网络侵权责任中的“通知规则”研究

发布时间：2018-03-26 11:26

本文选题：通知规则　切入点：避风港规则　出处：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国“通知规则”借鉴自美国“避风港规则”,经过十余年的立法与司法实践,最终得以法律的形式确立在《侵权责任法》中。同时,两部司法解释相应出台对该规则进行了细化,“通知规则”已被打上了属于中国的烙印。我国的“通知规则”已在性质、适用范围以及构成要件上与美国“避风港规则”呈现出差别。“通知规则”牵涉到三方主体,网络服务提供者、网络用户及被侵权人,但《侵权责任法》并未对网络服务提供者做出区分,学界就网络服务提供者含义及分类也不甚明晰。出于公共政策及成文法特点的考量,《侵权责任法》第三十六条第一款的网络服务提供者应做广义解释,但“通知规则”的主体则应做限制性解释,主要指的是中介服务提供者。有效通知应在形式、内容上符合法律要求,对此网络服务提供者应履行相应程度的审查义务,这种审查是被动审查,而且其在接到有效的通知后,应及时采取必要措施。同时,在特殊情形下,通知人应对错误通知承担赔偿责任。我国“通知规则”虽然扩张适用于人身权益,但与网络信息传播权的规定不尽相同,由此不可避免的产生了法律冲突需要予以化解。首先,“通知规则”扩张适用于人身权益涉及表达自由与人身权益保护的利益衡量问题,从网络侵权的特点、成文法滞后性特点以及表达自由并非绝对等角度出发,我国扩张适用“通知规则”的做法是合理的。其次,“通知规则”在网络信息传播权与人身权益的规定上存在差别,从人身权益的极端重要性以及网络人身权益案件中被侵害人的能力较弱角度,适当的差别也是合理的。值得关注的是,司法解释就人身权益的保护未规定“转通知”及“反通知规则”,立法者给予的解释也不够充分。事实上,这样的做法将导致法律体系冲突,加深表达自由与人格权不平衡。在“通知规则”适用过程中,网络服务提供会因“转通知”、采取必要措施而支出相应费用,法律并未就该比费用的最终承担问题作出规定,从危险控制理论、收益与风险相一致理论及企业社会责任理论出发,应由网络服务提供者承担。
[Abstract]:After more than ten years of legislative and judicial practice, the form of the law can be established in the Tort liability Law. Two judicial interpretations have been issued to refine the rules, and the "notice rules" have been branded as belonging to China, and the "notification rules" of our country are already in nature. The scope of application and the elements of application are different from the "safe haven rules" of the United States. "Notification rules" involve three parties, network service providers, network users and infringers. However, the Tort liability Act does not distinguish between network service providers, Because of the characteristics of public policy and statutory law, the definition and classification of network service providers in Section 36 (1) of the Tort liability Law should be interpreted broadly. However, the subject of the "notice rules" should be interpreted as restrictive, mainly referring to the intermediary service provider. The effective notice should meet the requirements of the law in form and content, and the network service provider should perform the corresponding examination obligation. Such a review shall be passive and, upon receipt of effective notice, shall take the necessary measures in a timely manner... at the same time, in exceptional circumstances, The notifier shall be liable for compensation for false notification. Although the rules of Notification in China apply to personal rights and interests, they are not the same as the provisions of the right to disseminate information on the Internet. This inevitably leads to conflicts of laws that need to be resolved. First of all, the expansion of "notice rules" is applicable to the measurement of interests involving the freedom of expression and the protection of personal rights and interests, from the characteristics of network infringement. From the point of view of the lag character of statutory law and freedom of expression, it is reasonable to expand and apply the "notice rules" in our country. Secondly, there are differences between the "notice rules" in terms of the right to disseminate information on the network and the rights and interests of the person. From the point of view of the extreme importance of personal rights and interests and the weak ability of the infringed persons in network personal rights cases, the appropriate difference is also reasonable. Judicial interpretation does not provide for "forwarding notice" and "counter-notification rules" for the protection of personal rights and interests, nor is the interpretation given by the legislator sufficient. In fact, such an approach would lead to conflicts of legal systems, Deepening the imbalance between freedom of expression and personal rights. In the application of the rules of Notification, the provision of network services will incur the corresponding costs as a result of the "transfer of notice" and the necessary measures will be taken, and the law does not provide for the ultimate bearing of such costs. Based on the theory of risk control, the consistent theory of profit and risk and the theory of corporate social responsibility, the network service provider should bear the responsibility.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】