20 Complaints Failed to Get the Infringing Account Banned: Mere Content Removal Constitutes Acquiescence to Infringement
A single user uploaded hundreds of pirated episodes over four months. The copyright holder filed more than 20 complaints, requesting first link removal and later permanent account ban. The platform deleted the links every time yet refused to suspend the account, creating a vicious cycle of repeated uploads and deletions like a whack-a-mole game. The court ruled that simply deleting links without banning repeat infringers amounts to abetting copyright infringement.
I. A Four-Month Whack-a-Mole Game of Copyright Enforcement
A film and television company holds the exclusive right of information network communication to a well-known TV drama. It discovered a user on a video platform continuously uploaded full episodes of the drama for four months, generating over a hundred infringing links.
From May 31 to September 21, 2023, the copyright holder submitted over 20 successive complaints to the platform, escalating demands from link deletion to permanent account suspension.
The platform responded promptly by removing all reported links the next day, yet took no further disciplinary action against the violating user. The user kept reuploading pirated episodes immediately after removal, trapping the copyright owner in an endless cycle of notice and takedown.
Having exhausted all negotiation channels, the film company sued the platform at the Beijing Internet Court, claiming compensation of RMB 200,000.
II. The Platform’s Defenses
The platform argued it had fulfilled all statutory obligations:
-
The user uploaded different individual episodes, which should not be deemed repeated infringement;
-
It operates massive video content and cannot conduct full pre-review of all materials;
-
It deleted infringing links timely upon receiving every complaint and had fulfilled its duty of care;
-
Account suspension is the harshest penalty and violates the principle of proportionality.
The court rejected all such arguments, holding the platform’s measures were insufficient.
III. Court Judgment: The Platform Committed Contributory Infringement, Ordered to Pay RMB 30,000 in Damages
The Beijing Internet Court ruled the platform liable for secondary copyright infringement, with three core grounds:
-
Separate episode uploads by the same user count as repeated infringement
Judge Zhang Naiyu clarified that the plaintiff owns copyright in all episodes of the series. Uploading individual episodes of the same work repeatedly constitutes continuous repeat infringement by the same user, rather than unrelated separate violations.
-
The platform had full awareness of the persistent infringement
All pirated content consisted of complete episodes with explicit work titles and episode numbers in the headers. The copyright holder had filed repeated targeted complaints against the same account for months, enabling the platform to fully identify the repeat infringer. The platform’s claim of unawareness was rejected by the court.
-
Deleting links alone without account suspension implicitly encourages piracy
The platform possessed complete authority to discipline users via its community rules and credit system. Its sole reliance on link removal failed to stop repeated uploads, proving subjective fault.
Judge Wang Yanjie stated clearly that platforms must adopt remedies beyond content deletion, including account bans and blocking, to break the futile loop of repeated notices and takedowns.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the platform filed an appeal. The appellate court upheld the original judgment.
IV. Key Case Takeaways
-
The Notice-and-Takedown Rule is not a blanket exemption for platforms
Contrary to common misunderstanding, timely link removal does not automatically grant immunity. If a platform is fully aware of a repeat infringer yet only takes superficial deletion measures, it exceeds the protection scope of the Safe Harbor Principle.
-
Statutory "necessary measures" require both timeliness and effectiveness
Courts emphasize that qualifying necessary measures must effectively curb infringement. Merely deleting links leaves loopholes for repeat uploads, rendering all takedown actions meaningless. Platforms must avoid creating an endless cycle of notices and removals.
-
Platforms act as content gatekeepers with corresponding accountability
Video platforms fully control the entire content operation chain, including algorithmic recommendation, targeted distribution and traffic monetization. Rights come with corresponding obligations: platforms cannot solely profit from user traffic while evading content governance costs.
Conclusion
The RMB 30,000 compensation sum appears trivial for a large video platform, yet the case sets a critical judicial boundary: Notice and takedown is only the first step, and account suspension for repeat violators is mandatory.
Temporary link removal without account penalties appears lenient yet implicitly tolerates piracy. Platforms cannot hide behind the excuse of "massive content making pre-review impossible" to evade legal liabilities.
The term "platform" embodies the core values of fairness and balance. Platforms must provide adequate protection for copyright owners, impose proper sanctions on repeat infringers, and abide by clear operational red lines. Clear legal rules lay the foundation for a healthy online copyright ecosystem.
