安全港制度是否仍能推动当代网络著作权保护？

发布时间：2018-06-08 07:26

  本文选题：安全港制度 + 网络著作权保护　； 参考：《南京大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着互联网的出现,网络服务商作为用户与互联网的媒介参与到网络社会中来。在互联网普及的初期,网络服务商通过有偿为用户提供网络连接或网站平台获取利益。鉴于网络信息传播的隐蔽性,一些网络用户利用网络服务商提供的服务上传或传播未经授权的作品,侵犯了他人的著作权。针对这一侵权行为,网络服务商被质疑应承担间接侵权责任,因为他们为其用户的侵权行为提供了帮助。但在这一历史阶段,网络服务商仅仅为用户提供了"通道"并没有参与直接侵权,同时也没有侵权的故意。鉴于此,美国的《数字千年版权法案》与欧盟的《电子商务指令》为网络服务商设置了"安全港"规则,有条件地豁免网络服务商对因其用户侵犯著作权而产生的侵权责任。这两个主导的安全港模式对其他各国安全港规则的制定和实施产生了重要影响。安全港规则在世界各国的实施过程中,存在一些共同的问题。例如,对于安全港模式中"通知-删除"制度,这一制度中网络服务商何种程度的"知道"构成制度规定的其对用户著作权侵权行为的"知道";何种程度的行为构成"通知"等标准,在实践中难以达成协调。与此同时,鉴于各国法律体系与法律文化的不同,安全港规则在与各国差异融合的过程中还出现了不同的问题。例如,安全港制度作为一个最早在普通法系中建立的规则,在成文法系国家的实践过程中存在与当地基本法律规则冲突的现象;在不同法律文化的国家实施安全港规则时,还出现一国明令禁止的行为在另一国收效卓越等难以调和的现象。由此可见安全港规则并不是在各国都能一体适用的。与此同时,随着网络技术的发展和信息传播模式的转变,网络社会迎来的Web 2.0时代。在这一时代,网络服务商的盈利模式发生了变化,它们不再仅仅是联通用户与网络的"通道",而是成为了网络社会的利益相关体。网络服务商为了获得广告收益将热衷于提供能够吸引用户的信息,而这些信息中当然包括大量享有著作权的作品。在新的时代背景下,传统的安全港规则为网络服务商设立的免责门槛显得过低,不利于推动网络著作权的保护。加之安全港规则在各国的法律实践中面临着越来越多的问题与不可调和,笔者认为当下的安全港规则已经不能适应当下网络著作权保护的需求,需要更新与补充。鉴于"通知-删除"制度在实施过程中遭遇的诸多问题,笔者建议可以尝试在安全港规则中选择使用其他"共同管理"的法律措施,如"通知-通知","梯级响应","拦截过滤"。同时,鉴于长久以来,安全港规则实践的法律措施并未在打击盗版上获得令人满意的成效,笔者认为应当对安全港规则辅助以适当的非法律措施,如利益共享模式、知识共享模式等,从而激励网络服务商、用户、以及著作权人相互配合。同时,在改进安全港规则时应当充分考虑一国的法律文化,审慎的选择适用于本国并遵循本国法律文化的具体安全港规则。笔者相信通过以上的改进,将使安全港规则更好的平衡网络社会中各方的利益,共同推动网络著作权的保护。
[Abstract]:With the emergence of the Internet, network service providers participate in the network society as the medium of users and the Internet. In the early stage of the Internet popularization, network service providers provide users with network connections or web platforms to gain benefits. In view of the concealment of network information dissemination, some network users use service providers from network services. The network service provider is questioned for the infringement of the copyright of the unauthorized works. In response to this infringement, the network service provider is questioned for the indirect tort liability because they provide help for the infringement of its users. But in this historical period, the network service provider only provided the "channel" for the user and did not participate in direct infringement. At the same time, there is no intention of infringement. In view of this, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of the United States and the EU's e-business directive set up the "safe harbor" rules for network service providers, and exempts the network service providers from the infringement of copyright caused by their users. These two leading safety ports are for other safe ports. The formulation and implementation of rules have an important impact. There are some common problems in the implementation of the safety port rules in the world. For example, the "notice deleting" system in the safe harbor model, what degree of the "know" constitution system of the network service provider in this system "know" about the infringement of the user's copyright; It is difficult to achieve coordination in practice. At the same time, in view of the differences in legal and legal cultures between countries, the safety port rules have different problems in the process of integration with other countries. For example, the safety port system is the first rule set up in the common law system. In the practice of the legal system, there is a phenomenon of conflict with the local basic law rules; in the implementation of the safety port rules in the countries of different legal cultures, there is also a phenomenon which is difficult to reconcile in the efficiency of another country. With the development of network technology and the transformation of information communication mode, the network society has entered the era of Web 2. In this era, the profit model of network service providers has changed. They are no longer only the "channel" of the users and the network, but become the interest related body of the network society. In the new era, the threshold of disclaimer set by the traditional safety port rules is too low to promote the protection of network copyright. The safety port rules are faced with the legal practice of various countries. With more and more problems and irreconcilable, the author believes that the current safety port rules can not meet the needs of the current network copyright protection, and need to be updated and supplemented. In view of the many problems encountered in the implementation process of the "notice deleting" system, the author suggests that other "common management" should be tried in the safety port rules. Legal measures such as "notice notification", "cascade response", "intercepting filtering". Meanwhile, in view of the fact that the legal measures for the practice of the safety port rules have not achieved satisfactory results in the fight against piracy for a long time, I think that the safety port rules should be assisted with appropriate non legal measures, such as the model of benefit sharing, the pattern of knowledge sharing, etc. Encourage network service providers, users, and copyright owners to cooperate with each other. At the same time, the legal culture of a country should be taken into full consideration when improving the safety port rules, and the careful selection of specific safety port rules that apply to the country and follow its own legal culture will make the safety port rules better balance the network society. The interests of all parties to jointly promote the protection of copyright on the Internet.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D997.1
，

本文编号：1995106