本文選題：避風(fēng)港規(guī)則 + 網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商��； 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商間接侵權(quán)制度是平衡網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)生態(tài)的重要法律規(guī)則。在這一領(lǐng)域,美國(guó)《數(shù)字千年版權(quán)法案》創(chuàng)設(shè)的避風(fēng)港規(guī)則長(zhǎng)期居于統(tǒng)治地位。近年來的審判實(shí)踐表明,避風(fēng)港規(guī)則不合理地降低了網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商作為“善良管理人”所應(yīng)承擔(dān)的注意義務(wù),損害了網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商預(yù)防控制用戶直接侵權(quán)的積極性,導(dǎo)致網(wǎng)絡(luò)盜版猖獗泛濫。為彌補(bǔ)避風(fēng)港規(guī)則的固有缺陷,我國(guó)在司法審判中通過對(duì)“知道”和“應(yīng)當(dāng)知道”的解釋將其部分架空,在行政執(zhí)法中又要求網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商負(fù)擔(dān)起超越立法的審查義務(wù),使得網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)制度變得更加破碎。而網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間由于其特殊的服務(wù)性質(zhì)和極易引發(fā)危險(xiǎn)的商業(yè)模式,更成為版權(quán)侵權(quán)的“重災(zāi)區(qū)”。2013年1月1日起生效的《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理侵害信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)民事糾紛案件適用法律若干問題的規(guī)定》更設(shè)置單獨(dú)條款,對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商構(gòu)成“應(yīng)知”的情形進(jìn)行了歸納,足見其矛盾的嚴(yán)重性和緊迫性。是故本文選取網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商的版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)行為作為主要研究對(duì)象。在此基礎(chǔ)上,筆者大膽建議,告別網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商避風(fēng)港規(guī)則,回歸經(jīng)典民法和侵權(quán)責(zé)任法,在必要交易秩序與社會(huì)合理期待的基礎(chǔ)上,重新確立網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商的合理注意義務(wù),建立以注意義務(wù)為核心的版權(quán)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定規(guī)則。具體的行文安排如下:第一部分,從現(xiàn)實(shí)憂慮和制度反思兩個(gè)角度,分析本文的研究背景。其中“現(xiàn)實(shí)憂慮”主要描繪網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間領(lǐng)域版權(quán)侵權(quán)亂象;“制度反思”重在分析避風(fēng)港規(guī)則的固有缺陷和我國(guó)對(duì)避風(fēng)港規(guī)則的片面移植。第二部分,研究注意義務(wù)的基本理論。首先,重申過錯(cuò)是一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任的基本構(gòu)成要件,而判斷行為人是否存在過錯(cuò)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在于其是否達(dá)到了應(yīng)盡的注意義務(wù);其次,還原基本概念,厘清注意義務(wù)的內(nèi)涵和分類;最后,指出注意義務(wù)是變動(dòng)不居的,在個(gè)案中具體判定行為人的注意義務(wù),應(yīng)遵循可預(yù)見性原則、信賴原則和利益最大化原則。第三部分,分析立法成例和司法創(chuàng)新。借鑒各國(guó)立法中關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商版權(quán)注意義務(wù)的先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn);歸納新晉判決中要求網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商自覺承擔(dān)的典型義務(wù)。第四部分,具體構(gòu)思與設(shè)計(jì)。重申注意義務(wù)之于網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)制度的重要意義,并設(shè)計(jì)三個(gè)具體的考量維度,為司法審判中如何認(rèn)定網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)商作為“善良管理人”的注意義務(wù)提供參考思路。
[Abstract]:The indirect infringement system of network service provider is an important legal rule to balance the network copyright ecology. In this area, the United States Digital Millennium copyright Act created the rule of haven has long dominated. The trial practice in recent years has shown that the rules of safe haven have unreasonably reduced the duty of care that network service providers should bear as "good managers", and damaged the enthusiasm of network service providers to prevent and control users' direct infringement. This has led to rampant piracy on the Internet. In order to make up for the inherent defects of the rules of safe haven, in the judicial trial, the interpretation of "know" and "should know" has been used to partially empty the rules, and in the course of administrative law enforcement, the network service providers are required to bear the obligation to examine beyond the legislation. Make network copyright indirect infringement system becomes more broken. Because of its special service nature and extremely dangerous business model, the network storage space, On January 1, 2013, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the application of law to civil disputes infringing upon information network transmission rights have even set up separate clauses. This paper sums up the situation that the network storage space service provider should know, and shows the seriousness and urgency of its contradiction. Therefore, this paper chooses indirect copyright infringement of network storage service provider as the main research object. On this basis, the author boldly proposes to bid farewell to the safe haven rules of the network storage space service provider, to return to the classical civil law and tort liability law, on the basis of the necessary transaction order and the reasonable expectation of the society. This paper reestablishes the reasonable duty of care of the network storage space service provider, and establishes the rules of copyright infringement cognizance based on the duty of care. The specific arrangement is as follows: the first part analyzes the background of this paper from the perspectives of realistic anxiety and institutional reflection. Among them, "realistic worry" mainly depicts copyright infringement disorder in the field of network storage space, and "institutional reflection" focuses on the analysis of the inherent defects of the rules of safe haven and the unilateral transplantation of the rules of safe havens in our country. The second part studies the basic theory of duty of care. First of all, it is reiterated that fault is the basic component of the general tort liability, and the criterion of judging the existence of fault lies in whether it achieves the due duty of care; secondly, it restores the basic concept and clarifies the connotation and classification of the duty of care. Finally, it is pointed out that the duty of care is not subject to change, and the principle of predictability, the principle of trust and the principle of maximization of benefits should be followed in determining the duty of care of the perpetrator in specific cases. The third part, analyzes the legislative example and the judicial innovation. This paper draws lessons from the advanced experience of the copyright obligation of the network storage space service provider in the legislation of various countries, and summarizes the typical obligations which the network storage space service provider is required to undertake consciously in the new judgment. The fourth part, concrete conception and design. Reiterating the importance of the duty of care to the system of indirect copyright infringement by Internet storage service providers, and designing three specific dimensions of consideration, It provides a reference for how to identify the network storage space service provider as the "kind manager" duty of attention in the judicial trial.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 屈茂輝;;論民法上的注意義務(wù)[J];北方法學(xué);2007年01期

