恶意屏蔽广告行为侵权责任的认定

发布时间：2018-04-18 20:05

本文选题：恶意屏蔽广告行为 + 侵权责任　；参考：《武汉大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：互联网广告屏蔽行为主要通过广告屏蔽软件、浏览器插件或者路由器等媒介来实现。广告屏蔽软件或插件的提供者与互联网经营者之间虽然不存在同业竞争关系,但提供广告屏蔽功能服务的一方不正当地利用了其他互联网经营者的竞争优势,主要表现为不正当地抢夺网络用户,以增强自己的竞争能力,在广告屏蔽软件或硬件设备提供者与受侵害的互联网经营者之间存在广义的竞争关系。恶意屏蔽广告行为有悖于互联网行业经营者所公认的良好行为惯例,而这一行为惯例可以作为公认的商业道德的判断依据;以用户粘性为导向可以发现,屏蔽行为直接造成了互联网经营者实际用户量的流失,带来经营利益的减损。基于此,为了抢夺互联网用户而不正当地屏蔽互联网广告的行为,满足了承担侵权责任的构成要件;而因该行为具有明显的主观恶意,不能援引技术中立原则而免责。本文共分为五个部分。第一部分:通过对互联网广告屏蔽行为的分析,认定恶意屏蔽广告行为的违法性不宜直接适用《著作权法》和《侵权责任法》,《反不正当竞争法》作为《侵权责任法》在市场竞争环境中的特别规范,在这一问题上有适用的空间。《反不正当竞争法》列举的具体不正当竞争行为并不包含互联网领域的不正当竞争行为,应当通过对一般条款的解释来规制此类行为。第二部分:适用《反不正当竞争法》一般条款的核心在于公认的商业道德的识别。而道德本身的不确定性容易导致法官自由裁量权过大,因此需要更为客观的识别方法。从个案中总结出来的"非公益必要不干扰"原则依旧不够明确,良好的行业惯例能够作为认定互联网行业内公认的商业道德的依据。第三部分:《反不正当竞争法》的目的在于,通过为经营者和消费者的合法权益提供保护,使经营者在实现自身权益的过程中开展正当经营活动,以促进良性市场竞争秩序的形成。从经营者合法权益出发,被恶意屏蔽广告行为所破坏的商业模式虽然不构成反不正当竞争法的保护对象,但经营者采取特定商业模式后,通过正当经营活动获取的合法经营利益应当被视为合法竞争利益而得到《反不正当竞争法》的保护。第四部分:只有特定行为足以扰乱市场竞争秩序,才能够依据《反不正当竞争法》对其进行规制。而扰乱市场竞争秩序的前提在于行为实施人与受害人之间存在竞争关系。竞争关系不应该局限于同业竞争,而应该从狭义的同业竞争关系扩展为广义的竞争关系。而在互联网领域,竞争关系早已跳出了行业和地域的限制,用户群才是认定广告屏蔽软件(插件)提供者与互联网经营者之间竞争关系的连接点。第五部分:恶意屏蔽广告行为的实施者应当承担侵权责任。技术中立原则不能够作为广告屏蔽软件提供者承担侵权责任的免责事由,适用技术中立原则需要结合广告屏蔽行为是否针对恶意广告、是否为获取利益、是否针对特定的互联网经营者等因素来判断行为主体是否存在主观恶意。
[Abstract]:Internet advertising shielding behavior mainly through advertising screening software, browser plug-in or router and other media to achieve. Between the advertisements or plug-in providers and Internet operators although there is no competition between the industry, but to provide a service advertising shielding unfair use of other Internet operators competitive advantage, mainly for improperly from Internet users, to enhance their competitive ability, there is competition between the generalized advertising shield software or hardware equipment providers and the infringement of Internet operators. Malicious behavior is contrary to practice good shielding advertising behavior in the Internet industry operators are recognized, and this behavior can be used as the basis to judge the practice of business ethics recognized by users; viscous orientation can be found, shielding behavior directly caused by the actual use of Internet operators Weight loss, impairments business interests. Based on this, in order to grab the Internet users and the improper shielding of Internet advertising behavior, meet the tort liability of the constituent elements; and as a result of the act has obvious malice, no principle of technological neutrality and exemption. This paper is divided into five parts. The first part: through the analysis of Internet advertising shielding behavior, illegal advertising behavior should not be identified malicious shield directly applicable to the copyright law > > and < < > of tort liability law, anti unfair competition law as the "tort liability law > > in the market competitive environment of the special specification, unfair competition behavior space. Application of the Anti Unfair Competition Law" lists the specific acts of unfair competition are not included in the field of the Internet on this issue, based on the general provisions shall explain to regulate such behavior. The second part: the application of the " The core of the general clause of Anti Unfair Competition Law "lies in the identification of business ethics and morality itself recognized. The uncertainty can lead to excessive discretion of the judge, so the need for more recognition. Objectively summed up from the case of" non public unnecessary interference principle is not clear enough, good industry practice can be identified as the Internet industry generally recognized business ethics basis. The third part: the "Anti Unfair Competition Law" is to provide protection for operators and consumers through the legitimate rights and interests of the operators to carry out business activities in the process of realizing their own legitimate rights and interests, to promote the formation of healthy market competition order. From the legitimate rights and interests of operators, destroyed by malicious shield advertising behavior although the commercial pattern does not constitute the object of protection of the anti unfair competition law, but operators take specific business model After getting through the proper business activities of legitimate business interests should be regarded as legitimate competing interests and "Anti Unfair Competition Law" protection. The fourth part: the only specific behavior enough to disturb the market competition order, according to "Anti Unfair Competition Law" to regulate it. The premise and disturb the order of market competition there is a competitive relationship between behavior and victims. Competition should not be confined to the competition, but should be extended from the competition between the industry and narrow competitive relationship in broad sense. In the Internet field, the competition between the long jump out of the industry and geographical constraints, the user group is that advertisements (plug-in) connection the point of competition between providers and Internet operators. The fifth part: the implementation of malicious shield Advertising Act shall bear tort liability. The principle of technological neutrality cannot be used widely Excusatio to screening software provider tort liability, apply the principle of technological neutrality requires a combination of advertising shielding behavior is against malicious advertising, whether for profit, whether specific Internet operators and other factors to determine whether there is subjective malicious behavior.

【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】