本文選題：搜索引擎服務商 + 商主體��； 參考：《山西大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：搜索引擎服務商提供的搜索服務作為信息定位服務,其具有的便捷化、商業(yè)化的特點在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)+時代下日趨凸顯,然而其帶來的侵權問題也引起了激烈的爭議。究其原因,搜索引擎服務商作為網(wǎng)絡空間內特殊的商主體,除了具有技術上的優(yōu)勢,還具有天生的逐利性;而傳統(tǒng)的侵權法重在救濟,并不以懲罰為主要目的,這就導致了搜索引擎服務商會忽視較小的侵權成本去追求利益最大化,侵害權利人的合法權利。本文運用比較分析、法經(jīng)濟學的方法從搜索引擎服務商的商主體角度出發(fā),綜合考慮搜索引擎的技術原理和其背后的利益衡量,進而對其侵權責任進行研究,以期實現(xiàn)既保護被侵權人的合法權益又要不過分限制搜索引擎服務商營業(yè)自由的目的。除去引言與結論,本文分五部分對搜索引擎服務商的侵權責任進行了論述。在第一部分,綜合考慮了搜索引擎服務商的主體及行為特性,從侵權主體、侵權行為、侵害的權利三個方面對搜索引擎服務商侵權的特殊性做了研究。第二部分分析了搜索引擎服務商侵權責任的理論基礎。并最終認為,控制力說對于搜索引擎服務商侵權責任的正當性更具有說服力。第三部分對搜索引擎服務商侵權責任的歸責原則做了研究。雖然競價排名服務具有人為干預性和直接營利性,并具有廣告性質,但是搜索引擎服務商的控制力在此并沒有比自然排名服務中的控制力要高出多少,因此應統(tǒng)一適用過錯責任原則。并提出了適用客觀過錯歸責和區(qū)分不同侵權客體分配不同舉證責任的觀點來彌補適用過錯責任造成的缺陷。第四部分論述了搜索引擎服務商侵權責任的構成要件。并在過錯要件中對搜索引擎服務商的注意義務進行了設定。第五部分對搜索引擎服務商侵權責任的承擔做出了論述。其中在責任的承擔方式上提出了懲罰性賠償?shù)倪m用。
[Abstract]:Search service provided by search engine service provider, as information location service, has the characteristics of convenience and commercialization in the Internet era. However, the infringement caused by the search engine service has also aroused fierce controversy. The reason is that search engine service provider, as a special commercial subject in cyberspace, has not only technical advantages, but also innate profit-seeking, while traditional tort law focuses on relief and does not take punishment as its main purpose. This causes the search engine service provider to ignore the small cost of infringement to maximize the interests and infringe upon the legitimate rights of the obligee. This article uses comparative analysis, the law and economics method from the search engine service provider's commercial main body angle, synthetically considers the search engine's technical principle and its backside benefit measurement, then carries on the research to its tort liability. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of infringers and not to restrict the business freedom of search engine service providers. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper discusses the tort liability of search engine service provider in five parts. In the first part, the author synthetically considers the main body and the behavior characteristic of the search engine service provider, and studies the particularity of the search engine service provider infringement from three aspects: the tortious subject, the infringing act and the infringing right. The second part analyzes the theoretical basis of tort liability of search engine service provider. Finally, it is believed that the theory of control is more persuasive for the legitimacy of tort liability of search engine service providers. The third part makes a research on the principle of tort liability of search engine service provider. Although competitive ranking services are artificially interventionist, directly profitable, and advertising, search engine service providers have no greater control than natural ranking services. Therefore, the principle of fault liability should be applied uniformly. And put forward the viewpoint of applying objective fault imputation and distinguishing different tort object to allocate different burden of proof to make up for the defect caused by applying fault liability. The fourth part discusses the constitutive elements of tort liability of search engine service provider. And in the fault elements of the search engine service provider's duty of care is set. The fifth part discusses the tort liability of search engine service provider. Among them, the application of punitive damages is put forward in the way of liability.
【學位授予單位】：山西大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.4

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前7條

1 張平華;;商事侵權與民事侵權的“形似神異”:以連帶責任為中心[J];法學;2016年11期

2 王利明;;論互聯(lián)網(wǎng)立法的重點問題[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2016年05期

3 羅瀏虎;;被遺忘權:搜索引擎上過時個人信息的私法規(guī)制[J];重慶郵電大學學報(社會科學版);2016年03期

4 李自柱;;搜索引擎服務商提供關鍵詞競價排名服務的侵權責任及法律基礎[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權;2011年06期

5 王融;李長恩;;搜索引擎作為信息中介的侵權責任研究[J];北京郵電大學學報(社會科學版);2011年01期

6 王利明;;我國侵權責任法的體系構建——以救濟法為中心的思考[J];中國法學;2008年04期

7 孫憲忠;汪志剛;袁震;;侵權行為法立法學術報告會議述評[J];法學研究;2007年02期

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 徐偉;網(wǎng)絡服務提供者侵權責任理論基礎研究[D];吉林大學;2013年

2 馬榮;商事侵權責任初論[D];南京大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1911003