2 芮松艷;;論視頻分享網(wǎng)站主觀過錯(cuò)的認(rèn)定[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年01期

3 晏宗武;;論民法上的注意義務(wù)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年04期

4 魏小雨;;論侵權(quán)法中網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的安全保障義務(wù)[J];國(guó)家行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年01期

5 舒國(guó)瀅;法律原則適用中的難題何在[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2004年06期

6 張永;;信賴原則之具體化研究[J];清華法律評(píng)論;2014年01期

7 劉文杰;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的安全保障義務(wù)[J];中外法學(xué);2012年02期

8 吳偉光;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者對(duì)其用戶侵權(quán)行為的責(zé)任承擔(dān)——不變的看門人制度與變化的合理注意義務(wù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];網(wǎng)絡(luò)法律評(píng)論;2011年01期

9 孫軍;;從“百度文庫事件”看我國(guó)避風(fēng)港規(guī)則之完善[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(法治論叢);2011年06期

10 吳偉光;;視頻網(wǎng)站在用戶版權(quán)侵權(quán)中的責(zé)任承擔(dān)——有限的安全港與動(dòng)態(tài)中的平衡[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年04期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 ;[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

2 張偉剛 人民法院報(bào)社;[N];人民法院報(bào);2014年

3 案例編寫人 重慶市第二中級(jí)人民法院 張艷敏;[N];人民法院報(bào);2014年

4 本報(bào)記者 張賀;[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

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

，

本文編號(hào)：1934901