本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者　出處：《中央民族大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第36條從宏觀角度規(guī)定了我國的網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。本文結(jié)合我國現(xiàn)行的網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)方面的法律、法規(guī)和相關(guān)司法解釋,對第36條的條文進(jìn)行解釋和闡述,并對條文中的一些不足和可以改進(jìn)的地方提出自己的建議。本人正文共分成三大部分,分別是引言、文章主體和結(jié)語、后記等。第一部分引言,介紹了筆者的選題意義,學(xué)界的研究動態(tài),以及本文的主要內(nèi)容等。最后一部分是結(jié)語、后記等,從民眾角度對未來網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)問題進(jìn)行展望。第二部分是文章的主體部分,分為第36條涉及的網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)基本理論、第36條具體制度設(shè)計(jì)及不足、第36條立法完善的思考這三章。第一章首先介紹了網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)行為的概念、特征、主體和對象等。第二章包括三節(jié),論述了網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)具體制度設(shè)計(jì)及不足。第1節(jié)論述了網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)的歸責(zé)原則。文章指出,第36條第1款適用一般過錯歸責(zé)原則,第2款中,“通知”并非是著作權(quán)人的權(quán)利,其性質(zhì)應(yīng)是主張權(quán)利的手段,具體實(shí)施中應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》中的通知、反通知規(guī)則進(jìn)行。第3款中,“知道”這一主觀狀態(tài)從早期的僅指“明知”,放寬到包括“明知”和“應(yīng)知”。第2節(jié)論述了網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)的責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式,第36條第1款,網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶和網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者承擔(dān)的是直接侵權(quán)責(zé)任,是自己責(zé)任,而第2款和第3款承擔(dān)的是共同侵立法存在的一些不足。文章第3章是本文的最重要組成部分,論述了第36條在立法上的完善措施。文章指出,第一,第36條用“網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者”這一籠統(tǒng)概念界定網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商會給法律適用帶來諸多不便,因而應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者所提供的服務(wù)類型加以區(qū)別對待。即區(qū)分網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容服務(wù)提供者和網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)服務(wù)提供者,而網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容服務(wù)提供者承擔(dān)的是直接侵權(quán)責(zé)任,網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺服務(wù)提供者和提供搜索、鏈接服務(wù)的服務(wù)商承擔(dān)的是連帶責(zé)任。第二,我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》和其他法律法規(guī)缺少“通知”的具體實(shí)施方法、反通知制度和錯誤通知的承擔(dān)機(jī)制,因此應(yīng)當(dāng)首先,簡化通知的內(nèi)容；其次,建立“通知—反通知—刪除”制度并引入擔(dān)保機(jī)制；再次,建立嚴(yán)格的錯誤通知承擔(dān)機(jī)制；最后,可以借鑒美國版權(quán)法中關(guān)于“避風(fēng)港”原則的準(zhǔn)入門檻問題,要求網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者建立多次侵權(quán)用戶封號制度和承擔(dān)明確、清晰的通知告知義務(wù)。第三,由于第36條第2款中“損害擴(kuò)大的部分”沒有具體的、操作性強(qiáng)的執(zhí)行標(biāo)準(zhǔn),文章指出應(yīng)當(dāng)首先以通知的到達(dá)時間為分界點(diǎn),并預(yù)留出“及時采取合理措施”的時間,并且指出了著作權(quán)經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的計(jì)算方法方面的參考。第四,第36條第3款中“知道”包括明確知道和應(yīng)當(dāng)知道,但是如何判斷網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者明確知道和應(yīng)當(dāng)知道,在司法實(shí)踐中屬于法官自由裁量的范圍,我國沒有相關(guān)法律法規(guī)規(guī)定具體的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。文章指出,可以采取區(qū)分不同類型的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品,區(qū)分不同網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的類型,以及區(qū)分網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的應(yīng)對措施的方法判斷網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的過錯。
[Abstract]:< > thirty-sixth of the tort liability law from a macro perspective provides network tort liability in our country. In this paper, combining with the current network tort laws, regulations and relevant judicial interpretation, interpretation and description of the thirty-sixth section, and puts forward some suggestions on some problems in the provision and improvement. My body is divided into three parts, which are introduction, the main body and the conclusion, postscript. The first part is the introduction, the author introduces the significance of the topic, research scholars, and the main content of this paper. The last part is the conclusion, postscript, prospects for future network infringement problems from the public point of second. Part is the main part of the article, divided into thirty-sixth to thirty-sixth basic network tort theory, the specific design of the system and the lack of legislation on this thirty-sixth perfect three chapters. The first chapter introduces the network infringement The concept, characteristic, subject and object. The second chapter includes three sections, discusses the network tort and the specific design