我国著作权法下“通知—删除”规则的合理定位与适用
发布时间：2018-10-18 09:31
【摘要】：由于对"通知-删除"规则与避风港规则本身及其之间的关系存在的错误认识,我国理论界对避风港规则的性质、"通知-删除"规则的性质与功能等都产生了诸多认识上的混乱,错误地将"通知-删除"规则等同于避风港规则,进而将"通知-删除"规则认定为免责规则。此外,目前理论界尚未对网络服务提供商版权间接侵权的主观过错认定形成共识,"知道标准"如何界定、"通知"对网络服务提供商侵权认知的影响等也成为难题。本文通过分析认为,我国仅自动接入和自动存储服务提供商真正享有避风港,搜索和链接服务提供商、信息存储空间服务提供商不享有避风港。"通知-删除"规则仅是"避风港规则"的组成部分,单纯的"通知-删除"规则本身并无免责的法律效力,我国"通知-删除"规则的价值在于认定网络服务提供商版权间接侵权责任构成的主观状态。我国理论界基本上从特殊注意义务路径和推定知道路径这两个视角来解释"应知"、"有理由知道",从证据法的视角和注意义务理论来界定"推定知道"。网络服务提供商的特殊注意义务与一般性的事前审查义务并不冲突,证据法上的"推定知道"依然需要注意义务理论作为基础,特殊注意义务理论的适用性更强。"推定知道"是一种对"明知"的认定方式。美国法上对"侵权事实的明显性"要求过高的"红旗测试"在我国并不具有适用空间。《信息网络传播权保护条例》中的"有合理的理由应当知道"和"应知"的含义基本相同,《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》中的"应知"运用了特殊注意义务理论。在通知的效力这一问题上,网络服务提供商对通知进行形式审查即可,合格通知的效力是使得网络服务提供商主观上"明知"可能存在版权侵权行为。本文提出,应当区分不同情况认定瑕疵通知的效力:实质内容充分的瑕疵通知和合格通知的效力相同;实质内容不充分的瑕疵通知使得网络服务提供商负有积极联系通知发送人提供合格通知或者内容足以充分定位的通知的注意义务。
[Abstract]:As a result of the erroneous perception of the "Notification-Delete" rule and the Haven rules themselves and their relationship, In our country, the nature of the rules of safe haven, the nature and function of the rules of "Notification and deletion" have produced a lot of confusion, and the rules of "Notification-Delete" have been wrongly equated with the rules of safe havens. In turn, the "Notification-Delete" rule is recognized as an exemption rule. In addition, there is no consensus on the subjective fault of indirect copyright infringement of Internet service provider. How to define the "know standard" and the influence of "notice" on the cognition of infringement of Internet service provider have become a difficult problem. Through the analysis, it is concluded that only automatic access and automatic storage service providers in China really enjoy safe haven, search and link service providers and information storage space service providers do not enjoy safe haven. " Notification-the deletion of "rules" is only part of the "safe haven rules", and the mere "Notification-Delete" rule does not in itself have the legal effect of exemption, The value of the "Notification-Delete" rule lies in the subjective state of the indirect liability for copyright infringement of Internet service providers. The theoretical circle of our country basically interprets "should know" and "reasonable know" from the two angles of special duty of care path and presumed knowing path, and defines "presumptive knowledge" from the perspective of evidence law and the theory of duty of care. The special duty of care of Internet service providers does not conflict with the general obligation of prior examination. The presumption of knowledge in evidence law still needs the theory of duty of care as the basis, and the theory of special duty of care is more applicable. Presumption of knowledge "is a way of identifying" knowing "." The "red flag test", which requires too much on the "obvious facts of infringement" in American law, does not have any space for application in our country. "there are reasonable reasons to know" and "should know" in the "regulations on the Protection of the right of Information Network Communication" The meaning is basically the same, "should know" in "the Supreme people's Court about hearing some problems of law applicable to civil dispute cases of infringing information network communication right" has applied the theory of special duty of care. On the issue of the effectiveness of the notice, the network service provider can examine the form of the notice, and the effectiveness of the qualified notice is to make the Internet service provider know subjectively that there may be copyright infringement. In this paper, we should distinguish the effectiveness of the defect notice in different cases: the effectiveness of the defect notice with sufficient substance is the same as that of the qualified notice; The defect notice with insufficient substance makes the network service provider bear the duty of care to contact the sender actively to provide the qualified notice or the sufficient content to locate the notice.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.41
