Who killed fast play? Standard-fast play or server, the server-IT information
Whether they are positive, or negative, fast play probably would leave a thick stroke.
A fast play company, were criminal cases and cases of administrative penalty and "caught up", pending criminal cases, administrative punishment cases into the proceedings.
However, both interest and are fast play of Huang-related criminal cases, and fast play against copyright administrative punishment cases, traced is the principle of technology and business model of "torture".
While standing in the fast play perspective, is "deeper than deep" is a fast play regarding its technology to hold a "technology neutral" concept and without accountability to users upload platform paranoia.
From a legal viewpoint, whether it is "technology neutral" or "users", fast play and non-crimes, punishment and impunity, the core of which is a broadcast pornographic videos and infringing video communication, downloading and playing the role of, the role played by.
A few days ago, fast play against Shenzhen authority copyright administrative punishment in the case of disputes in the world market, Guangdong provincial higher people's Court of second instance trial.
Case 2014 Shenzhen market supervision administration of 260 million Yuan for fast play high fines, and cause for concern.
At that time, think fast play of the Shenzhen market supervision authority has carried out violations, unauthorized communication to the public through the network TV series, works of arts classes, and subjective intent clear, made the decision.
Fast play after 2 years in the case, has walked, first-instance procedures of administrative reconsideration, and finally into the second instance, whether early in the punishment finds, and is the first and the second instance, has been the focus of attention is whether fast play constitutes infringement.
In determining whether fast play constitutes a violation, the core problem lies in the fast play what roles in the video playback: video search player, neutral-neutral? or direct broadcast services?
Focus: "technology neutral" is not equal to the paid service Disclaimer
Broadcast executives and their counsel or agents, both in the fast play yellow in the criminal case in question, or in the broadcast were sentenced to heavy fines in administrative cases, has been stressing multicast services "technology neutral", as well as video search service and player services of broadcasting service.
And this excuse or defence purposes, when the applicable law is, limit the broadcast to "video search + video" service.
For a considerable amount of time, Internet infringement cases before the Court largely adopted a "Server".
The so-called "Server standards" means to determine whether the acts complained of communication through information network, you should consider is the content stored on the respondent complained against the server.
Fast play yellow in the case in question, the prosecution found fast play constituted the crime of dissemination of pornographic material for profit is the key, in a fast multicast server found many to be decoded to playing pornographic video files (or fragment).
In this regard, the broadcast team and his defenders stressed that the fast play found has to be decoded on the server in order to play the files listed above, is the unique technology for fast play, that is, in order to improve the user-side play smooth, automatic "cache files".
According to Wang Xin and other broadcast team on the introduction of technology, equivalent to planting gives users an exclusive file upload service (to generate a hash code), as well as exclusive on-demand or broadcast service (hash code or upload a file can only be through fast seeding player).
Focus two: criminal accountability stressed server control, administrative punishments towards the actual control
Fast play be punished with heavy fines in cases of administrative penalty, found the executive authorities do not store link from the server, but from the "de facto control" dimension to identify fast play constitutes infringement.
The so-called "actual control", that is, legal regulation of Internet content service provider founded in the control and management on the basis of, that is, who controls, who manages who take responsibility.
From the "file upload code" to "broadcast decoding and playing", whether legal video content, video content is illegal, fast play has been through its own technology for video transmission and playback providing technical services and support.
In particular it is to be noted that, for users to take advantage of fast play to retrieve or search for video files to the resources, if you do not use the fast play player is unable to watch.
In other words, fast play and those providing videos infringing Web site has established a special relationship, the equivalent of fast play by way of advertising, such as or divide into, "rent" Web site that provides video content resources video resources, and with the fast transcoding technology for these videos resources only available to users who use the fast play player can open.
In this mode of cooperation, surface seeding does not directly provide video content or video content that is not stored on your own server, should be able to apply "safe harbor" rule, you can only perform the remove the obligation of notification.
