Judicial Analysis on Interactive On‑demand Playback in Online Karaoke Applications
On July 29, 2026, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court released a typical copyright‑infringement case concerning online karaoke applications. The case clarifies the boundary between the right of communication through information‑networks and the broadcasting right under the new‑form digital‑entertainment business, and provides important reference for judicial characterization of new‑type online communication conducts.
Case Background: A Copyright Dispute over “On‑demand Playback”
Company A is the lawful right‑holder of certain phonograms. Company B operates a mobile application for online karaoke. Core functions of the APP allow registered users to set up virtual “rooms” with pre‑set song‑lists containing multiple tracks. Other users may enter the rooms as listeners, order songs within the host‑defined playlist, and send virtual gifts (i.e. virtual rewards) to the host.
Company A discovered that without its authorization, Company B provided on‑demand playback services for Company A’s phonograms via the APP. Company A alleged that Company B’s conduct infringed its right of communication through information‑networks and filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses. The first‑instance court found infringement and ordered compensation. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Company B filed an appeal to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court.
Disputed Focus: Which Right Governs On‑demand Playback?
Company B put forward two core defensive arguments on appeal. First, it contended that on‑demand playback within the APP fell under the scope of the broadcasting right rather than the right of communication through information‑networks. Second, Company B argued it had paid relevant fees to China Audio‑Video Copyright Collective‑Management Association (CAVCA) and should therefore be exempted from liability.
These two issues touch directly upon the legal boundary between two key copyright rights — the right of communication through information‑networks and the broadcasting right, which are frequently confused in practice.
Court Judgment: Appeal Dismissed, Original Judgment Upheld
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that Company A legally enjoyed the right of communication through information‑networks over the involved phonograms, which shall be protected by law.
Regarding the applicable right, the court pointed out that Company B’s karaoke software features both “room‑fixed playlists” and “user‑initiated on‑demand playback”. Unspecific members of the public may register accounts freely and access the involved works at self‑selected time and place via on‑demand functions. This fully satisfies the characteristics of interactive communication, which is fundamentally different from the one‑way, time‑fixed reception governed by the broadcasting right.
Regarding the exemption defence, the court explicitly ruled that although Company B claimed payment to CAVCA, Company A had not authorized CAVCA to administer the involved works, hence such payment could not grant exemption from liability.
Accordingly, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Judge’s Commentary: The Distinction Between Interactivity and One‑way Transmission
Shi Jinghan, Deputy Presiding Judge of the Patent Division of the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court and presiding judge for this second‑instance case, noted that new‑format digital‑entertainment services such as webcasting and online karaoke involve mixed technical features. To determine which copyright right applies to such conducts, the core criterion lies in distinguishing the essential nature of communication: interactive versus one‑way transmission.
The right of communication through information‑networks centers on interactivity and on‑demand access: the public may independently choose the time, place and content for obtaining works. The broadcasting right centers on one‑way transmission and fixed timing: the public can only passively receive pre‑scheduled content. The disputed karaoke application enables users to order and listen to songs within room‑limited playlists. Users may choose their own listening time, location and tracks from given playlists, exhibiting typical interactive‑communication characteristics, and thus falls within the regulatory scope of the right of communication through information‑networks.
Case Takeaways: Look Beyond Technology to Grasp the Essence of Rights
As a typical case on copyright protection for emerging digital‑entertainment business models, this judgment clarifies judicial‑characterization standards for new‑type online communication conducts, resolves disputes over rights application for fixed‑playlist on‑demand services, and refines adjudication rules for platform‑based work‑providing behaviour. Piercing formal technical appearances, the court established a core judging criterion based on “users’ independent control over when and where to obtain works”, and clarifies copyright‑infringement risks for real‑time‑interactive internet applications.
For practitioners in the digital‑content industry, this case sends a clear signal: regardless of technical forms, once members of the public are able to obtain works at their chosen time and place, the conduct may constitute a “making‑available act” within the meaning of the right of communication through information‑networks. When platforms use third‑party works, they shall obtain valid authorization from right‑holders. Payment to collective‑management organizations alone cannot serve as grounds for exemption from liability.
