Recently, The Paper saw that the case of Micro-reading Company v. Li Company was opened in Mianyang Intermediate People's Court on July 4, according to the announcement. Prior to this, the well-known short video account "Li Zikai" stopped broadcasting for nearly a year. Before Li stopped, all social platforms in China had accumulated more than 654.38 billion fans, and foreign video websites also had more than 654.38+06 million fans, which was a suitable scale. In this fierce battle with micro-reading company, both sides suffered heavy losses.

Let's first look at their respective legal subjects:

Weinian Company-Hangzhou Weinian Brand Management Co., Ltd., an institution, with Wei Liu's major shareholder and most other shareholders as investment institutions.

Li Company-Sichuan Culture Communication Co., Ltd., the major shareholder is Weinian Company, holding 565,438+0% and Li holding 49%. He is the legal representative and executive director, and the supervisor of Wei Liu.

202111,Weinian Company indicated that it had put forward its equity scheme and the direction of cooperation mode with Li, and signed an agreement scheme on relevant share arrangement and cooperation fees with the consent of shareholders. It has repeatedly communicated with Li on equity and other rights issues, but no progress has been made. This is a report from the media. From the so-called paraphrases in some accounts, we know that Micro-reading Company asked Li Zikai for financial data with "shareholders' right to know". Li, on the other hand, advocated that the other party should breach the contract first, and thought that it was a breach of contract for Micro-Year Company to change the customer of Li brand from Sichuan culture to Hangzhou Micro-Year without permission, and asked Micro-Year Company to transfer the 1% equity held on its behalf.

Let's wait for the court to make a ruling on this dispute.

Those disputes between the anchor and the MSN organization:

A case related to the anchor:

20 17, j real name registered account, 20 19, signed a brokerage contract with an institution of MCN. During the cooperation, both parties * * * use the same account, and the corresponding short video will be checked by J. MCN from time to time to check the number of fans and messages. In 2020, the two sides terminated the contract. After the contract is terminated, MCN will modify the password and name of the account, delete the original video in the account and upload the anchor videos of other artists under the company. During J, I applied to the platform for changing the mobile phone number many times, but MCN did not agree to change the mobile phone number, so the platform frozen the account involved, which led to disputes between the two parties. Therefore, MCN filed a lawsuit on the grounds of enjoying account ownership, demanding that J immediately stop the infringement; Confirm that the account belongs to MCN organization.

Guangzhou Internet Court's judgment on this case:

-Reject all claims organized by the plaintiff MCN. The core reason of the court is that the account belongs to the network virtual property and has personal attributes. Based on its investment in the live broadcast account, MCN organization enjoys the property interests in the account, and the agreement between MCN organization and anchor on account use, revenue sharing and right transfer should be respected, while MCN organization does not enjoy ownership. Reject all claims organized by plaintiff MCN. Speaking of virtual property, in addition to the above accounts, the funds in online virtual trading accounts such as Alipay and WeChat Pay also belong to the property of the account subject. Although the implementation of virtual property courts is not so popular, we have also seen powerful cases. The following two situations are:

1. Fujian judge who executes Tik Tok's wallet:

This is a piece of legal news: The executive judge of the People's Court of Jiangle County, Fujian Province found that Wu Mou, the executed person, was engaged in selling goods through live webcasts, and may have a source of income on the live broadcast platform. The executive judge immediately contacted the staff of the platform to assist the court in freezing and allocating the income in the wallet of the executed person. A few days ago, the assisting unit has fully transferred the case execution amount of 654.38+10,000 yuan to the court account escrow account, and the case was successfully executed.

2. The Shanghai judge who executed Tik Tok's wallet.

A media company in Shanghai and network celebrity Zhou went to court over a service contract dispute. After the court's judgment came into effect, the person subjected to execution did not perform the judgment, so the media company had no choice but to apply to Qingpu Court for execution. The executive judge determined that Zhou had 6.5438+0.2 million fans and was an online celebrity. He judged that Zhou might have a source of income on the live broadcast platform and immediately contacted the staff of the Legal Department through the official customer service of the platform. After coordination and communication, the income in Zhou's wallet was frozen and transferred, and Qingpu Court sent the Notice of Assisting in the Transfer of Deposits, the Execution Ruling and other materials to Beijing Micro Broadcasting Vision Technology Co., Ltd. (platform) according to law. 10 10 18, the platform transferred more than 5 million yuan of case execution funds to the court account custody account in full, and the case was successfully executed.