But in fact, fast play in large and small video website or webmaster to provide the above technical services, does not identify video content sources of legitimacy of these websites or inspection.
Most importantly, the video content if you do not use the fast play player, and use other servers or click on a Web page to play, was unable to play.
Judging from this video playback technology process, while the video is not stored in the fast play on the server, however, technologies such as multicast transcoding into and through advertising technology, realized for a particular video or store video content server control.
Focus three: new infringement rules changes: user perception, the essence of alternative
Simply put, broadcasting technology does not meet the "standard server" closer "substantive alternative to the standard".
The so-called "substantive alternative to the standard" is not considered original Uploaders who works stored in which virtual servers, and how the propagation path of the work, as long as the accused perpetrator real replaced the right person eventually made available to the public and to disseminate the work, shall be identified as provided.
For example, in 2015, "Sohu v beep beep", "Bee Network" through technological means to link the case involved work on the Web site and play online on its website.
In this case the Court held that the work involved is outside the storage place on site, but "Bee Network" is the user directly on its Web site to watch the works involved, beyond helping users "or information" the proper limits, essentially replaced the case Web site available to the public works, "Bee Network" right to network dissemination of information against Sohu.
China Supreme People's Court released of judicial explained on trial against information network spread right civil disputes case applies legal several problem of provides third article second paragraph provides: "through upload to network server, and set shared file or using file share software, way, will works, and performances, and recording video products placed information network in the, makes public can in personal selected of time and locations following contains, and browse or other way get of", court should finds its constitute against information network spread right behavior.
Clearly, the judicial interpretation in determining infringement of video playback on a standard, has broken through the early years of "Server standards", more "substantive alternative to the standard" feature.
Indeed, in the era of mobile Internet and cloud, "Server standards" has lagged far behind the technology development and industry realities.
Academic and judicial and law enforcement practice and finding some new decision rules, except as noted in the preceding "actual control" and "substantive alternative to the standard", but also "user experience standards" and so on.
The so-called "user experience standards" refers to judge whether the acts complained of communication through information network, consider the network user perception, if the responding make users believe that the content is provided by the respondent complained, that it finds respondent committed to network dissemination of information act.
Which usually take into account are the external manifestations of the acts complained of, as to whether the accused is stored in is whether respondent the server.
The Chaoyang District Court in Beijing "AAM H3 set-top-box case", the Haidian District Court trial "look at film and television" in such cases, are close to the applicable "standard user perception" trend.
And in May 2014 Shanghai City PuTuo court trial of 1000 television website of operators Zhang a violations copyright crime a case in the, although website of operators no directly provides infringement works of server upload behavior, but through depth links of way spread infringement works, court finds 1000 television this deep set chain behavior constitute information network spread behavior, violations has copyright people lawful rights and interests of, law finds accused constitute violations copyright crime.
This is our judicial practice, the first recognized the deep set chain acts constitute an act of communication through information network, while regulated by the criminal.
So, back to fast play in a series of cases, especially the fast play is 260 million Yuan and heavy fines in cases of administrative penalty, determined to be broadcast should constitute an infringement and without too much obstacles as to the appropriateness of the fine of 260 million Yuan, may need to Court of second instance trial to ascertain.
And fast play from "innovation stars" go to this awkward situation, with their infringement may also "Server standards" not to put through technical innovation aversion "own server storage" to achieve rapid dissemination of infringing content, and strong heart itself does not constitute an infringement to the.
From this point of view, "Server standards" may also be detrimental to the fast play a big factor.
Because it's making fast play to relax their own assume management responsibilities and the duty of care, allow or promote the infringing video content using multicast technology quick and widespread dissemination, against the legitimate interests of rights holders, hurting genuine video content industry, disrupted the network transmission of video content order.
