On Jurisdiction And The Burden Of Proof In The Case Of Online Copyright

We live in the Internet age. The Internet has become the part of city life of socio-economic and cultural. It is to disseminate information and facilitate the people, but also to bring the difficult issues in copyright protection in network. In recent years, in Beijing, Guangdong, Shanghai and other places, the Internet-related cases account has almost one-third share in the top ten copyright cases and it is rising year by year. At the same time, the network also brought the impact and difficulties in traditional theory and practice of copyright litigation. Due to the limited space, this article focuses on the challenges, in particular jurisdictions, the burden of proof challenges, that the network copyright litigation to the traditional system, and combining with the legislation and practice in China and other countries. Based on these analysis ,I put forward my own thoughts and suggestions about the jurisdiction and the burden of proof in internet copyright infringement cases in China.Full three chapters. The first chapter presents the main features of internet copyright infringement on the civil litigation system and its challenges, and describes the concept, characteristics of copyright infringement, and the status of copyright infringement litigation. The second chapter deals with the jurisdiction of internet copyright infringement cases. In this chapter, I first describe the challenges that internet copyright to the traditional copyright case; second, I introduce the new theory about internet copyright; third, I describe the American court how to deal with the jurisdiction of internet copyright infringement cases; last but most important, I come up with my arguments about improving the jurisdiction system. The third chapter is about the distribution of the burden of proof of internet copyright cases. Allocation of the burden of proof theory in our country is not perfect and mature, this chapter analyses the plaintiff's burden of proof in cases of internet copyright cases, and whether it is necessary and possible that burden of proof in reverse. From the above chapters of exposition and analysis, the author draws the following conclusions: (A) Because of the complexity and uncertainty of network infringement cases, we can't expect an applicable standards or principles everywhere about the jurisdiction of network infringement cases. We need to analyze the different conditions in the specific cases of online copyright infringement, to determine jurisdiction. When the time where the defendant can be determined, the priority for the seat of the court where the defendant lived; when the defendant can't be determined, we can determine the location of violations in accordance with the site; when the site can't be determined, we can consider where the plaintiff as a result of a tort, and where the court has jurisdiction. (B)In the online copyright cases, there is a special case about the distribution of the burden of proof. In the process of proving if the infringer has a subjective fault, we should distinguish the specific circumstances, can't be fully applicable to the general burden of proof allocation rules. Pursue damages in tort liability, if network operators indirectly infringe other's copyright, the plaintiff still has the burden of proof that the defendant has a subjective fault; while network operators directly infringe other's copyright, the plaintiff is not required to prove whether the network operator subjective fault, by the network operator from the opposite side to prove that they have done a reasonable duty of care, or will be presumed to have subjective fault, bear tort liability.