of the system. The first section discusses the imputation principle of network infringement. The article points out, the first paragraph of article thirty-sixth apply the general principle of fault liability, in section second, "notice" is not the copyright human rights, its nature is claimed by means of implementation shall be notified with < Information Network Transmission Right Protection Ordinance > the counter notification rules. In section third, "know" the subjective state from early only to "knowingly" relaxed to include "knowing" and "should know". The second section discusses the network tort responsibility undertakes the way, the first paragraph of article thirty-sixth, Internet users and Internet service providers bear the direct infringement liability is his own responsibility, while the second and third paragraphs is responsible for some deficiencies of joint tort legislation. Article third The chapter is the most important part of this paper discusses the thirty-sixth legislative measures. The article pointed out that, first, the thirty-sixth "Internet service provider" the general concept of network service chamber of inconvenience to the application of law, and thus shall be type of service according to the network service provider to be treated differently. Distinguish between Internet content providers and network technology service provider and Internet content provider is responsible for the direct infringement liability, the network platform providers and provide search link service providers bear the joint liability. In second, China's "tort liability law" and other laws and regulations of the lack of specific implementation methods of the notice "take the mechanism of anti notification system and error notification, so it should be first, simplify the contents of notice; secondly, the establishment of" notice - counter notice delete "system And the introduction of guarantee mechanism; thirdly, establish the error notification strict commitment mechanism; finally, can learn from the access threshold of "safe harbor" principle in American copyright law, request the network service provider to establish multiple user system and bear the title of tort is clear, clear notice of the obligation to inform. Third, because the thirty-sixth paragraph second "the expansion of the injury part" no specific implementation, practical standards, the article pointed out that should be the first to inform the arrival time for the cut-off point, and set aside time to take reasonable measures ", and points out the calculation method of economic loss of the copyright. The third paragraph of article fourth, thirty-sixth in the" know "know and should know, but how to determine the network service provider clearly know and should know that belongs to the discretion of judges in the judicial practice in the scope of our country No relevant provisions of laws and regulations of specific criteria. The article points out, can be taken to distinguish between different types of works, performances, audio and video products, to distinguish between different types of network service providers, network service providers distinguish methods and measures to judge the network service provider's fault.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 周強(qiáng);;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的侵權(quán)責(zé)任——以《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第36條第2款、第3款為中心[J];北京政法職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

2 王遷;;視頻分享網(wǎng)站著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問題研究[J];法商研究;2008年04期

3 王遷;;論版權(quán)“間接侵權(quán)”及其規(guī)則的法定化[J];法學(xué);2005年12期

4 刁勝先;;個人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)歸責(zé)原則的比較研究——兼評我國侵權(quán)法相關(guān)規(guī)定[J];河北法學(xué);2011年06期

5 楊明;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第36條釋義及其展開[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

6 韓芳;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)案中搜索引擎服務(wù)商注意義務(wù)之邊界[J];人民司法;2013年06期

7 吳漢東;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的著作權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];中國法學(xué);2011年02期

8 陳紹玲;;避風(fēng)港準(zhǔn)入門檻在我國的不適應(yīng)性分析[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2014年12期

，

本文編號：1727936