On the Jurisdiction of Internet Disputes from the First Case of Web Page Infringement in China

Plaintiff: Ryder (Group) Company.

Defendant: Oriental Information Service Company (hereinafter referred to as Oriental Company)

[Case introduction]

The plaintiff's "Reed Online" is an organization established with the approval of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Ministry of Information Industry, which specializes in computer information network and Internet business. It started its business activities on June 1996 1 1, and its business is information service. 1997, according to the business characteristics of our company, after extensive argumentation, the plaintiff hired corporate image planning and design experts to participate in the research and discussion, and established Ryder online home page reflecting Ryder online corporate image and business.

1998 65438+At the beginning of February, employees and some customers of the plaintiff's company reported that the defendant's homepage was basically the same as the plaintiff's online homepage on the Internet. The plaintiff investigated this and found that the information reflected by employees and customers was true. By comparing the defendant's homepage with the plaintiff's homepage1September 1998, it is found that the defendant's homepage basically copied the plaintiff's homepage, and its overall layout, color, pattern, column setting, column title, copywriting and application of drop-down menu completely copied the plaintiff's homepage, with pattern 18 and column 14.

The plaintiff believes that as a new "fourth media", the homepage on the Internet, like the cover of magazines and the front page of newspapers, is a reflection of the overall structure of information websites and an important indicator of information content. It also shapes the image of an information enterprise through visual senses, and provides information services to customers at home and abroad through special columns. It has a variety of display functions and great economic value in attracting customers who design and make home pages, online advertisers and online shoppers. The plaintiff's "Ryder Online" invested a lot of manpower and material resources in making this home page. For example, the "Look at China" search engine independently developed by the plaintiff Reed Online has invested professionals with doctoral degrees and configured a dedicated server. More than a year later, a database containing millions of pieces of information was developed and published on the plaintiff's home page. The defendant copied the icon and copy of the search engine "Look at China" on the homepage, but the actual link pointed to the search engine "Look at China", which misled the customer and caused serious intellectual property infringement on the plaintiff's research results.

The plaintiff believes that the defendant's homepage copied from the plaintiff's homepage, including the overall layout, colors, patterns, and copywriting, which led to customers' ambiguity about the plaintiff's corporate image, equating two enterprises with different business scope and operational strength, and causing direct non-economic losses to the plaintiff. At the same time, the defendant copied the plaintiff's homepage, including column setting and column title, but the actual link points were inconsistent, which affected the reputation and visit rate of the plaintiff's exclusive column (equivalent to the ratings of TV media), resulting in the loss of advertisers on the homepage and direct economic losses to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff believes that it enjoys copyright and intellectual property rights protected by law on this website. The defendant copied and altered the plaintiff's homepage without the plaintiff's authorization, which seriously infringed on the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests, damaged the corporate image and business activities, and caused great economic and non-economic losses to the plaintiff, which was obviously unfair competition. Therefore, the defendant is required to immediately stop the infringement, apologize to the plaintiff on domestic and foreign information networks and relevant domestic news media, and compensate the plaintiff for the cost of making home pages, business losses and loss of reputation rights 199900 yuan.

1On March 30th, 999, the defendant Dongfang Company filed a jurisdictional objection with the Haidian District People's Court in Beijing. In the Letter of Objection to Jurisdiction, the defendant stated that according to Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law of China, a lawsuit brought for infringement shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the infringement occurred or where the defendant lived. In this case, the defendant's domicile was Yibin City, Sichuan Province, not Haidian District, Beijing, and the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant with evidence to prove that the so-called "place where the infringement occurred (including the place where the infringement occurred and the place where the infringement resulted)" was located in Haidian District, Beijing. At the same time, the defendant believes that this case is a lawsuit that infringes the copyright of Internet pages. The Internet is different from traditional media and has its own characteristics. It is not clear whether the previous legal provisions on the jurisdiction of tort litigation cases in China are applicable to such cases. Accordingly, it is considered that Haidian District People's Court has no jurisdiction over this case, and this case should be transferred to Yibin Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province for trial.

