信息存储空间服务提供者“避风港”规则研究

发布时间：2018-04-09 23:08

本文选题：“避风港”规则　切入点：《最高人民法院关于审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》　出处：《上海交通大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：在网络著作权侵权纠纷中,考虑到上传侵权作品的用户一般不具备足够的经济能力,且难以追查其真实地址,著作权人往往选择网络服务提供商作为被告,而网络服务提供商一般以“避风港”规则进行抗辩,主张免责。为了保护网络服务提供商,推动互联网健康有序发展,《条例》规定了四种类型的“避风港”规则,但规定太过简洁,导致实践中同案不同判的现象频频发生。最高人民法院公布的《关于审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》细化了《条例》的规定,明确了“避风港”规则适用条件的认定标准。本文在阐述信息存储空间服务提供者避风港规则的适用条件及不足的基础上,结合司法解释的主要内容,厘清避风港规则中已被司法解释解决的问题,并指出尚需解决的问题,以期对避风港规则的不足提出改善意见。本文除引言和结语外,共分为四个部分。第一部分:“避风港”规则的意义、“避风港”的历史沿革,以及我国“避风港”规则的立法现状。为了保护网络服务提供者,促进互联网产业发展,美国《数字千年版权法》最早规定了“避风港”规则。我国的“避风港”规则主要移植于美国《数字千年版权法》,《信息网络传播权保护条例》首次规定了网络服务提供者“避风港”规则,具有里程碑意义。2013年开始实施的司法解释明确了该避风港规则适用条件的认定标准,对法院适用正确法律具有重要意义。第二部分:信息存储空间服务提供者“避风港”规则的适用条件。通过案例分析,结合《数字千年版权法》的相关规定,指出《信息网络传播权保护条例》在司法解释出台前,存在的不明晰及不足之处。第三部分:《最高人民法院关于审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》主要内容。该司法解释明确和细化了《信息网络传播权保护条例》规定的信息存储空间网络服务提供者避风港规则适用条件的认定标准。第四部分:“避风港”规则的不足及完善。指明司法解释实施后,“避风港”规则仍然存在的不足,并就如何完善,提出建议。
[Abstract]:In network copyright infringement disputes, considering that users who upload infringing works generally do not have sufficient financial ability and find it difficult to trace their real addresses, copyright owners often choose network service providers as defendants.And network service provider undertakes defense with "safe haven" rule commonly, advocate disclaimer.In order to protect the Internet service providers and promote the healthy and orderly development of the Internet, the regulations stipulate four types of "safe haven" rules, but the regulations are too concise, which leads to the phenomenon of different judgments of the same cases occurring frequently in practice.The provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of Law in cases of Civil disputes infringing the right to spread Information Network have refined the provisions of the regulations and defined the criteria for determining the applicable conditions of the "safe haven" rules.On the basis of expounding the applicable conditions and deficiencies of the rules of havens for information storage space service providers, and combining with the main contents of judicial interpretation, this paper clarifies the problems that have been solved by judicial interpretation in the rules of safe havens, and points out the problems that need to be solved.With a view to improving the shortcomings of the haven rules.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into four parts.The first part: the significance of the "haven" rule, the historical evolution of the "haven", and the legislative status of the "haven" rule in China.In order to protect the network service providers and promote the development of the Internet industry, the Digital Millennium copyright Act of the United States first stipulated the "safe haven" rules.The "safe haven" rules of our country are mainly transplanted to the "Digital Millennium copyright Law" of the United States. The "regulations on the Protection of the right to spread Information on the Internet" for the first time stipulate the "safe haven" rules for network service providers.The judicial interpretation implemented in 2013 clarifies the criteria for determining the applicable conditions of the Haven Rule and is of great significance to the application of the correct law to the court.The second part: the application conditions of the "safe haven" rules for information storage space service providers.Through case analysis and combining with the relevant provisions of the Digital Millennium copyright Law, this paper points out that the regulations on the Protection of Information Network Communication right are not clear and inadequate before the judicial interpretation.The third part: the main contents of the Supreme people's Court on the trial of civil disputes against the right of information network dissemination.The judicial interpretation clarifies and refines the criteria for determining the applicable conditions of the safe haven rules for information storage space network service providers as stipulated in the "regulations on the Protection of Information Network Transmission Rights".The fourth part: the deficiency and perfection of the "safe haven" rules.It points out the shortcomings of the "haven" rules after the judicial interpretation, and puts forward some suggestions on how to perfect them.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.41

【相似文献】