【摘要】：由于對"通知-刪除"規(guī)則與避風(fēng)港規(guī)則本身及其之間的關(guān)系存在的錯誤認識,我國理論界對避風(fēng)港規(guī)則的性質(zhì)、"通知-刪除"規(guī)則的性質(zhì)與功能等都產(chǎn)生了諸多認識上的混亂,錯誤地將"通知-刪除"規(guī)則等同于避風(fēng)港規(guī)則,進而將"通知-刪除"規(guī)則認定為免責(zé)規(guī)則。此外,目前理論界尚未對網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)的主觀過錯認定形成共識,"知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)"如何界定、"通知"對網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)認知的影響等也成為難題。本文通過分析認為,我國僅自動接入和自動存儲服務(wù)提供商真正享有避風(fēng)港,搜索和鏈接服務(wù)提供商、信息存儲空間服務(wù)提供商不享有避風(fēng)港。"通知-刪除"規(guī)則僅是"避風(fēng)港規(guī)則"的組成部分,單純的"通知-刪除"規(guī)則本身并無免責(zé)的法律效力,我國"通知-刪除"規(guī)則的價值在于認定網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成的主觀狀態(tài)。我國理論界基本上從特殊注意義務(wù)路徑和推定知道路徑這兩個視角來解釋"應(yīng)知"、"有理由知道",從證據(jù)法的視角和注意義務(wù)理論來界定"推定知道"。網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商的特殊注意義務(wù)與一般性的事前審查義務(wù)并不沖突,證據(jù)法上的"推定知道"依然需要注意義務(wù)理論作為基礎(chǔ),特殊注意義務(wù)理論的適用性更強。"推定知道"是一種對"明知"的認定方式。美國法上對"侵權(quán)事實的明顯性"要求過高的"紅旗測試"在我國并不具有適用空間�！缎畔⒕W(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護條例》中的"有合理的理由應(yīng)當(dāng)知道"和"應(yīng)知"的含義基本相同,《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》中的"應(yīng)知"運用了特殊注意義務(wù)理論。在通知的效力這一問題上,網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商對通知進行形式審查即可,合格通知的效力是使得網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商主觀上"明知"可能存在版權(quán)侵權(quán)行為。本文提出,應(yīng)當(dāng)區(qū)分不同情況認定瑕疵通知的效力:實質(zhì)內(nèi)容充分的瑕疵通知和合格通知的效力相同;實質(zhì)內(nèi)容不充分的瑕疵通知使得網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商負有積極聯(lián)系通知發(fā)送人提供合格通知或者內(nèi)容足以充分定位的通知的注意義務(wù)。
[Abstract]:As a result of the erroneous perception of the "Notification-Delete" rule and the Haven rules themselves and their relationship, In our country, the nature of the rules of safe haven, the nature and function of the rules of "Notification and deletion" have produced a lot of confusion, and the rules of "Notification-Delete" have been wrongly equated with the rules of safe havens. In turn, the "Notification-Delete" rule is recognized as an exemption rule. In addition, there is no consensus on the subjective fault of indirect copyright infringement of Internet service provider. How to define the "know standard" and the influence of "notice" on the cognition of infringement of Internet service provider have become a difficult problem. Through the analysis, it is concluded that only automatic access and automatic storage service providers in China really enjoy safe haven, search and link service providers and information storage space service providers do not enjoy safe haven. " Notification-the deletion of "rules" is only part of the "safe haven rules", and the mere "Notification-Delete" rule does not in itself have the legal effect of exemption, The value of the "Notification-Delete" rule lies in the subjective state of the indirect liability for copyright infringement of Internet service providers. The theoretical circle of our country basically interprets "should know" and "reasonable know" from the two angles of special duty of care path and presumed knowing path, and defines "presumptive knowledge" from the perspective of evidence law and the theory of duty of care. The special duty of care of Internet service providers does not conflict with the general obligation of prior examination. The presumption of knowledge in evidence law still needs the theory of duty of care as the basis, and the theory of special duty of care is more applicable. Presumption of knowledge "is a way of identifying" knowing "." The "red flag test", which requires too much on the "obvious facts of infringement" in American law, does not have any space for application in our country. "there are reasonable reasons to know" and "should know" in the "regulations on the Protection of the right of Information Network Communication" The meaning is basically the same, "should know" in "the Supreme people's Court about hearing some problems of law applicable to civil dispute cases of infringing information network communication right" has applied the theory of special duty of care. On the issue of the effectiveness of the notice, the network service provider can examine the form of the notice, and the effectiveness of the qualified notice is to make the Internet service provider know subjectively that there may be copyright infringement. In this paper, we should distinguish the effectiveness of the defect notice in different cases: the effectiveness of the defect notice with sufficient substance is the same as that of the qualified notice; The defect notice with insufficient substance makes the network service provider bear the duty of care to contact the sender actively to provide the qualified notice or the sufficient content to locate the notice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.41

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馮術(shù)杰;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的過錯形態(tài)[J];中國法學(xué);2016年04期

2 徐偉;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者“知道”認定新詮——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);2014年02期

3 胡晶晶;;論“知道規(guī)則”之“應(yīng)知”——以故意/過失區(qū)分為視角[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(法學(xué)版);2013年06期

4 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

5 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

6 魯春雅;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者侵權(quán)責(zé)任的類型化解讀[J];政治與法律;2011年04期

7 王遷;;《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護條例》中“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的效力[J];法學(xué);2010年06期

8 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;2010年03期

9 胡開忠;;“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”在視頻分享網(wǎng)站版權(quán)侵權(quán)認定中的適用[J];法學(xué);2009年12期

10 梅術(shù)文;溫博;;探析“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則主觀要件——以視頻分享網(wǎng)站為視角[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年11期

，

本文編號：2278712