After examination, Haidian District People's Court held that the defendant Dongfang Company's objection to jurisdiction could not be established for the following reasons:

First of all, the home page of Ryder (Group) Company is stored on its specific hard disk and released to the outside world through its own WWW server. Anyone who touches (including browsing and copying) the contents of the homepage through the host at any time and any place must pass through the server and hard disk located in the residence of Ryder (Group) Company. In view of the fact that Ryder (Group) Company filed a lawsuit on the grounds that its homepage was copied and infringed, the area where the plaintiff's server was located should be regarded as the place where the infringement occurred.

Secondly, Ryder (Group) Company not only claimed that Oriental Company copied its homepage, but also claimed that the direct consequence of this behavior was that the homepage of Oriental Company was contacted by visitors. In view of the fact that Internet hosts and users in China are concentrated in some specific areas such as Haidian District, Haidian District should also be regarded as the place where infringement results occur.

Third, when Oriental Company raised the jurisdictional objection, it did not provide evidence to prove that the content of Ryder (Group) Company's homepage was transient or unstable.

The defendant Oriental Company refused to accept the civil ruling of Haidian District People's Court in Beijing and filed an appeal on May 4th. 1999. According to the appeal, the Haidian District People's Court ruled that the facts were unclear and the applicable law was improper. The facts and reasons are as follows:

First, the defendant believed that any Internet user (including the defendant) did not and could not copy the plaintiff's homepage on the server where it was stored, so Haidian District of Beijing was not and could not be regarded as the place where the alleged infringement was committed.

The defendant believes that copying is the most basic and core concept in copyright law, and its direct consequence is to make one or more copies to copy the work. According to Article 52 of China's Copyright Law, copying refers to the act of making one or more copies of a work by printing, copying, copying, rubbing, recording, video recording, copying and remaking. But the word "copy" refers to the traditional copyright law, and the concept of copy in cyberspace is not exactly the same as that in the traditional copyright law. For example, the latter's copy and its copy are permanent, while the former's copy behavior can be temporary (or temporary copy), and its copy can also be one-off, such as the copy of the work by the computer's random access memory (RAM), that is, the reproduction of the work on the user's computer display.

When Internet users (including defendants) visit or browse other people's webpages or homepages (such as plaintiff's homepages) on the Internet, they first download the webpages from the remote computer or server where the webpages are located to the user's computer (also called local computer) by digital transmission, and then temporarily store them in the random memory of the user's computer, and then display them through the display of the user's computer and the corresponding browser software. During the transmission of the webpage, there is no copying behavior, and no new copy is generated. The webpage that appears on the user's computer (which can be called a work) is only a one-time copy. If the user doesn't store the webpage in his computer's hard disk, floppy disk or print it out with a printer (that is, permanent copy and permanent copy), the one-time copy will disappear after the user shuts down, and there will be no permanent copy. During the whole browsing and transmission process, the user did not make any copies on the hard disk of the remote computer or server where the webpage was located, and it is impossible for the owner of the webpage to let the user make any copies on the remote computer or server (except Telnet, of course, but this obviously does not apply to this case).

Specific to this case, the defendant believes that Internet users, including the defendant, did not copy the plaintiff's homepage to the server where it was stored when they visited (or "contacted" according to the ruling of Haidian District People's Court). According to the above reasons, since the defendant did not copy any infringement on the server where the plaintiff's homepage was stored, the storage place of the server (Haidian District, Beijing, assuming this is the case) could not constitute the place where the plaintiff accused the infringement.

Accordingly, the defendant believes that the judgment of Haidian Court that Haidian District of Beijing is the place where the infringement was committed lacks factual and legal basis.

Second, the defendant believed that the Haidian District People's Court ruled that Haidian District of Beijing was the result of infringement.

The defendant believes that after the defendant's homepage is made and uploaded to a server in the Internet, it can be accessed or "contacted" by other Internet users, but such access or "contact" is only possible, not objective necessity. If the user does not know the defendant's website, it is impossible to visit or "touch" the defendant's home page. A large number of homepages or webpages on the Internet are not known to the public, nor are they accessible to the public. Article 63 of China's Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims, but the plaintiff failed to provide the court with objective evidence that Internet users accessed or "touched" the defendant's home page in Haidian District, Beijing through the Internet, and failed to prove who, where and how visited the defendant's home page in this district.

