The Case Analysis Of He Sue NetEase Company Infringing Network Virtual Property

With the rise and development of the Internet economy,online games have gradually become a part of people's lives.At the same time,the number of cases involving online virtual property has also increased.In the network virtual property case,there are mainly disputes between network users and network service providers.For example,the network service provider illegally deletes the network user's game account and unilaterally changes the game rules.In this type of case,the parties mainly disputed on the validity of the terms of the online service contract format,whether the case was a dispute of infringement and the jurisdiction of the court.In the chapter "Civil Law General Principles" and "Civil Rights Subjects" passed in 2017,the principle of the protection of cyber virtual property was made.In civil law,the legal status of cyber virtual property was determined.However,China's current legislation is related to network virtualization.There are no specific provisions on other legal issues of property.He Jianjia and Guangzhou Netease Computer Systems Co.,Ltd.disputes of property damages is a typical case of network virtual property disputes.The court concluded that the focus of the dispute is whether NetEase,s punishment of the plaintiff He Jianjia's account number is justified and whether the court of the first instance has jurisdiction over the case..Determine whether NetEase's punishment of the plaintiff's account is justified.First of all,to determine whether NetEase's unilaterally modified service terms are valid,according to the unilateral amendments to the terms of the contractual rules and the content of the substantive regulation,the unilateral modified service terms are valid;secondly,in the unilaterally modified service terms,In case of unclear and inconsistent agreements,according to the provisions of Article 41 of the "Contract Law",in the event of a dispute,the party who provides the format clause shall make an explanation unfavorable to himself.Therefore,Netease cannot punish the plaintiff He Jianjia based on some unilaterally revised terms of service.The network virtual assets such as game accounts and game equipment involved in the case have property value.He Jianjia enjoys ownership of it and is legally protected according to law.Netease didn't notify He Jianjia before the penalty was imposed.The penalties did not have contractual basis,the behavior was illegal,and the behavior directly led to the occurrence of the damage result.There was a causal relationship between the behavior and the result.Therefore,Netease Company constituted infringement.As regards the identification of infringement sites for cyber-virtual property,according to the provisions of relevant laws,the infringement includes the place where the infringement took place and the place where the infringement took place.In this case,the location of the computer server of the Netease Corporation database was the place where the infringement was committed.The location of the computer terminal of He Jianjia was the place where the infringement occurred.Therefore,the court of the original instance had jurisdiction over this case.