Judicial Analysis Of "Safe Harbor" Rule In Copyright Infringement On Short Video Platforms

Short video platforms are the mainstream medium for the production and dissemination of short videos,facilitating the creation,interaction and sharing of value in the short video content industry,but they have also become a high incidence area for copyright infringement.In judicial decisions on copyright infringement disputes,short-video platforms tend to claim immunity from liability under the "safe harbour" rule,which is the core system for determining whether short-video platforms infringe copyright,and is also a balance between the interests of rights holders,short-video platforms and users.The "safe harbor" rule is the core system for determining whether a short-form video platform is infringing.However,with the rapid development of network technology,new ways of operating short video platforms and forms of infringement have emerged,coupled with the fact that China’s legal provisions do not fully and accurately reflect the "safe harbor" rule,the courts in practice have varied in their determination of whether short video platforms comply with the "safe harbor" rule.In addition,China’s legal provisions do not fully and accurately reflect the "safe harbor" rule,the courts in practice on whether the short video platform is in compliance with the "safe harbor" rule presents a different pattern,how to apply the "safe harbor" rule has become a difficult judicial decision.In order to avoid the "safe haven" rule in practice gradually out of step with the times,deviating from the original intention of the system design,it is urgent to respond to the development of technology,based on the difficulties in judicial decisions to make the corresponding changes.By using "Beida Fabao","Jufa Case" and China Judgement Document Network as judicial case search tools,we understand,through empirical analysis,how courts interpret the "safe harbour" rule in the face of technological changes in short video platform infringement disputes under existing legal provisions.It also summarises the factors that lead to the variability of adjudication,and examines the conditions for the application of the "safe harbour" rule,the "notice-deletion" stage,and the "counter-notice" stage.The case is categorised from three perspectives: the conditions of application of the "safe harbour" rule,the "notification-deletion" stage,and the "counter-notification-reinstatement" stage.By collating and summarising the cases,we found that in the conditions for the application of the "safe harbour" rule,the identity of the subject of the short video platform and the factors for determining subjective fault are not uniform.In the operation of the "notification-deletion" stage,the obligation of "first notice",the timeliness of "timely",the elements of "qualified notice" and the process of defining reasonable measures are not standardized;at the same time,due to the In practice,the "counter-notice" rule has been hollowed out due to the limited effect of the "counter-notice",the high threshold of acceptance and the irregular processing time of recovery.In view of the above problems,and based on the inspiration of cases related to the application of the "safe harbor" rule in short-video platforms,this article proposes recommendations on the application of the "safe harbor" rule in short-video platform infringement: First,in the "safe harbor First,in disputes related to the conditions of application of the " safe harbor " rule,the subject of the application of the " safe harbor " rule should be clarified,the subjective fault of the short video platform should be presumed according to the circumstances of the case,and preventive measures should be strengthened to avoid indirect infringement;second,in the application of the " notice and deletion Second,in the application of the "notice and deletion" stage,the "first notice" should be set as a pre-litigation procedure,a reasonable period of time should be considered from multiple perspectives,and the operational elements of "qualified notice" should be improved,while the necessary measures should be expanded to identify diversity;Third,in the Thirdly,in the application of the "counter-notice and reinstatement" rule,punitive damages should be adopted for wrongful and abusive notifications,the "counter-notice" should be turned into a formal review,the time limit for reinstatement should be regulated and a neutral review mechanism should be introduced.