Currently, some people reduce their purchasing costs by reselling or sharing online courses for a fee, but such "resale" behavior actually carries the risk of infringement. Recently, the People's Court of Daye City, Hubei Province, concluded a copyright infringement dispute involving the resale of online courses, and ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable costs of rights protection totaling 1200 yuan. At present, the verdict has come into effect. On November 6, 2024, a network technology company in Yunnan 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 for the "Illustration System Course from 0 Foundation to Original Illustrator" series courses worldwide, with a license period 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, the company discovered during its operational monitoring that a user named "Mr./Ms. Eating Rice" (i.e. Mr./Ms. Liang) on a second-hand trading platform was publicly selling resource packages containing related courses at a price of 0.98 yuan. The company immediately assigned personnel to place orders for purchase. After the transaction was completed, the seller "XXX dined" sent the online storage link and extraction code through the platform. After comparison, the course video files stored in the online storage link are substantially similar to some of the content in the aforementioned series of courses. 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's actions have infringed upon their legal rights to information network dissemination and other copyright property rights related to the course works involved. Therefore, they have sued Liang to the Daye Court, requesting that Liang immediately cease infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 10000 yuan. The internet company claims that according to relevant contracts, it has legally obtained core property rights such as the exclusive information network dissemination rights of the involved courses during the authorization period, 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. Liang questioned the litigation rights foundation of internet companies. She 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 on which the internet company claims its rights has expired. It is worth discussing whether it still has the qualifications as a plaintiff. Liang argued that he is an ordinary college graduate who has just graduated and has limited legal knowledge. The courses involved in the case were purchased from others on online platforms with the intention of learning and using them. Later, he sold them at a very low price for "blood recovery" without realizing that his actions involved infringement. She repeatedly emphasized that she is not the recorder or first-time uploader of infringing videos, but only a 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. The court 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 chain of evidence, which is sufficient to prove that it has obtained the legal authorization of the course information network dissemination right during the authorization period. The provision in the contract that "the expiration of the authorization period does not affect the protection of rights" is legal and valid. The judge pointed out that in this case, Liang's act of publicly selling links to the involved course cloud storage on online platforms is essentially 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, and does not change based on whether the perpetrator is a "source" or a "second-hand" disseminator, nor does it require profit-making purposes or profits. Liang's non infringement source and other defense reasons cannot deny the basic fact that his behavior has constituted infringement. Finally, the court ruled at its discretion that Liang should compensate the internet company for economic losses and reasonable costs of rights protection, totaling 1200 yuan, and ordered him to immediately cease his infringing behavior. The court did not support the compensation request for the excess part of the internet company. (Looking into the New Era)