Live DOTA2 tort, betta-betta was sentenced to pay 1.1 million Yuan, DOTA2-IT information
Reporter from Shanghai intellectual property Court (referred to "Shanghai know produced Court") was informed that, May 9, Shanghai know produced Court on appeal people Guangzhou bucket fish network technology limited (referred to "bucket fish company") v was appeal people Shanghai Yao Yu culture media limited (referred to "Yao Yu company") copyright infringement and the not due competition disputes appeal case made II trial judgment, dismissed appeal, maintained upheld. Betta needs compensation for yaoyu company 1 million yuan of economic loss and human rights defenders, the reasonable expenses of 100,000 yuan, and betta site Home prominently published statements, the Elimination of adverse effects. This case is the first case of e-sports gaming event Webcast induced copyright infringement, and unfair competition disputes.
Betta intercept DOTA2 event screen broadcast
DOTA2 (turret 2) is a United States company Villefort (Valve Corporation) developed one of the world's game competition online games. In 2014, Yao Yu company and agent the game operator perfect world (Beijing) technology co (hereinafter "perfection") signed a strategic cooperation agreement to jointly build 2015 DOTA2 tournament in Asia, Yao Yu company obtained the exclusive video coverage of events in the County area.
Zhihou, fighting fish without authorization of the company, to watch mode to intercept events pictures by a client to host reviews, broadcasting the events live, and live with the Yao-Yu's identity. Yao Yu company to court, requested Decree betta stop infringement, removing, compensation for economic loss and reasonable costs amounted to 8.211 million Yuan.
A trial court trial Hou think, network user only can in bucket fish company live of specific time paragraph within watch is for of involved events, Yao Yu company advocates was against of video broadcast right both not belongs to information network spread right, also not belongs to other statutory of copyright right, and game picture not belongs to copyright method provides of works, so Yao Yu company on bucket fish company against its copyright of advocates cannot established, but finds bucket fish company constitute not due competition, was judgment its bear elimination effect, and Compensation for economic loss and reasonable costs a total of 1.1 million Yuan.
The second instance upheld
After the verdict, fighting fish company, and appealed to the Shanghai property rights court.
Fish argues that currently most of the Games Live sites around the country to take "client-side interception of the game screen, and then transfer the pictures to watch the players, and their platforms on the narration and soundtrack" mode, game makers have not raised objections about this. Game client in question in the present case, there is no ban on intercept footage broadcast tips, according to the law without law making it impossible for civil law principles, fighting fish company is essentially involved in reporting the event, the behavior is not beyond the scope of fair use of the game client bystander. In addition, the betta yaoyu company does not damage the economic interests of the company, so its behavior does not constitute unfair competition.
Shanghai know produced Court II trial think, bucket fish company not on involved events of organization operation for any input, also not made video broadcast right of license, is free sat enjoy Yao Yu company input large human, and material, and financial organization operation of events by produced of commercial results, for himself seek commercial interests and competition advantage, its actually is a "a lift car" behavior, captured has originally is Yu Yaoyu company of audience number, led to its website flow serious shunt, effect its advertising returns capacity, damage its commercial opportunities and competition advantage, Weaken the value-added of its Webcast platform.
Therefore, Shanghai property rights court found that the fish company in violation of the law against unfair competition of the principle of good faith, contrary to accepted business morality, damaging yaoyu company's legitimate rights and interests, undermining market competition order, obviously unfair, constitute unfair competition, therefore, dismiss the appeal, upheld.
Court: betta subjective malicious acts of unfair competition clearly
Although game makers are also encouraged to broadcast video platform games, but any of the participants or spectators of the game client, you can broadcast the game live or what?
Shanghai property rights court held that, even if game makers to encourage video broadcast platform games are subject to the free, does not indicate that participants, spectators of the game client can be without permission shall be entitled to match the client for live, broadcast and commercial use.
The Court also considered, this case involved DOTA2 game is the world famous game competition online games, the game's official Chinese website is explicitly stated in connection with the events by perfect world hosting, MarsTV, fire CAT TV exclusive coverage of international tournaments. Appellant as a professional game-streaming website, to know the scale of the well-known broadcasts must be licensed, still known by the appellant in connection with events exclusive video rights cases, broadcast live from the game client intercepts the match to seek illegitimate interests, its subjective malice clear acts of unfair competition. Concluded in the present case for the development of e-sports gaming industry in full swing in China have good guidance and regulation.