The defendant believes that the ruling of Haidian Court that "Internet hosts and users in China are concentrated in some specific areas such as Haidian District" cannot fully prove that these Internet users actually visited the defendant's homepage ("Internet hosts" actually have nothing to do with the "contacts" in this case). Moreover, according to the evidence materials held by the defendant, only a few people actually visited the defendant's homepage before the plaintiff sued, and these people did not visit it through the "networked host" or other computers in Haidian District.

Accordingly, the defendant believed that the Haidian court ruled that Haidian District of Beijing was the result of infringement and the evidence was insufficient.

On June 28th, 1999, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court made a ruling to maintain Haidian Court's ruling on the jurisdiction of this case, and this case is still being tried by Beijing Haidian District People's Court.

[Case study]

1. Problems of Traditional Jurisdiction Theory in Cyberspace

Internet, translated as "Internet" in Chinese. It is a combination of information carried by thousands of cooperative networks and networks based on modern computer technology. It is the product of computer digital technology and modern communication technology, and it is the foundation of the coming information society. From the form of expression, the Internet is not only a network, but also includes information on the Internet. Functionally, the Internet is a combination of telephone system, postal service, news media, shopping center, information distribution center and audio-visual communication system.

Internet is the product of highly developed computer network technology. It uses client/server technology, transmission control protocol and Internet protocol (TCP/IP) to connect the originally independent computer networks in the world. One of the most commercially valuable functions is the World Wide Web (WWW), or simply "three-W network", which is connected by many websites. Web addresses, also known as outlets, are the way for users of the World Wide Web to exist on the Internet and share information with others. Users can run a software called Brouser on the World Wide Web, which can store the information on their own websites and actively search and browse the information on other websites. Therefore, the space formed by the World Wide Web is called "Cy-cyber space". Cyberspace has the following characteristics:

First, the world. This is the most important feature of cyberspace and the basis of a large number of transnational legal issues. Computer network technology has closely linked hundreds of millions of users in more than 0/00 countries around the world, and this data is still expanding rapidly. At the same time, this connection has completely broken the physical boundaries, including national boundaries and boundaries of any region. Internet users can freely visit each other, communicate with each other, enjoy information and conduct transnational business activities. The Internet has crossed national boundaries since its formation, which is its value and influence. The free state of cyberspace integration is its global result. With the increase of areas and users who have joined the Internet, the cyberspace is also expanding and expanding on a global scale.

Second, the decentralization of management. The core technology of the Internet itself determines the decentralized management tendency of cyberspace. Every machine on the Internet can serve as a server for other machines. Therefore, there is no center and centralization in cyberspace, and all machines are equal. At present, no country can completely control and effectively manage the Internet, which is the root of many problems.

It is precisely because of the above-mentioned particularity of cyberspace that a large number of realistic contradictions and conflicts have arisen. For example, the development of new technology industries needs to be balanced with the maintenance of traditional social order; Industry interests, national interests, social interests and personal interests need to be considered comprehensively; Cultural and moral differences between countries need new ways of coordination. At the same time, these conflicts are also very obvious in the legal field, and jurisdiction is one of them.

The traditional theory of jurisdiction, whether in private international law or in domestic civil disputes, has jurisdiction basis. Jurisdiction basis refers to the basis on which a country's courts have the right to hear civil and commercial cases. According to the traditional theory and practice of jurisdiction, there are three foundations or bases:

First, it is based on or based on the region. The elements of legal relationship involved in litigation, whether subject, object or legal fact, always have a spatial relationship with the jurisdiction area of a country or court, which constitutes the geographical basis for the country or court to exercise jurisdiction. The specific forms are as follows: the domicile of the parties, including the plaintiff's domicile, the defendant's domicile or the original and defendant's registered place and business place; The place where the cause of action occurred, such as the place where the infringement occurred, the place where the infringement result occurred, the place where the contract was signed, and the place where the contract was performed; The location of the object of litigation and the location of the defendant's property.

The second is based on the nationality of the parties. Taking the nationality of the parties as the basis of jurisdiction is usually called the principle of personal jurisdiction. It regards the nationality of the parties as the connecting factor, and holds that the courts of the countries of nationality of the parties have jurisdiction over them whether they live in China or abroad. This principle accords with the principle of national sovereignty, and its purpose is to protect the interests of its citizens. Countries such as France, Luxembourg, Italy and Portugal adopt both the nationality of the plaintiff and the nationality of the defendant as their jurisdiction basis.

