1.北京合众思壮科技股份有限公司与微软公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷上诉案 Beijing UniStrong v. Microsoft (appellate case of dispute over computer software copyright infringement) 2.湖南快乐阳光互动娱乐传媒有限公司与同方股份有限公司著作权纠纷上诉案 Hunantv.com Interactive Entertainment Media Co., Ltd. v. Tsinghua Tongfang Co., Ltd. (appellate case of dispute over copyright) 3.游戏天堂电子科技（北京）有限公司与三亚鸿源网吧侵害著作权纠纷上诉案 Games Paradise Electronic Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Sanya Hongyuan Internet Bar (appellate case of dispute over copyright infringement)
一、北京合众思壮科技股份有限公司与微软公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷上诉案 Beijing UniStrong v. Microsoft (appellate case of dispute over computer software copyright infringement)【裁判要旨】软件复制品的出版者、制作者的合法使用行为的证明有两种方式，一种是证明软件的出版、制作行为获得了合法的授权，另一种是证明软件的复制品有合法来源。正版标签是常见的复制品合法来源的证据，其使用属于软件行业的惯例，一般由软件著作权人提供，用以证明软件的复制行为得到了软件著作权人的授权或者许可。除正版标签外，识别码、激活码等数字口令也是软件著作权人通过技术手段控制软件使用，从而证明软件复制行为得到合法授权或者许可的证据。
[Judgment Abstract]
There are two ways to prove that the use of the software by the publisher or producer of the software copies is lawful. The first way is to prove that the software is published or produced with the lawful authorization, and the other way is to prove that the software copies are from legal sources. The genuine label is the common proof of the legal source of copies and its use is a convention in the software industry. It is usually provided by the software copyright owner to prove that the software is copied with the authorization or permission from the software copyright owner. In addition to the genuine label, such numerical passwords as identification codes and activation codes are the proof to the effect that the software copyright owner controls the use of software by the technical means and thus the software is copied with lawful authorization or permission.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2914383[CLI Code] CLI.C.2914383(EN)
二、湖南快乐阳光互动娱乐传媒有限公司与同方股份有限公司著作权纠纷上诉案
Hunantv.com Interactive Entertainment Media Co., Ltd. v. Tsinghua Tongfang Co., Ltd. (appellate case of dispute over copyright)【裁判摘要】
[Judgment Abstract]In judicial practice, the server standards should be used to determine the act of information network dissemination, which refers to an act of initially placing the work in the server. Therefore, the judgment on whether the act of providing a work by the video software belongs to information network dissemination lies in whether the work is stored in the server where the video software runs. On the premise that other constituent elements of an infringement upon the information network dissemination right are satisfied, if the work provided by the video software is indeed stored in the server where the software runs, the infringement is undoubtedly constituted; but if the video software only provides a link to the work and does not substantially replace the work on the linked website, the information network dissemination right is not infringed upon.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.10689782
[CLI Code] CLI.C.10689782(EN)
三、游戏天堂电子科技（北京）有限公司与三亚鸿源网吧侵害著作权纠纷上诉案 Games Paradise Electronic Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Sanya Hongyuan Internet Bar (appellate case of dispute over copyright infringement)【裁判要旨】我国《著作权法》第四十九条规定，侵犯著作权或者与著作权有关的权利的，侵权人应当按照权利人的实际损失给予赔偿；实际损失难以计算的，可以按照侵权人的违法所得给予赔偿。赔偿数额还应当包括权利人为制止侵权行为所支付的合理开支。权利人的实际损失或者侵权人的违法所得不能确定的，由人民法院根据侵权行为的情节，判决给予五十万元以下的赔偿。在网吧侵犯游戏软件著作权纠纷案件中，如果权利人不能举证证明其因网吧侵权所受到的实际损失，也不能举证证明网吧因其侵权行为所获取的利益时，人民法院应根据游戏软件的发行时间、发行价格、侵权人的主观过错、侵权方式、网吧的经营规模及收费标准、权利人为制止侵权支出的合理费用等因素，综合确定侵权人的赔偿数额。[Judgment Abstract]Article 49 of the Copyright Law states that an infringing party shall, when having infringed upon copyright or rights related to copyright, make compensation on the basis of the rights holder’s actual losses; and where it is difficult to calculate the actual losses, compensation may be made on the basis of the infringing party’s illegal gains. In addition, the amount of compensation is to include the reasonable expenses paid by the rights holder to stop the infringing acts. Where the rights holder’s actual losses or the infringing party’s illegal gains cannot be determined, the people's court shall, based on the circumstances regarding the infringing acts, make judgment for compensation of 500,000 yuan or less. In a dispute over an internet bar’s infringement of copyright in game software, if the rights holder is unable to present evidence to prove its actual losses caused by the internet bar’s infringement or the benefits obtained by the internet bar from infringement, the people’s court shall, on the basis of such factors as the game software’s release date, price, the infringing party’s subjective fault, the method of infringement, the internet bar’s business scale and fee standards, and the reasonable expenses paid by the rights holder to stop the infringing acts, comprehensively determine the infringing party’s amount of compensation.