(Original title: first esports live dispute closed: rules do not prove the rationality, betta loses)
直播DOTA2侵权，斗鱼被判赔110万元 - 斗鱼,DOTA2 - IT资讯
记者从上海知识产权法院（简称“上海知产法院”）获悉，5月9日，上海知产法院对上诉人广州斗鱼网络科技有限公司（简称“斗鱼公司”）诉被上诉人上海耀宇文化传媒有限公司（简称“耀宇公司”）著作权侵权及不正当竞争纠纷上诉案作出二审判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。斗鱼公司需赔偿耀宇公司经济损失人民币100万元和维权的合理开支人民币10万元，并在斗鱼网站首页显著位置刊登声明，消除不良影响。本案系中国首例电子竞技类游戏赛事网络直播引发的著作权侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案。
斗鱼截取DOTA2赛事画面转播
DOTA2（刀塔2）是美国维尔福公司（Valve Corporation）开发的一款风靡全球的电子竞技类网络游戏。2014年，耀宇公司与该游戏代理运营商完美世界（北京）网络技术有限公司（以下简称“完美公司”）签订战略合作协议，共同打造2015年DOTA2亚洲邀请赛，耀宇公司获得该赛事在中国大陆地区的独家视频转播权。
之后，斗鱼公司未经授权，以通过客户端旁观模式截取赛事画面配以主播点评的方式，实时直播该赛事，且在直播时使用了耀宇公司的标识。故耀宇公司诉至法院，请求判令斗鱼公司停止侵权，消除影响，赔偿经济损失及合理费用共计821.1万元。
一审法院审理后认为，网络用户仅能在斗鱼公司直播的特定时间段内观看正在进行的涉案赛事，耀宇公司主张被侵害的视频转播权既不属于信息网络传播权，亦不属于其他法定的著作权权利，且比赛画面不属于著作权法规定的作品，故耀宇公司关于斗鱼公司侵害其著作权的主张不能成立，但认定斗鱼公司构成不正当竞争，遂判决其承担消除影响、赔偿经济损失及合理费用共计110万元。
二审维持原判
判决后，斗鱼公司不服，向上海知产法院提起上诉。
斗鱼公司认为，目前国内的游戏直播网站大部分都采取“客户端截取比赛画面，然后将画面转给观看玩家，并配上自己平台的解说和配乐”的模式，游戏厂商对此亦未提过异议。本案所涉游戏客户端并无任何禁止截取画面转播的提示，根据法无明文规定不可为即可为的民法原则，斗鱼公司的行为本质上是对涉案赛事进行报道，该行为没有超出游戏客户端旁观者的合理使用范围。另外，斗鱼公司的行为未损害耀宇公司的经济利益，所以其行为不构成不正当竞争。
上海知产法院二审认为，斗鱼公司未对涉案赛事的组织运营进行任何投入，也未取得视频转播权的许可，却免费坐享耀宇公司投入大量人力、物力、财力组织运营的赛事所产生的商业成果，为自己谋取商业利益和竞争优势，其实际上是一种“搭便车”行为，夺取了原本属于耀宇公司的观众数量，导致其网站流量严重分流，影响其广告收益能力，损害其商业机会和竞争优势，弱化其网络直播平台的增值力。
因此，上海知产法院认为，斗鱼公司的行为违反了反不正当竞争法中的诚实信用原则，违背了公认的商业道德，损害了耀宇公司合法权益，破坏了市场竞争秩序，具有明显的不正当性，构成不正当竞争，故判决驳回上诉，维持原判。
法院：斗鱼不正当竞争行为的主观恶意明显
虽然游戏厂商也鼓励视频平台播报游戏比赛，但是任何一个游戏客户端的参与者或旁观者，都可以对游戏比赛情况进行转播或直播么？
上海知产法院认为，即使存在游戏厂商鼓励视频平台播报游戏比赛亦属于其免费许可的情况，并不表明游戏客户端的参与者、旁观者可以未经许可即有权将客户端的比赛画面进行直播、转播并商业利用。
该法院还认为，而本案所涉DOTA2游戏系世界知名的电子竞技类网络游戏，该游戏官方中文网站明确声明涉案赛事是由完美世界主办、MarsTV承办、火猫TV独家转播的国际职业赛事。上诉人作为专业的游戏直播网站，应当知晓如此大规模的知名赛事转播必须经授权许可，仍在明知被上诉人享有涉案赛事独家视频转播权的情况下，从游戏客户端截取比赛画面进行直播以谋取不正当利益，其不正当竞争行为的主观恶意明显。本案的审结对于国内如火如荼发展的电子竞技类游戏产业具有较好的引导和规制作用。
（原标题：首起电竞网络直播纠纷结案：潜规则不能证明合理性，斗鱼败诉）