到底谁害了快播？或是服务器标准 - 快播,服务器 - IT资讯
不论是正面看，还是反面看，快播恐怕都会留下浓重一笔。
一家快播公司，被刑事案件和行政处罚案件同时“缠身”，刑事案件尚未结案，行政处罚案件进入诉讼程序。
但是，不论是备受关注的快播涉黄刑事案件，还是快播侵害著作权行政处罚案件，究其根源都是对快播技术原理和商业模式的“拷问”。
而站在快播角度看，之所以“越陷越深”，则是因为快播对于其技术原理抱持“技术中立”理念和对网友上传平台无责的偏执。
而从法律层面看，不论是“技术中立”还是“网友上传”，快播罪与非罪、罚与不罚的核心则是快播在淫秽色情视频及侵权视频传播、下载或播放中所扮演的角色、发挥的作用如何。
日前，快播诉深圳市市场监督管理局著作权行政处罚纠纷一案在广东省高级人民法院二审开庭。
这起案件因2014年深圳市市场监督管理局对快播处以2.6亿元高额罚款，而备受关注。
当时，深圳市市场监督管理局认为快播多次实施侵权行为，通过网络向公众传播非授权的影视剧、综艺类作品，且主观故意明显，作出了上述处罚决定。
此案快播历经2年多,先后走过行政复议被、一审等程序，终于进入二审阶段，不论在处罚认定之初，还是一审以及二审，备受关注的焦点都是快播是否构成侵权。
而在认定快播是否构成侵权时，核心问题在于快播到底在视频播放中承担什么样的角色：中立的播放器、中立的视频搜索?抑或直接的播放服务?
焦点一：“技术中立”不等于有偿服务可免责
快播公司高管及其辩护人或代理人，不论是在快播涉黄的刑事案件中，还是在快播被处以高额罚款的行政案件中，一直都强调快播服务的“技术中立”，以及快播服务属于视频搜索服务及播放器服务。
而这种辩解或辩护理由的目的，在于法律适用时，将快播限定为“视频搜索+视频播放”的服务。
在很长一段时间里，法院审理网络侵权案件时大都采用了“服务器标准”。
所谓“服务器标准”，就是指判断被诉行为是否为信息网络传播行为，应考虑的是被诉内容是否存储于被诉人的服务器中。
在快播涉黄案件中，公诉方认定快播构成传播淫秽物品牟利罪的关键就在于，在快播的服务器发现大量需解码才能播放的淫秽色情视频文件(或片段)。
对此，快播团队及其辩护人强调，之所以快播服务器上发现了需解码才能播放的上述文件，是因为快播特有的技术原理，即为了提高用户端播放流畅度，自动形成的“缓存文件”。
根据王欣等快播团队对快播技术的介绍，相当于快播给用户提供了一种专属的文件上传服务(生成哈希码)，以及专属的点播或播放服务(哈希码或上传文件只能通过快播播放器播放)。
焦点二：刑事追责强调服务器控制，行政处罚偏重实际控制
而在快播被处以高额罚款的行政处罚案件中，行政机关并非从服务器存储环节进行认定，而是从“实际控制”维度来认定快播构成侵权的。
所谓“实际控制标准”，即对互联网内容服务提供者的法律规制理念建立在控制管理的基础上，即谁控制，谁管理，谁担责。
从“文件上传编码”到“快播解码播放”，不论是合法视频内容，还是违法视频内容，快播已经通过自身技术为相应视频的传播和播放提供了技术服务或支持。
尤其需要指出的是，对于用户利用快播检索或搜索到的视频文件资源，如果不使用快播播放器是无法观看的。
换句话说，快播与那些提供视频的侵权小网站建立了一种特殊的合作关系，相当于快播通过网络广告投放或分成等方式，“租用”了提供视频内容资源的网站的视频资源，并借助快播技术为这些视频资源进行转码，仅供使用快播播放器的用户可以打开。
在这种合作模式中，表面看快播并未直接提供视频内容或视频内容并不存储在自己的服务器，应该可以适用“避风港”规则，仅需履行通知删除义务即可。