Third, contract disputes are based on the will of the parties. The principle of freedom of contract allows both parties to reach an agreement to submit their disputes to a court in a certain country or place for trial, and the court in that country or place will exercise jurisdiction. For example, China's "Civil Procedure Law" also stipulates: "The parties to a foreign-related contract or foreign-related property rights dispute may choose the jurisdiction of the court where the dispute actually occurs through a written agreement."

To sum up, the facts such as the domicile, nationality, property, behavior and will of the parties can be used as the basis for the courts in charge of foreign-related civil and commercial cases or civil cases.

But the Internet has shaken the foundation of traditional justice. This paper does not consider the decentralization tendency of cyberspace and the denial of national jurisdiction by the new sovereignty theory, but only talks about the influence of cyberspace globalization on jurisdiction.

As far as a specific court is concerned, its jurisdiction is clear, with clear geographical boundaries or physical space. Cyberspace itself has no boundaries. This is a global system. It cannot be divided into many fields like physical space, and the division is meaningless. It has no one-to-one correspondence with physical space. Moreover, cyberspace is invisible, and only computer terminals, telephone lines and other external devices of the Internet are visible, and these are by no means signs of the manifestations and geographical scope of cyberspace.

At the same time, the factors such as the domicile, nationality, property, behavior and will of the parties can be the basis of jurisdiction because they are related to a certain jurisdiction such as domicile, property location, behavior place, nationality attribution and will direction in physical space. However, once these factors are applied to cyberspace, their relevance to the physical space under their jurisdiction suddenly loses. You can't find your own residence or tangible property in cyberspace, and it's difficult to determine the nationality of activists or the exact location of remote login. You can only know the existence and activity content of an object, and you can't confirm the identity of the login at all.

We take the identification of the subject of infringement as an example to illustrate this problem. If the infringer is a legal person who has applied for a domain name, it is relatively simple to find his domicile, just log in to CNNIC for inquiry. Because, according to China's "Measures for the Administration of Domain Name Registration", only legal persons and other enterprises and institutions with business qualifications are eligible to apply for and obtain domain names. Therefore, if it has its own domain name, it can find its registered place or business place through CNNIC, even if it is registered abroad, it can also be found on the relevant international domain registration website. But there are still difficulties, because the current domain name registration is often carried out online. If the domain name registration authority is lax in examination and the applicant provides false information, it will be more difficult to be found. The bigger problem is that the infringer is a natural person. Because, in the Internet, it is almost impossible to determine the identity and address of a natural person. Even if it is technically feasible, it will take a lot of time and financial resources, which is uneconomical. In addition, because many personal homepages and personal email groups constitute copyright infringement, Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Computer Network Copyright Disputes stipulates: "If a network service provider providing content services requests the copyright owner to provide the registered information of the infringer on its network to investigate the infringer's tort liability, the people's court shall investigate its corresponding tort liability in accordance with Article 106 of the General Principles of the Civil Law." Although, this interpretation stipulates the obligation of service providers to provide registration information and the responsibility for not fulfilling their obligations. However, netizens must submit their own relevant information when surfing the Internet. As we all know, the authenticity of the information registered by netizens on the Internet is very doubtful, and it is impossible for the law to require service providers to ensure the authenticity of the information of netizens, because if so, the development and application of the Internet will be just empty talk.

Therefore, jurisdiction is based on relatively stable contact, and the uncertainty of cyberspace makes it difficult for network activities to reflect the traditional factors of stable contact with network activists. Even if it can be found out by other means, it will often lose its rationality if it is applied to the network activities of the parties. Moreover, at this time, the conflict of jurisdiction brought by the Internet is not only a problem in the sense of sovereignty, but also a specific application of jurisdiction rules in physical space.

2. The practice of solving jurisdiction dilemma in various countries

At present, the judicial practice of Internet cases mostly occurs in the United States. Let's take a look at American judicial practice through several related cases.

Case 1: MARITS company v CYBERGOLD company. Netgold company is a company in California with a website in that state. The Internet Gold Company provided an advertisement about the new service on its website, expecting Internet users to see it and become their potential customers. 3 1 1 Missouri residents visited the website, and most of them were employees of Moritz Company in Missouri. Moritz Company sued the Eastern District Court of Missouri in April, 1996, accusing NetGold Company of infringing its trademark rights and engaging in unfair competition. Netscape believes that the jurisdiction of the Michigan court lacks sufficient factual basis and requests the court to give up its jurisdiction and refuse to accept it.

