Purchasing online courses at a low price and then reselling or sharing them carries a hidden risk of infringement. This phenomenon is common among some recent college graduates who aim to reduce their learning costs or earn pocket money. Recently, the People's Court of Daye City, Hubei Province, concluded a copyright infringement dispute case involving online courses and ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable costs of safeguarding their rights, totaling 1200 yuan. This case clearly states that providing others' works to the public through information networks, regardless of whether the disseminator is the source of infringement or the price, constitutes a direct infringement of the right to information network dissemination. On November 6, 2024, a Yunnan based network technology company (hereinafter referred to as the network company) signed a copyright license contract with copyright owner Lan, obtaining exclusive use authorization for copyright related property rights such as reproduction rights, adaptation rights, and information network dissemination rights of the "XXX Illustration System Course from scratch to original illustrator" series courses worldwide. The license period is until February 6, 2025. The contract also clearly stipulates that the expiration of the authorization period does not affect the licensee's ability to protect their rights against infringement. In May 2025, a network company discovered during its operational monitoring that a user named "XXX Eats a Meal" on a second-hand trading platform was publicly selling a course resource package called "XXX Illustration Training Camp P1-P643" at a price of 0.98 yuan. The internet company immediately assigned staff to place orders and purchase the product through the platform. After the transaction was completed, the seller "XXX dined" sent them a Baidu cloud storage link and extraction code through the platform. After on-site verification and comparison, it was found that the course video files stored in the online storage link are substantially similar to the content of the "XXX Illustration System Course" that the internet company has the right to access. Subsequently, after retrieving the seller's real name authentication information from the platform, the online company confirmed that the user involved in the case was Liang, who had just graduated from university. The platform transaction records show that the product has been successfully traded 4 times at a unit price of 0.98 yuan in less than half a month, with a total sales revenue of 3.92 yuan. The internet company believes that Liang, without his permission, provided the involved courses to the public through the sale of online disk links through the information network, which has infringed on his copyright property rights such as information network dissemination rights and other legal rights to the involved course works. Therefore, Liang has filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that Liang immediately stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 10000 yuan. During the litigation process, the internet company submitted evidence to the court, including a copyright license contract, screenshots of the platform proving the publication of the course, notarized certificates documenting the infringement and purchase process, the identity of the operator and transaction records disclosed by the platform, etc., to prove its rights foundation and Liang's infringement behavior. Is' second-hand 'dissemination infringing? During the trial, the two parties engaged in a dialectical debate on core disputes such as whether the authorization had expired, whether second-hand resale was infringing, and how minor resale should be held responsible. The internet company claims that it has legally obtained core property rights such as the exclusive information network dissemination right of the involved course during the authorization period based on the copyright license contract, and the contract clearly stipulates that the expiration of the authorization period does not affect its ability to protect its rights against infringement. Therefore, its qualification as a litigation subject is qualified. Without permission, Liang provided the involved courses to the public through the sale of online storage links on a public network platform, allowing any buyer to access the works at their chosen time and place. This behavior fully conforms to the characteristics of information network dissemination and constitutes infringement. The internet company believes that the nature of infringement does not change due to "second-hand resale" or "low price". Even though Liang claimed to have purchased it from a third party, his dissemination behavior violated the exclusive rights of the rights holder and disrupted the normal market order. As for the compensation amount of 10000 yuan, factors such as the cost of rights protection, market value of the work, and infringement circumstances have been comprehensively considered. Liang raised a series of defenses to strip or reduce responsibility. She raised fundamental doubts about the litigation rights of internet companies. Liang pointed out that the copyright license contract relied upon by the internet company clearly states that the deadline for obtaining authorization is February 6, 2025. The act of selling links to courses involved in the case occurred in May 2025, and the authorization license for the network company to claim its rights has expired. It is worth discussing whether it still has the qualification of a qualified plaintiff subject. Liang argued that he had just graduated and had limited legal knowledge. The course in question was purchased from someone else on an online platform with the original intention of learning and using it. Later, he sold it at a very low price to "get back his blood" because he no longer needed it, completely unaware that it would involve infringement. Liang repeatedly emphasized that he is not a recorder or first-time uploader of infringing videos, but only a "second-hand" and passive disseminator. At the same time, the course packages sold by oneself are complex in content and not completely consistent with the single system courses advocated by online companies. In addition, its resale behavior has extremely low sales revenue and has not caused substantial economic losses to the internet company. Based on the above reasons, Liang believes that the internet company's