On April 21, 2026, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court released its typical cases of 2025. Among them, the copyright‑infringement dispute concerning audio‑visual works disseminated via cloud‑disk sharing drew wide attention. It clarifies the liability boundary for cloud‑disk service providers and the criteria for valid right‑holder notices, offering important guidance for digital copyright protection.

I. Case Review: Claim of RMB 3 Million Finally Awarded RMB 300 000

Company A legally holds the right of information‑network communication for the film‑television work Chun Gui Meng Li Ren. The company discovered that numerous users uploaded this work and generated sharing links for dissemination on the “Cloud‑disk” platform operated by a Hangzhou‑based technology company. It repeatedly sent infringement notice letters, demanding link disconnection, filtering‑interception, file deletion and sanctions against repeat‑infringing users. Company A sued the Hangzhou‑based technology company and a Beijing‑based tech company providing client‑download services before the court, claiming damages of RMB 3 million.

The first‑instance judgment held the Beijing‑based tech company not liable, and ruled that the Hangzhou‑based technology company failed to perform reasonable review obligations, awarding RMB 1 million in compensation. Both parties appealed. On second‑instance hearing, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court found that the Hangzhou‑based company had promptly taken link‑disconnection measures for the vast majority of valid notices and proactively set keyword‑filtering interception, thus fulfilling its duty of reasonable care. It shall only bear liability for a small number of links that were not disposed of in a timely manner. For invalid notices, the platform bears no statutory obligation to proactively filter or sanction repeat‑infringing users. The second‑instance court exercised discretion and set damages at RMB 300 000.

II. Notice Validity Makes All the Difference for Liability

The core of this case lies in how the “notice‑and‑take‑down” rule applies to cloud‑disk scenarios. Cloud‑disk services qualify as information‑storage‑space services; upon receiving notices targeting sharing links, the platform shall disconnect relevant links in a timely manner. Not all notices are valid, however. Notice validity is directly linked to the measures requested by the right‑holder.

Where the right‑holder requests deletion of infringing content, it must supply information sufficient to locate the infringing material. Where it requests proactive detection and disposal of infringing content, it must provide information enough to identify and judge infringing materials. Where it requests sanctions against repeat‑infringing users, it must actively supply information identifying those repeat‑infringing users. General vague complaints cannot replace precise notices. This rule addresses the long‑standing difficulty of “vague complaints without solid basis for platform response”.

III. What Service Providers May and May Not Do

This case draws clear boundaries for cloud‑disk service providers.

Permitted practice: For potential infringements targeting the same work, on the same platform, with identical behavioural patterns and closely‑connected timelines, service providers may adopt reasonable preventive measures such as keyword filtering within their technical capacity.

Prohibited practice: Service providers shall not arbitrarily delete content stored inside users’ private cloud‑disk space. Decisions shall be made prudently considering work content, complaint circumstances and infringement‑dissemination facts, balancing copyright protection and user privacy. This affirms cloud‑disks’ feature of “primarily for private storage, supplementary for sharing”, preventing uncontrolled expansion of platform liability.

IV. Tripartite Balance: Each Party Performs Its Due Obligations

The significance of this case lies in balancing interests among copyright holders, cloud‑disk service providers and ordinary end‑users. Copyright holders must submit precise notices and avoid ineffective complaints. Platforms shall dispose of content promptly upon receiving valid notices, and must not snoop into or arbitrarily delete users’ private stored files. End‑users shall raise copyright‑respect awareness and use works in accordance with law. Judicial practice curbs rampant infringement while preventing over‑protection from harming users’ legitimate rights and interests. It delivers practical guidance for copyright protection in the digital era and the development of internet industry.