On August 1996 19, the court for the eastern district of Missouri ruled that the only way for the defendant to communicate with Missouri through the Internet met the jurisdiction requirements stipulated in the Missouri Long Arms Act and the due process clause in Article 14 of the US Constitution Amendment, and the Missouri courts enjoyed jurisdiction.

Missouri's long arm act stipulates that any person or company, whether resident or not, is within the jurisdiction of the state court if it conducts transactions or torts in the state. The premise of this jurisdiction is that it does not violate the constitutional provision on due process, which requires "minimum contact" between the foreign defendant and the state where the court is located. According to the interpretation of the Eighth Circuit Court, the defendant can and should expect the possibility of being summoned by the court in the future when he contacts the court area; Moreover, when filing a case on this basis does not conflict with the principles of fair competition and substantive justice, sufficient contact is established. The Circuit Court has set five standards to test the "minimum contact": (1) the nature of contact with the jurisdiction; (2) the number of contacts; (3) the reason for contact; (4) the state court session is beneficial to the interests of the state; (5) The principle of mutual convenience.

The first three factors are crucial.

First, the nature of Internet contact. Net Gold Company publicizes its future service projects through its website, establishes a list of users and expects users to enter. Although Netscape claimed that it only "passively reserved outlets", the court held that if Michigan residents wrote to Netscape to inquire about service items, Netscape could automatically and indiscriminately reply to all users who visited its website. Therefore, Netscape intends to send advertisements to all Internet users. Although the nature of this connection is completely new to the exercise of jurisdiction, the court still tends to exercise jurisdiction.

As for the number of contacts, Netscape Company sent advertisements 3 1 1 times, which was considered by the court as deliberately seeking benefits through trade with Missouri.

The satisfaction of the third factor is that this lawsuit is an infringement lawsuit, and the infringement damage at least comes from the alleged infringement part related to the establishment of outlets and the establishment of user lists on outlets.

When talking about whether computers alone can achieve sufficient contact, the Michigan court held: "Through computers, enterprises can communicate with several States at the same time. Network communication is different from telephone because the information it transmits can be shared by the receiver and all other people who want to see it. Therefore, when modern technology makes global communication easier, the jurisdiction must be broadened accordingly. "

Case 2: Inset Systems v. Insco SETI Inc Insco Shen, a Massachusetts company, published an advertisement on the Internet and used a domain name that Inset, a Connecticut plaintiff, thought infringed its trademark rights, so the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in a Connecticut court. 1996 April 17, Connecticut court ruled that it had jurisdiction, because the defendant deliberately sent the advertisement to Connecticut (although it was also sent to other States), and there were 10000 Internet users in Connecticut who might visit the website. The court didn't even consider the number of Connecticut residents who actually visited the site.

The facts of these two cases are similar, and the courts in these two cases tend to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the facts of the website. So, can the website constitute a new jurisdiction basis?

According to the traditional theory of jurisdiction, two conditions must be met to become the basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction: first, the factors related to the parties themselves are relatively stable in time and space and can be determined; Second, this factor is related to jurisdiction to a certain extent. The above-mentioned traditional jurisdiction bases all meet these two conditions. Therefore, to judge whether a website can become a new jurisdiction base, we must examine whether it can meet these two conditions.

First of all, the website is relatively stable. Websites exist in cyberspace, and their status in cyberspace can be determined, and their changes need to go through certain procedures through service providers, so they can be determined in a specific period of time. The position of website in cyberspace is similar to that of residence in physical space. The same person can have multiple residences or multiple websites. There is a close relationship between websites and people. Website owners have the right to send and receive information through websites, and also have the right to allow others to use their own websites to send and receive information. The relationship among information, websites and owners is relatively stable and can be ascertained. So the website basically meets the requirements of stability.

Secondly, the relevance between website and jurisdiction. There are two ways to relate the website to the physical space: one is under the jurisdiction of the website ISP, which can be determined by the static facts of the website, and it is completely related, just like the relationship between residence and residence; Second, when the website activities involve other network participants, contact the jurisdiction where other participants are located. Whether this connection can make the courts in this jurisdiction gain jurisdiction involves the above-mentioned cases and must be solved.