lawsuit against him for high compensation amounts to abuse of litigation rights and engaging in "phishing style" rights protection to seek improper benefits. In her opinion, being sued for such a small resale behavior and facing high claims in court is both unjust and difficult to understand. Court: Non source resale also constitutes infringement. After careful court investigation and intense debate, the Daye Court and the Diqiao People's Court conducted a thorough review of both parties' claims and made a clear ruling based on relevant laws. Regarding the determination of the litigation subject qualification of a certain internet company, the judge believes that the evidence provided by the internet company, such as the copyright license contract and the ownership statement issued by the copyright owner, has formed a complete evidence chain, which is sufficient to prove that it has obtained the legal authorization of the course information network dissemination right involved during the authorization period. The provision in the contract that "the expiration of the authorization period does not affect rights protection" is legal and valid. A certain internet company has the right to file a lawsuit for infringement, and Liang's defense that the rights of a certain internet company have expired is not valid. Regarding the determination of infringement, the judge pointed out that according to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, providing one's work to the public through information networks without the permission of the copyright owner constitutes infringement. In this case, the defendant Liang publicly sold the links to the course cloud storage on an online platform, allowing buyers to access the course content at any time. Essentially, this behavior is placing the work in cyberspace for the public to access. The determination of copyright infringement focuses on whether the perpetrator has engaged in behavior controlled by exclusive rights, without changing whether the perpetrator is a "source" or a "second-hand" disseminator, nor does it require profit-making purposes or profits. Liang's defenses such as "non source", "no malice", and "low sales" cannot deny the basic fact that his behavior has constituted infringement. The comparison results in court also showed that the course package shared by Liang indeed included video content that the internet company had the right to enjoy. Regarding the amount of compensation, the judge comprehensively considered factors such as the high degree of originality of the work involved, the type of work, popularity, commercial value, and the nature, circumstances, consequences, business scale, product attention, profit situation, subjective malice of infringement, and reasonable expenses paid by the network company for rights protection. Finally, the judge determined that Liang should compensate the network company for economic losses and reasonable costs of rights protection, totaling 1200 yuan, and ordered him to immediately stop the infringement behavior. The court did not support the compensation request for the excess part of the internet company. Respecting and protecting copyright, building an orderly digital copyright ecosystem. In the digital age, the trial of this case has typical significance in clarifying the boundaries of network intellectual property protection. There is a fundamental difference in legal attributes between digital content products and physical publications. For physical objects, the law applies the principle of "one-time exhaustion of issuance rights", and the owner is free to resell specific tangible copies that they have legally purchased. However, buyers of digital works typically only receive limited personal usage rights, rather than ownership of copies of the work. The legal nature of the defendant's sale of online storage links in this case will not change due to their claim to be a "second-hand" or "non source" disseminator. Essentially, this behavior constitutes an infringement of the right to information network dissemination by providing new copies of works to the public without authorization in the information network. This judgment clarifies a key legal principle: the determination of infringement of digital content does not differ based on the order of dissemination. Whether it is the first upload or second-hand resale, any act of providing works to the public without permission constitutes infringement. This is a direct negation of the misconception that 'non source infringement does not occur'. The identity of the disseminator, the price of the product, and whether it is profitable or not only affect the measurement of responsibility, but do not change the illegal nature of the behavior itself. This reminds us that when dealing with digital content on second-hand platforms, we must strictly distinguish between legal transfer of physical property ownership and illegal dissemination of digital access rights. The identity of 'non source' is not a 'talisman' that exempts responsibility. Especially for young netizens, including recent graduates, when exchanging learning resources or attempting small-scale business activities through platforms, they must be aware that the dissemination of digital content is fundamentally different from the transfer of physical goods. Any ideas such as "low price", "just sharing", or "non-profit purpose" cannot be legally disguised as "non source" dissemination behavior, nor can they be an effective defense for unauthorized dissemination. Building a healthy and orderly digital copyright ecosystem requires the formation of a multi-party governance pattern. Online platforms should strengthen the identification and management of obviously infringing content through technological means. Rights holders should actively protect their legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law, while users should actively enhance their copyright awareness, carefully consider the boundaries of their rights before disposing of digital content, establish the basic code of conduct of "authorization first, broadcasting later", and not let "I am not the first to post" become an excuse for ignoring copyright. Only when the concept of respecting creation and protecting copyright becomes a social consensus can the creation, dissemination, and use of digital content form a positive interaction, providing a solid foundation for knowledge innovation and cultural prosperity. (New Society)