但实际上，快播在给大大小小的视频网站或站长提供上述技术服务时，并未对这些网站的视频内容来源合法性进行识别或查验。
更重要的是，这些视频内容如果不使用快播播放器，而使用其他服务器或在网页直接点击播放，是无法播放的。
从这个视频播放实现的技术过程来看，虽然视频并不存储在快播服务器上，但是，快播通过广告分成及技术转码等技术，实现了对特定视频资源或存储相应视频内容服务器的有效控制。
焦点三：侵权认定规则新变化：用户感知、实质替代
简单说，快播的技术确实不太符合“服务器标准”，而更贴近“实质性替代标准”。
所谓“实质性替代标准”是指不考虑最初上传者是谁，作品存储在哪些虚拟服务器，以及作品的传播路径如何，只要被诉行为人实质替代了权利人最终向公众提供并传播了作品，就应当认定为提供行为。
例如，在2015年“搜狐诉哔哩哔哩案”中，“哔哩网”通过技术手段将案外网站上的涉案作品链接到其网站上并实现在线播放。
该案中法院认为，涉案作品虽存储在案外网站，但“哔哩网”是用户直接在其网站观看涉案作品的行为，已经超出帮助用户“资源或信息定位”的正当范围，实质上替代了相关案外网站向公众提供作品，因此“哔哩网”侵害了搜狐的信息网络传播权。
中国最高人民法院发布的司法解释《关于审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》第三条第二款规定：“通过上传到网络服务器、设置共享文件或者利用文件分享软件等方式，将作品、表演、录音录像制品置于信息网络中，使公众能够在个人选定的时间和地点以下载、浏览或者其他方式获得的”，人民法院应当认定其构成侵害信息网络传播权行为。
显然，该司法解释在认定视频播放侵权标准上，已经突破了早些年的“服务器标准”，更符合“实质性替代标准”特征。
实际上，在移动互联网和云时代，“服务器标准”已经远远落后于技术发展和行业现实情况。
学界以及司法和执法实践中探索出一些新的判定规则，除了前述提到的“实际控制标准”、“实质性替代标准”外，还有“用户感知标准”等。
所谓“用户感知标准”，是指判断被诉行为是否为信息网络传播行为，应考虑网络用户的感知，如果被诉行为使得用户认为被诉内容系由被诉人提供，即应认定被诉人实施了信息网络传播行为。
该标准通常考虑的是被诉行为的外在表现形式，至于被诉内容是否存储于被诉人服务器中则在所不论。
这在北京市朝阳区法院审理的“精伦H3机顶盒案”、海淀区法院审理的“快看影视案”等案例中，都有接近于适用“用户感知标准”的趋势。
而在2014年5月上海市普陀法院审理的1000影视网站的经营者张某侵犯著作权罪一案中，虽然网站的经营者没有直接提供侵权作品的服务器上传行为，但通过深度链接的方式传播侵权作品，法院认定1000影视这种深层设链行为构成信息网络传播行为，侵犯了版权人合法权益，依法认定被告构成侵犯著作权罪。
这是我国司法实践中，首次认定深层设链行为构成信息网络传播行为，同时予以刑事规制。
因此，回到快播系列案件中，尤其是快播被处2.6亿元高额罚款的行政处罚案件中，认定快播构成侵权应该并无太大障碍，而至于2.6亿元罚款是否适当，可能还需要二审法院进一步审理确定。
而快播之所以从“创新之星”走到现在这种尴尬境地，可能也跟他们保持侵权认定“服务器标准”不放，通过技术创新规避“自身服务器存储”，实现对侵权内容的快速传播，并据此内心坚定自身并不构成侵权有关。
从这个角度看，“服务器标准”可能也是害了快播的一大因素。
因为这让快播放松了自身需承担的管理责任和注意义务，放任或促进了各类侵权视频内容借助快播技术实现快速且大范围传播，侵害了权利人的合法权益，伤害了正版视频内容产业，扰乱了视频内容的网络传播秩序。