Beijing Internet Court First Case Completion of the Trial

Source: Beijing Daily Reporter: Zhang Lei, Wang Tianqi On September 9, with the establishment of the Beijing Internet Court, the electronic litigation platform of the institute was officially open to the public. The “shocking short video” v. “coupling small video” copyright ownership and infringement dispute became the first case accepted by the Beijing Internet Court. Internet Court Exterior This morning, the case was officially heard in an Internet court. How does the Beijing Internet Court, known as the “Online Case Online Trial”, open a court? The reporter also experienced one at the scene. The online court trial is full of modernity. The morning trial was held in a court in Beijing Internet Court. The case was conducted in a full-line online trial. The original defendant did not need to be in court, but was presented in video by a long strip of electronic screen on the wall directly in front of the court. The big screen is divided into three pieces, the left and right sides are the images of the original defendant, and the middle is the trial seat. Internet court According to the reporter, the display screen in the court uses a highly realistic imaging technology with a 1:1 ratio of real people, so that the ratio of portraits to real people displayed on the screen is the same to enhance the sense of the court. The trial seat is located opposite the big screen. Sitting in the middle of the presiding judge, each is a judge. Different from the traditional court, the judges of the network court adopt the design of concealed microphone and hidden high-beat. At the same time, instead of having the clerk’s seat, the voice recognition system performs the court recording in real time, and the speech recognition accuracy is accurate. Up to 98%. During the trial, the online court presented a closed state. On the side of the court is a monolithic glass curtain wall made of electronic dimming glass. In order to avoid interference, the original transparent glass curtain wall was adjusted to the atomization state after the morning trial, and the outside person could not see the inside of the court. The electronic card at the entrance of the court was also tuned to “opening in court”. At the same time, the face recognition access control system at the door was activated, and unrelated personnel could no longer enter the court. However, the reporter noted that the court’s auditorium seats were located outside the glass curtain wall. During the trial, there will be projection equipment that will project the image of the trial, including the courtroom and the original defendant’s picture, onto the atomized glass curtain wall, and the earpiece will be heard for the observers to listen. The auditorium area The dean personally tried the blockchain for evidence. It is worth mentioning that today’s presiding judge is Zhang Wen, the president of the Beijing Internet Court. According to public information, Zhang Wen was the vice president of the People’s Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing, the president of the People’s Court of Beijing Changping District, and the president of the People’s Court of Fengtai District, Beijing. On August 16, 2018, the sixth meeting of the 15th Beijing Municipal People’s Congress Standing Committee appointed Zhang Wen as the president of the Beijing Internet Court, a member of the Judicial Committee, and a judge. In addition, as the first case accepted by the Beijing Internet Court – “short-sounding short video” v. “co-playing small video” case used the blockchain forensic deposit technology. It is reported that in the case of infringement and evidence collection, the third-party platform Beijing “Zhong Jing Tian Ping” conducted a blockchain for evidence collection. In the morning trial, the video evidence submitted by the plaintiff and captured by the blockchain technology was broadcast on the big screen of the online court. The reporter learned that blockchain as a “distributed storage technology” has irreversible, non-tamperable characteristics, and can play an important role in the “authenticity” of fixed evidence. The first lawsuit involving short video copyright The first case accepted by the Beijing Internet Court was also the first lawsuit between the two platforms on short video copyright. The plaintiff Beijing Micro-Broadcast Vision Technology Co., Ltd. alleged that “Shaking Short Video” is an original short video sharing platform legally owned and operated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained the exclusive exclusive rights to disseminate information and exclusive rights to the short video created by the creators of the exclusive agreement. The “5•12, I want to tell you” short video (hereinafter referred to as the short video) was published on the “Shake Short Video” platform, and was independently created by the short video creator “Black Face V”. However, the plaintiff found that The short video involved was spread on the “small video” and provided a download service. Based on this, the plaintiff sued Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Beijing Baidu Netcom Technology Co., Ltd. to the court, demanding that the two defendants stop the infringement, and within three days after the judgment took effect, they will continue on the homepage of and the small video homepage. A apology statement was issued 24 hours a day, and the economic loss was 1 million yuan, and the reasonable expenses of the lawsuit were 50,000 yuan. The defendant’s lawyer believes that the short video involved is not original and is not covered by the copyright law. At the same time, the plaintiff was not the author or the right holder, and did not sue the rights of the defendant Baidu. Baidu “team video” provides information storage service only, the short video involved is uploaded by the netizen, and Baidu does not infringe when the user uploads the video in the user agreement. The defendant’s lawyer also stated that the video was uploaded by the registered user of id451670, and the defendant deleted it in time after receiving the plaintiff’s complaint, fulfilling its reasonable obligations, and there was no fault. In order to ascertain the facts, the plaintiff’s lawyer took the initiative to apply for the addition of the registered user as the defendant. In the morning, the case was not pronounced in court.