[Introduction]
When "low-cost daily passes" and "1-yuan drama watching" flood e-commerce search pages, we think we’re getting a deal from platforms, but we’re actually undermining the foundation of the content industry. Recently, the first-instance judgment was rendered in a case where an electronic product company sued Hu for time-sharing rental of video VIP accounts. The court found the defendant liable for unfair competition and ordered compensation of 200,000 yuan. While this case seems like a "small business" profiting from price differences, it actually lifts the veil on intellectual property (IP) protection in the platform economy: where is the line between account sharing and business model theft? Combining the judgment’s core points, this article analyzes three key questions: Why is time-sharing rental illegal? How are platforms’ duty of care stratified? Why might users "taking perks" also risk legal troubles?
I. Case Recap: How 5-Yuan "Daily Passes" Drove a 10-Million-Level Market
The plaintiff’s film and television terminal devices come with a built-in content library. Users must pay to activate VIP privileges to unlock 4K, Dolby, premiere dramas, and other benefits. Starting in 2023, the defendant Hu listed "video VIP daily/monthly passes" on three e-commerce platforms at prices far below the official rates: 5 yuan for a daily pass, 25 yuan for a monthly pass, and 198 yuan for an annual pass (official price: 218 yuan). The transaction process was extremely concealed:
-
After a buyer places an order, Hu sends a QR code via messaging tools;
-
The buyer scans the code to log in to the plaintiff’s terminal and share the account;
-
A single account is set to support up to 4 simultaneous device logins, cyclically sold to different buyers.
In six months, Hu completed 12,000 transactions, illegally profiting 187,000 yuan. The plaintiff detected a surge in abnormal login IPs, secured evidence, and filed a lawsuit, claiming the defendant committed unfair competition and copyright infringement.
II. Court Judgment: Three-Layer Logic Confirming "Illegal Time-Sharing Rental"
1. Right Basis: The Plaintiff Holds "Competitive Property Rights" to VIP Accounts
The court first clarified that the plaintiff obtained the information network communication rights of film and television works through self-production, procurement, and profit-sharing, with "paid VIP" as its core business model. The "paid traffic" generated by this model constitutes a competitive property right protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
2. Act Characterization: Time-Sharing Rental = "Disguised Circumvention of Technical Measures" + "Diverting Transaction Opportunities"
(1) Technical Measures: The plaintiff’s user agreement explicitly prohibits "gifting, renting, transferring, or sharing" accounts, and verifies "account + device code + IP address" during login. By enabling remote QR code login and multi-device simultaneous access, Hu essentially circumvented the technical measures designed to prevent multi-user sharing, violating Article 4 of the Regulations on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information.
(2) Competitive Order: Hu diverted potential paying users from the plaintiff at low prices, directly weakening the plaintiff’s reinvestment capacity and disrupting the "content—payment—reproduction" cycle. This constitutes "violating good faith and disrupting the market" regulated by Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
3. Liability Bearing: Punitive Damages + Platform Joint Liability
Since Hu refused to provide complete accounting books, the court adopted the plaintiff’s claim of "187,000 yuan in infringement profits" and applied 1x punitive damages, totaling 374,000 yuan. The involved e-commerce platforms were ordered to bear joint liability for 80,000 yuan of the compensation for failing to promptly remove the infringing products.
III. Extended Thinking: How to Distinguish Boundaries in the "Gray Area" of Account Sharing?
1. "Family Sharing" and "Commercial Time-Sharing" Are Separated by a Thin Line
The plaintiff itself offers a "family account" function, allowing one VIP account to add up to 4 sub-accounts, limited to "cohabiting family members." The court pointed out that the key distinction lies in "whether it is open to the general public for profit." Occasional sharing among friends or family falls within a reasonable scope; once priced and sold, it crosses the legal red line.
2. Platforms’ "Notice-and-Takedown" Obligation Is Not an Indestructible Shield
E-commerce platforms argued that "the infringing product titles did not contain official trademarks, making it impossible for platforms to identify them." However, the judge adopted the plaintiff’s "fuzzy keyword matching" evidence: titles used suggestive terms such as "a certain terminal VIP" and "direct QR code login," which platforms could have detected through simple searches. In the future, if platforms continue to shirk responsibility with "ignorance," they will face higher proportions of joint liability.
3. Users "Taking Perks" May Also Constitute Aiding Infringement
Article 1169 of the Civil Code stipulates that anyone who knowingly assists others in infringing IP rights through online services by placing orders, disseminating information, etc., shall bear joint liability with the infringer. If a buyer posts a "QR code login tutorial" in the review section, it meets the "abetment" requirement, and the right holder may pursue partial compensation liability.
IV. Industry Insights: Multi-Dimensional Protection Urgently Needed for the Content Industry’s "Secondary Charging" Model
1. Technical End: Dynamic Tokens and Blockchain Evidence Preservation
Some platforms have begun testing "on-chain viewing behavior," generating hash values for each QR code login and writing them into judicial blockchains. This electronic evidence can be directly used in subsequent rights protection, reducing evidence collection costs.
2. Rule End: Update "Punitive Liquidated Damages" in User Agreements
Agreements should stipulate that "once abnormal multi-location logins are detected, the platform may collect liquidated damages equal to 10x the annual VIP fee." This locks in high compensation through contractual claims and lowers the threshold for criminal filing.
3. Policy End: Establish a "Time-Sharing Rental" Keyword Database
It is recommended that market supervision authorities include terms such as "daily pass, weekly pass, QR code, direct connection" in platform monitoring databases, triggering reviews upon detection and shifting from "post-complaint handling" to "pre-emptive interception."
V. CONCLUSION: Respecting IP Is Respecting the Next Creation
A single VIP QR code on a film and television terminal is connected to the livelihoods of the entire industrial chain—screenwriters, directors, publicity teams, technicians, and operators. Time-sharing rental may seem "beneficial to the public," but it deprives creators of rightful returns, ultimately shrinking our shared cultural horizons. The judgment is not the end, but a reminder: platforms, businesses, and consumers are all "partners" in the content ecosystem. Only by moving IP protection from "judgments" to "before every order and every QR code scan" can we truly safeguard the source of innovation.