Website activities can be static negative activities, such as maintaining a BBS, or dynamic positive activities, such as sending emails to specific people. The connection between the website and other network participants can also be divided into passive connection and active connection, and the subjective correlation between them is different. Putting information on the website for anyone to read constitutes a laissez-faire relationship with readers; When information is sent to a person for reading, it is intentionally associated with the receiver. The latter is obviously more sufficient than the former. No matter what kind of contact, it may objectively cause damage to others, or have disputes with others, thus forming an objective contact. As in physical space, this objective correlation itself has proved to be sufficient. But there will be problems here. On the one hand, it is very difficult to prove how to determine the place of infringement or contract in cyberspace. On the other hand, making the website owner subject to the jurisdiction of areas he has never actually visited may expand the jurisdiction of the court indefinitely. When it comes to foreign-related cases, it involves the infinite extension of foreign jurisdiction, affects the jurisdiction of other countries, and leads to the expansion and contraction of sovereignty. In addition, the determination of jurisdiction must consider the interests of the parties to the dispute, and a reasonable balance of the interests of the parties is one of the foundations for determining jurisdiction. If the website owner is subject to the jurisdiction of an area he has never actually been to, it will undoubtedly pose a great threat to the interests of the website owner, destroy the balance of interests of both parties, and violate the principle of fairness and justice of the law. Therefore, if the negative connection constitutes a complete connection, as the court insisted in the above two cases, then every website owner will be logically under the jurisdiction of any country with Internet service in the world, which not only threatens the judicial jurisdiction of other countries representing sovereignty, but also seriously harms the interests of one party.

China's judicial organs have begun to practice in solving the above-mentioned jurisdiction problems. The Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Computer Network Copyright Disputes, which was adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court at its1144th meeting on October 22, 2000 and came into effect on February 22, 2000, provides for this. Article 1 of the Interpretation stipulates the jurisdiction of online copyright cases: online copyright infringement disputes shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the infringement occurred or the defendant's domicile. Infringement sites include the locations of network servers, computer terminals and other equipment that carry out the alleged infringement. If it is difficult to determine the place of infringement and the defendant's domicile, the location of the computer terminal and other equipment where the plaintiff found the infringing content can be regarded as the place of infringement. Infringement cases shall be under the jurisdiction of the place where the infringement occurred (according to the relevant judicial interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, the place where the infringement occurred and the place where the infringement resulted) or the defendant's domicile. This is the traditional principle of China's civil procedure law, but here, the word "place of tort" has a new meaning. Generally speaking, "infringement site" refers to "the location of the network server, computer terminal and other equipment that carries out the alleged infringement", that is, the critical point where the infringing work leads to the network (referring to the "network server that carries out the alleged infringement", after being hosted, the user can log in directly through the network) and the computer or server that carries out the infringing operation (according to the provisions of the Interpretation, we understand that it should include the computer terminal that carries out the infringing act and the infringer's internal network server). When the above two places are difficult to determine, the location of the equipment where the plaintiff found the infringing content can be regarded as the infringing place, which is equivalent to treating the "infringing result place" as the infringing place, which is basically consistent with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. It can be seen that the jurisdiction principle of the Interpretation on network cases is based on the jurisdiction of the defendant's domicile and the place where the infringement occurred, except for the jurisdiction of the infringement result.

It should be said that this judicial interpretation conforms to the principles of stability and relevance in jurisdiction theory, but in practice, it is not difficult to operate. Different from traditional civil disputes, it is not difficult to find out where and who infringes, but the virtual characteristics of the subject on the network make it very difficult to find the infringer, so it is difficult to determine the location of the network server stipulated in this article. First of all, the way to know the location of the network server from the Internet is through IP address identification, which obviously not everyone can do. Even if it is judged to be in a certain city, how can we determine where it is hosted? This kind of information is not public, and not everyone can master it because of its professionalism. As for the defendant's domicile, for an infringer who applied for a domain name, it is very simple to find his domicile, just log on to CNNIC and check it, but it is impossible for a large number of individual infringers to find it. Therefore, it lacks operability.