我国避风港规则法律适用中的问题与对策

发布时间：2018-03-14 17:17

本文选题：避风港规则　切入点：网络服务提供者　出处：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：随着互联网技术的高速发展,它在各个领域都逐渐发挥着愈加重要的作用,作品传播领域自然也是如此。但是,与此同时,这种高效、迅捷的传播方式也给著作权的保护带来了新的挑战:如何在网络上保护著作权人权利的同时又不至于阻碍互联网产业的发展成为一个关键问题。"避风港规则"就在这样一种特殊的环境下应运而生。" '避风港规则'是法律为网络服务提供者专门规定的免责条款,所谓'避风港'是对符合法定条件的网络服务提供商因其行为造成的损害赔偿责任进行一定限制,使其免于承担相应的赔偿责任。"1"避风港规则"是最早诞生于美国的知识产权制度,后来被我国引入。由于社会环境、行业规范化程度等方面两国存在着不同之处,在"避风港规则"的适用以及具体规定上仍然存在着差异。本文从立法、司法两方面入手,对我国"避风港规则"适用的现状进行分析,找出问题,并据此提出相应的完善建议。首先,本文对"避风港规则"在我国的立法现状进行了总结。我国《最高人民法院关于审理涉及计算机网络著作权纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《解释》)中关于"避风港规则"的规定是我国"避风港规则"立法的起点,也是我国引入"避风港规则"的标志。随后,《信息网络传播权保护条例》、《侵权责任法》等法律也对"避风港规则"作了更加详细的规定。通过对法律文件的解读,本文提炼出了三个主要问题,即我国"避风港规则"适用对象的范围、主观要件的判定以及适用程序中的问题。其次,本文对"避风港规则"适用对象的范围这一问题进行了论述。我国法律法规中所规定的"避风港规则"的主体不够具体,用一个统称来表示了全部的适用主体,而没有对其进行分类。但是,由于网络服务提供者提供的服务种类、性质的差异,其注意义务、归责原则等方面的认定必然是存在差异的。所以,明确辨别不同主体,确定其责任义务,对于网络的发展、"避风港规则"的进一步推广适用都有十分重要的意义。再次,"明知"、"应知"等问题是确定网络服务提供者主观状态的重要因素,明确上述问题的概念与认定标准也是十分重要的,本文在第三部分对这个问题进行了分析。复次,作为"避风港规则"不可或缺的一部分,"通知—一删除"制度的明确是必要的。合格通知的认定标准、不合格通知的效力等都是现阶段争议较大的问题,本文也对此进行了分析。最后,虽然"避风港规则"在当前的适用中仍然存在争议与缺陷,但是它在保护著作权、促进新兴产业发展以及满足人民群众文化需求等方面有着极大的作用。因此,本文在分析"避风港规则"以及其适用条件并且结合存在的争议的基础上,提出相应的完善建议。相信经过不断的检验和完善,"避风港规则"一定会发挥更加重要的作用。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of Internet technology, it gradually in various fields are playing an increasingly important role, so it is natural dissemination of works. However, at the same time, the efficient, fast communication mode is also to protect the copyright has brought new challenges: how to protect the copyright on the Internet at the same time without hinder the development of the Internet industry has become a key issue. The "safe harbor" came into being in such a special environment. "The 'safe harbor rules' is legal for network service providers, the special provisions of the exemption clause, the so-called' safe haven 'is a certain limitation of liability for compensation in accordance with statutory requirements of network service as a result of the damage behavior of the provider, make it from bear the corresponding liability." 1 "safe harbor rule" is the intellectual property system was born in the United States, was introduced into China. In the social environment, industry standardization etc. the two countries are different, in the "safe harbor" rules and specific provisions on the differences still exist. This paper from the two aspects of legislation, judicature, on China's "safe harbor" for the analysis of the present situation, find out problems, and put forward the corresponding improvement recommendations. First, the "safe harbor" in the legislation of our country are summarized. Explanations of China's Supreme People's court "on the trial involving legal issues applicable to a number of computer network copyright disputes over the (hereinafter referred to as < > interpretation) provisions on the" safe harbor "is the starting point for me in the" safe harbor "legislation, but also a symbol of China's introduction of the" safe harbor ". Subsequently," Information Network Transmission Right Protection Ordinance > >, < tort law and other laws also made more detailed provisions on the "safe harbor" based on. The interpretation of legal documents, this paper summarizes the three main problems, the scope of China's "safe harbor" for the object, determine the subjective requirements and applicable problems in the program. Secondly, the scope of the "safe harbor rules" for the object of the issue of the China's laws and regulations. The provisions of the "safe harbor rules" of the subject is not specific enough, with a collectively expressed for the whole body, but not its classification. However, due to the type of service to provide Internet service providers, the differences in the nature, the duty of care, cognizance of liability principle is the inevitable differences. So, identify the different subject, determine their obligations for the development of the network, "are of great significance to further promote the application of safe harbor rules". Once again, "knowing", "should know" the problem is to determine the network service provider is subjective An important factor in the state, the concepts and standards is also very important, in the third part of this paper analyzes this problem. Then, as an integral part of the "safe harbor", "notice delete a" clear system is necessary. Qualification standard notification, unqualified notice the effect is currently controversial issues, this article also analyzed. Finally, although the "safe harbor" is still controversial and defects in the current application, but it is in the protection of copyright, has a great role to promote the development of new industries and to meet the cultural needs of the people and therefore. In this paper, analysis of the "safe harbor" rules and its applicable conditions and combining with the existing dispute, puts forward the corresponding proposal. I believe that through continuous testing and improvement, the "safe harbor rules" It will play a more important role.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.41

【相似文献】