Not necessarily. This is because if the perpetrator can prove that the work distributed or rented has a legal source, he may also know that the work distributed or rented is a pirated work. In this case, it is very unfair to the copyright owner to still enjoy immunity from immunity. It also fails to combat piracy and protect market transactions.

Since my country’s Copyright Law currently does not stipulate that sellers of infringing goods have legal source defense grounds, this has caused the question in judicial practice whether the “lawful source” defense can be applied to sellers suspected of copyright infringement, and how to apply it. There is considerable controversy. If the seller does not bear legal responsibility, the premise is that it can prove the legal source of the defense, but it cannot be concluded that if the legal source can be proved, it does not need to bear civil liability.

Legal basis: Article 53 of the Copyright Law

If the publisher or producer of the copy cannot prove that it has legal authorization for publication or production, the publisher or producer of the copy shall Or if the lessor of copies of film works or works created using methods similar to filmmaking, computer software, or audio and video recordings cannot prove that the copies they distribute or rent have legal sources, they shall bear legal responsibility.