發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-26 11:26

  本文選題：通知規(guī)則　切入點(diǎn)：避風(fēng)港規(guī)則　出處：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國“通知規(guī)則”借鑒自美國“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”,經(jīng)過十余年的立法與司法實(shí)踐,最終得以法律的形式確立在《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中。同時(shí),兩部司法解釋相應(yīng)出臺(tái)對(duì)該規(guī)則進(jìn)行了細(xì)化,“通知規(guī)則”已被打上了屬于中國的烙印。我國的“通知規(guī)則”已在性質(zhì)、適用范圍以及構(gòu)成要件上與美國“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”呈現(xiàn)出差別。“通知規(guī)則”牽涉到三方主體,網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者、網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶及被侵權(quán)人,但《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》并未對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者做出區(qū)分,學(xué)界就網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者含義及分類也不甚明晰。出于公共政策及成文法特點(diǎn)的考量,《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第三十六條第一款的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者應(yīng)做廣義解釋,但“通知規(guī)則”的主體則應(yīng)做限制性解釋,主要指的是中介服務(wù)提供者。有效通知應(yīng)在形式、內(nèi)容上符合法律要求,對(duì)此網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者應(yīng)履行相應(yīng)程度的審查義務(wù),這種審查是被動(dòng)審查,而且其在接到有效的通知后,應(yīng)及時(shí)采取必要措施。同時(shí),在特殊情形下,通知人應(yīng)對(duì)錯(cuò)誤通知承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。我國“通知規(guī)則”雖然擴(kuò)張適用于人身權(quán)益,但與網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息傳播權(quán)的規(guī)定不盡相同,由此不可避免的產(chǎn)生了法律沖突需要予以化解。首先,“通知規(guī)則”擴(kuò)張適用于人身權(quán)益涉及表達(dá)自由與人身權(quán)益保護(hù)的利益衡量問題,從網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)的特點(diǎn)、成文法滯后性特點(diǎn)以及表達(dá)自由并非絕對(duì)等角度出發(fā),我國擴(kuò)張適用“通知規(guī)則”的做法是合理的。其次,“通知規(guī)則”在網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息傳播權(quán)與人身權(quán)益的規(guī)定上存在差別,從人身權(quán)益的極端重要性以及網(wǎng)絡(luò)人身權(quán)益案件中被侵害人的能力較弱角度,適當(dāng)?shù)牟顒e也是合理的。值得關(guān)注的是,司法解釋就人身權(quán)益的保護(hù)未規(guī)定“轉(zhuǎn)通知”及“反通知規(guī)則”,立法者給予的解釋也不夠充分。事實(shí)上,這樣的做法將導(dǎo)致法律體系沖突,加深表達(dá)自由與人格權(quán)不平衡。在“通知規(guī)則”適用過程中,網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供會(huì)因“轉(zhuǎn)通知”、采取必要措施而支出相應(yīng)費(fèi)用,法律并未就該比費(fèi)用的最終承擔(dān)問題作出規(guī)定,從危險(xiǎn)控制理論、收益與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)相一致理論及企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任理論出發(fā),應(yīng)由網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者承擔(dān)。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 蔡唱;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第36條實(shí)施中表達(dá)自由與人格權(quán)保護(hù)沖突之解決[J];岳麓法學(xué)評(píng)論;2014年00期

2 楊立新;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)提供者的附條件不真正連帶責(zé)任與部分連帶責(zé)任[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2015年01期

3 楊臨萍;姚輝;姜強(qiáng);;《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵害人身權(quán)益民事糾紛案件適用法律若干問題的規(guī)定》的理解與適用[J];法律適用;2014年12期

4 徐偉;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者“知道”認(rèn)定新詮——兼駁網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者“應(yīng)知”論[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2014年02期

5 蔡唱;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者侵權(quán)責(zé)任規(guī)則的反思與重構(gòu)[J];法商研究;2013年02期

6 徐偉;;通知移除制度的重新定性及其體系效應(yīng)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2013年01期

7 王利明;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下人格權(quán)的保護(hù)[J];中國地質(zhì)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年04期

8 王利明;;人格權(quán)法的發(fā)展與完善——以人格尊嚴(yán)的保護(hù)為視角[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年04期

9 徐偉;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者連帶責(zé)任之質(zhì)疑[J];法學(xué);2012年05期

10 楊立新;李佳倫;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)責(zé)任中的反通知及效果[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐偉;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者侵權(quán)責(zé)任理論基礎(chǔ)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳愛文;網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)中通知規(guī)則研究[D];煙臺(tái)大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1667695