and now it has increased by 13 times.

That's not all.

According to the newspaper's report, from June this year to June 65438+February 10, Tencent has sued Tik Tok10/68 times in 18 courts in three provinces across the country, with a total bid of over 2.943 billion yuan-more than that in Viya, Fan Bingbing and Zheng Shuang.

Among these litigation cases, there are 4 cases in which the bid amount is more than 1 100 million yuan, and the bid amount of the above Douluo mainland is the highest, reaching 800 million yuan; The second highest is the TV series "You are my glory", with an amount of 755 million yuan.

At the same time, in these cases, Tencent applied for behavior preservation before or during litigation in 54 cases.

Tencent and Tik Tok have a long-standing "feud" around the copyright issue of video platforms. The so-called copyright dispute is actually just a fighting tool on the table. The real reason is the interest dispute between long and short videos. Previously, Sun Zhonghuai, vice president of Tencent and CEO of online video, threw out a short video "Pig Food Theory", which caused an uproar in the industry.

News details point to more content.

This paper attempts to sort out the following three questions, so that we can see some key contents behind this Internet giant litigation war:

1. What is the focus of dispute between the two parties in video copyright litigation?

2. Why did Tencent sue Tik Tok all over the country?

3. Where are the "card points" of a series of copyright cases?

1. Review beforehand or delete afterwards?

In this wave of lawsuits, Tencent chose the strategy of multiple prosecutions.

Many people will wonder that the copyright owners of most cases prosecuted by Tencent are Tencent videos. The company's main office is in Beijing, and the defendant Tik Tok is also a Beijing company. Moreover, Tencent's headquarters is in Shenzhen. According to the truth, it should be prosecuted in a court in Shenzhen or Beijing.

But this time, Tencent sued Tik Tok in the 18 court in 13 province.

Tencent is naturally not as "boring" as Xianglinsao. In the eyes of legal people, Tencent's strategy is very "smart".

This should start with the copyright dispute between Tencent and Tik Tok.

Tencent, as the copyright owner, sued the content uploaded by users on the Tik Tok platform for infringing the copyright of these dramas, whether it is "Douluo Mainland" or "You are my glory". One of the key propositions is to require the short video platform to pre-audit the videos uploaded by users, and intercept and delete the copyright-free videos in advance.

In judicial practice, this article is called the safe haven principle, which is embodied in Articles 22 and 23 of the Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Information Network Communication.

Tencent hopes to break through the current "safe haven principle" and require the platform to assume the responsibility of "pre-trial".

But in fact, it is more controversial and even more difficult to do this. Why is it difficult to "pre-examine" the copyright of film and television content? The reason is simple: users upload a lot of content, and the human capital cost of "pre-examination" far exceeds the ability of the platform, and it will greatly extend the time for users to publish works, thus losing the vitality of high-quality UGC content.

Another difficulty of short video "pre-trial" is that authorization is not as clear as long video.

"Some short videos do not have a particularly clear authorization process, but there is actually the possibility of internal authorization; Some short videos do not have particularly strict legal authorization certificates, but in fact, producers and creators have got in touch and are allowed to use relevant materials. In this case, they are authorized, but they are not standardized, which is different from the traditional online piracy scene. "

2. Brilliance of "Kill Two Birds with One Stone"

It is precisely because the platform "pre-audit" is very difficult to implement. On the one hand, the platform needs to invest a lot of manpower and material resources, and the effect is hard to say. On the other hand, harsh "pre-examination" will also affect the user experience, thus losing patience with the platform and affecting the production of excellent content.

Tencent's legal department is keenly aware of this, and with the help of "prior review", it can achieve the goal of "killing two birds with one stone".

To this end, Tencent initiated lawsuits all over the country. The reason behind this is that at present, in judicial practice, the grasp of the "safe haven principle" by local courts has not been completely unified. Some judicial workers believe that Tencent may find a breakthrough in doing so and even win in many courts. "In the end, a kind of judicial knowledge will be formed in the judicial circle, so as to establish new legal rules without modifying existing laws."