本文编号：2278712
[Abstract]:As a result of the erroneous perception of the "Notification-Delete" rule and the Haven rules themselves and their relationship, In our country, the nature of the rules of safe haven, the nature and function of the rules of "Notification and deletion" have produced a lot of confusion, and the rules of "Notification-Delete" have been wrongly equated with the rules of safe havens. In turn, the "Notification-Delete" rule is recognized as an exemption rule. In addition, there is no consensus on the subjective fault of indirect copyright infringement of Internet service provider. How to define the "know standard" and the influence of "notice" on the cognition of infringement of Internet service provider have become a difficult problem. Through the analysis, it is concluded that only automatic access and automatic storage service providers in China really enjoy safe haven, search and link service providers and information storage space service providers do not enjoy safe haven. " Notification-the deletion of "rules" is only part of the "safe haven rules", and the mere "Notification-Delete" rule does not in itself have the legal effect of exemption, The value of the "Notification-Delete" rule lies in the subjective state of the indirect liability for copyright infringement of Internet service providers. The theoretical circle of our country basically interprets "should know" and "reasonable know" from the two angles of special duty of care path and presumed knowing path, and defines "presumptive knowledge" from the perspective of evidence law and the theory of duty of care. The special duty of care of Internet service providers does not conflict with the general obligation of prior examination. The presumption of knowledge in evidence law still needs the theory of duty of care as the basis, and the theory of special duty of care is more applicable. Presumption of knowledge "is a way of identifying" knowing "." The "red flag test", which requires too much on the "obvious facts of infringement" in American law, does not have any space for application in our country. "there are reasonable reasons to know" and "should know" in the "regulations on the Protection of the right of Information Network Communication" The meaning is basically the same, "should know" in "the Supreme people's Court about hearing some problems of law applicable to civil dispute cases of infringing information network communication right" has applied the theory of special duty of care. On the issue of the effectiveness of the notice, the network service provider can examine the form of the notice, and the effectiveness of the qualified notice is to make the Internet service provider know subjectively that there may be copyright infringement. In this paper, we should distinguish the effectiveness of the defect notice in different cases: the effectiveness of the defect notice with sufficient substance is the same as that of the qualified notice; The defect notice with insufficient substance makes the network service provider bear the duty of care to contact the sender actively to provide the qualified notice or the sufficient content to locate the notice.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.41
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 冯术杰;;论网络服务提供者间接侵权责任的过错形态[J];中国法学;2016年04期
2 徐伟;;网络服务提供者“知道”认定新诠——兼驳网络服务提供者“应知”论[J];法律科学(西北政法大学学报);2014年02期
3 胡晶晶;;论“知道规则”之“应知”——以故意/过失区分为视角[J];云南大学学报(法学版);2013年06期
4 徐伟;;通知移除制度的重新定性及其体系效应[J];现代法学;2013年01期
5 吴汉东;;论网络服务提供者的著作权侵权责任[J];中国法学;2011年02期
6 鲁春雅;;网络服务提供者侵权责任的类型化解读[J];政治与法律;2011年04期
7 王迁;;《信息网络传播权保护条例》中“避风港”规则的效力[J];法学;2010年06期
8 杨明;;《侵权责任法》第36条释义及其展开[J];华东政法大学学报;2010年03期
9 胡开忠;;“避风港规则”在视频分享网站版权侵权认定中的适用[J];法学;2009年12期
10 梅术文;温博;;探析“避风港”规则主观要件——以视频分享网站为视角[J];电子知识产权;2009年11期
，本文编号：2278712
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2278712.html
