Fast play against Shenzhen supervision Bureau's trial ended, Tencent: fast play violations of industry-wide interest-, and Tencent-IT information
IT information news on June 21, case of unicast v Shenzhen supervision Bureau of the 260 million fine already on June 21, 2016 (today) public hearing 9:00 in Guangdong High Court , currently hearing is over, will choose a sentencing date. Shenzhen Tencent computer system as the original third person, attended the court hearing, court hearing broadcast network in Guangdong province for the hearing, which was broadcast live.
On March 18, 2014, the company complained to the Shenzhen market supervision authority, broadcasting companies violated their right of information network transmission right in connection with the works, be investigated and prosecuted. Fast play company refuses to accept such a decision, to the copyright Bureau of Guangdong Province within the statutory time limit may apply for administrative reconsideration. And after the administrative review, fast play company appealed against the judgment of first instance, the Shenzhen market supervision authority on the matter involved no administrative penalty authority, administrative procedure law and basis of administrative punishments, administrative punishments such as improper grounds, lodge an appeal to this Court, the Court accepted a collegial panel in accordance with law, public hearing decision to the present case.
In this trial, the fast play counsel's view, the Shenzhen regulatory Bureau helps Tencent to clear competitor fast play, that Shenzhen market supervision authority on the matter involved no administrative penalty authority, the basis of illegal administrative procedure and administrative penalties inadequate, improper amounts of administrative penalties. Fast play and Tencent are competitors, fast play is a small company, but does not fall behind in technology, administration of Shenzhen market easily significant fines for fast play, just according to Tencent, the interested person's Word, is to help the company get rid of a competitor.
Appellee Shenzhen market supervision is given 3 points in response, first of all, fast play actively edited infringing videos. Fast play record video to active acquisition of the company's own employees, Editor's choice according to market demand and buzz words. Secondly, the broadcasting company will pirate disguise genuine video , Finally, broadcasting companies also provide a source of genuine and pirated. And says fast play three times received the Tencent shield infringing links requested, but have yet to be screened.
As Tencent trial third party defence, Broadcasting Act constitute an infringement of the four elements. It is reported that four factors include, first, there are illegal, the second led to the infringed party damage, and the third, offences and there exists a causal relationship between damage fourth, perpetrators of violations there is a fault, such as intent. Meanwhile, Tencent said fast play in the first three search results labeled as broadcast content, it can be seen, fast play not only provides links to infringing small websites, as well as infringing content, and directional links to infringing content. Fast play abet and contributory infringement actions. Meanwhile, broadcast by Tencent, music video, Sohu and other complaints of the influential content, fast play not only constitute an infringement, and against the public interest.
Fast play lawyers believe fast play just for the search function does not offer of infringing products. And the broadcasting company is not against the public interest involved. Although the appellant is a small company, but due to the lead in the technology, has become the third parties (Tencent) a direct competitor.
Now the trial is over, said Guangdong courts in this case choose a sentencing date.
快播诉深圳监督局案庭审结束，
腾讯：快播侵犯的是全行业的利益 - 快播,
腾讯 - IT资讯
IT资讯讯 6月21日消息，快播诉深圳市监督局有关2.6亿罚款一案，已经于2016年6月21日（今天）9:00在广东高院公开开庭审理，目前庭审已经结束，将择日宣判。深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司作为原审第三人，参加了本次庭审，广东法院庭审直播网对此次庭审进行了直播。
2014年3月18日，腾讯公司向深圳市市场监督管理局投诉称，快播公司侵害了其享有的涉案作品信息网络传播权，请求予以查处。快播公司不服上述处理决定，在法定期限内向广东省版权局申请行政复议。而在行政复议后，快播公司不服一审判决，以深圳市市场监督管理局对涉案事项无行政处罚职权、行政程序违法以及行政处罚的依据不足、行政处罚的数额不当等为由，向本院提出上诉，本院受理后依法组成合议庭，决定公开开庭审理本案。
在本次庭审中，快播律师认为，深圳市监局帮助腾讯清除竞争对手快播，认为深圳市市场监督管理局对涉案事项无行政处罚职权、行政程序违法以及行政处罚的依据不足、行政处罚的数额不当。快播和腾讯是竞争对手，快播虽然是小公司，但在技术上不落后，深圳市市场监督管理局轻易对快播处以重大罚款，仅仅是根据腾讯这一利害关系人的一面之词，等于是帮助腾讯除去了一个竞争对手。
而被上诉人深圳市场监督局表示给出3点回应，首先，快播主动编辑整理侵权视频。快播公司自身员工的笔录称视频为主动采集，根据市场需求和热门词进行编辑推荐。其次，快播公司将盗版伪装正版视频，最后，快播公司同时提供正版和其它盗版来源。并表示，快播公司三次接到腾讯方提出的屏蔽侵权链接的要求，但仍未进行屏蔽处理。
作为原审第三人的腾讯辩方表示，快播的行为构成侵权的四大构成要件。据悉，四大要件包括，第一，有行为违法，第二导致被侵权方发生损害事实，第三，违法行为和损害事实之间存在因果关系，第四违法行为实施者存在有过错，比如主观故意。同时，腾讯方面表示，快播在搜索结果中的前三条标注为快播的内容，由此可以看出，快播不光提供侵权小网站的链接，还提供侵权内容，及侵权内容的定向链接。快播存在教唆以及帮助侵权的行为。同时，快播还遭到了腾讯、乐视、搜狐等有影响力的内容方的投诉，快播不仅构成侵权，而且侵害公共利益。
而快播律师认为快播只是提供搜索功能，不主动提供侵权产品。并且，快播公司不涉及侵害公共利益。上诉人虽然是个小公司，但是由于在技术上的领先，已经成为第三方（腾讯）的直接竞争对手。
目前本次庭审已经结束，广东法院表示本案将择日宣判。