The "safe haven principle" originated from the digital millennium copyright law of the United States 1998. Lawyer Chen Nan, director of Beijing Fuhe Law Firm, wrote in China Intellectual Property News that the United States was the Internet center of the world at that time, and this principle was introduced mainly because the United States, as the origin of the Internet and the earliest, most important and largest practitioner, found that Internet intermediary service providers could not conduct content review in advance, which made network monitoring more difficult.

Historically, Tencent is actually the beneficiary of the "safe haven principle". At that time, "A Bloody Case Caused by a Steamed Bread" rose on the Internet and became the "originator" of editing film and television works, which can still be played on many long video platforms.

Many long video platforms, including Tencent Video, have long been suspected of having pirated content when developing UGC content. At that time, these platforms repeatedly emphasized the rationality of the safe haven principle.

But now, with the rise of short videos, Tencent, as the copyright owner, quickly changed its position and demanded to break through the safe haven principle.

3. Is there any selfish interest hidden under the archway of "justice"?

Judging from the claim amount disclosed in this news, Tencent is still confident of winning the lawsuit.

This may also benefit from Tencent's influence in the government and judicial circles for many years. A recruitment information of Tencent in that year is still fresh in my memory.

The job requirements of "Strategic Communication Manager of Strategic Competition" are detailed in the recruitment information, including "having a deep relationship with Beijing and the central media", "catering to and guiding policies" and "forming a favorable public opinion environment in our company and at the same time forming a counter-measure against competitors".

Tencent is willing to spend money on government public relations, which has long been a practice. According to the previous report of South China Morning Post, in 20 16, the annual salary of an executive of Tencent who handled government relations affairs has reached 274 million Hong Kong dollars.

In August this year, the Economic Information Daily, sponsored by Xinhua News Agency, published a document comparing online games to new "drugs", including Tencent's the glory of the king. The article said, "No industry or movement can develop in a way that destroys a generation" and "punishment should keep up".

After the article caused a lot of discussion on the Internet, the website of Economic Information Daily suddenly deleted the article "Spiritual Opium has grown into a billion-dollar industry". At that time, some people speculated that Tencent public relations might have communicated.

There is an article on the internet that combs Tencent's "actions" in the judicial field in detail. From 20 12, Tencent sponsored the "Peking University-Stanford University Seminar on Internet Law and Public Policy" for seven consecutive years, and until now, it still holds the "Nanhu Intellectual Property Forum" jointly with the Intellectual Property Research Center of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law every year.

China Intellectual Property Judges Forum of Southwest University of Political Science and Law is also sponsored by Tencent. Deng, a professor at the school, said in an interview: "Tencent Research Institute, as the only' golden owner' of our forum, has given us more sufficient financial guarantee. "

This paper draws the conclusion that the behavior of "helping students" finally made Tencent get a gratifying return.

"For example, regarding the copyright issues of game videos and live broadcasts, institutions such as Peking University Law School, Intellectual Property Research Center of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, and Law School of South China University of Technology have specially held relevant seminars. Many experts who have spoken have cooperated with Tencent and expressed sympathy for Tencent. "

Returning to the appeal wave that Tencent swept across the country, the intention is actually very obvious. In other words, Tencent's "drunkenness" lies in finding a breakthrough in some local courts through its influence in the judicial field, forming a breakthrough in the "safe haven principle" and finally suppressing the opponent's leading edge in the short video field.

"The Copyright Law clarifies that copyright includes the right to protect the integrity of a work, that is, the right to protect a work from distortion or tampering." In the eyes of the legal profession, there is a rule that short videos are not allowed to cut the content of film and television dramas and variety shows without authorization.

At the same time, the law mentions a variety of "exemptions" in copyright restrictions, including "using others' published works for personal study, research or appreciation" and "quoting others' published works appropriately in works for introducing, commenting on a work or explaining a problem".

I don't know why Tencent will change its focus when dealing with short video content. Under the so-called "justice" archway, no one should be wrapped in personal belongings of self-interest.