本文關(guān)鍵詞： 網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商 構(gòu)成要件 歸責(zé)原則 責(zé)任承擔(dān)形態(tài) 間接侵權(quán)　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)隨著時(shí)代的發(fā)展日新月異,網(wǎng)絡(luò)發(fā)展產(chǎn)生的巨大影響滲透入當(dāng)前生活的方方面面。我國有著基數(shù)龐大的網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶,根據(jù)《中國互聯(lián)網(wǎng)發(fā)展?fàn)顩r統(tǒng)計(jì)報(bào)告》的第35次統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果,到2014年12月為止,我國已經(jīng)有超過5.5億人次的手機(jī)網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶,網(wǎng)絡(luò)變得越來越便利將互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的普及率帶至47.9%。隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶人數(shù)的增加,網(wǎng)絡(luò)事務(wù)的不斷增多,現(xiàn)存的法律制度也受到了日益發(fā)展的網(wǎng)絡(luò)科技的巨大挑戰(zhàn)。本文第一部分講了網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商的概念與類型、歸責(zé)基礎(chǔ)。隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)提高新型服務(wù)方式的出現(xiàn),網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商概念內(nèi)涵也在不斷擴(kuò)大中,在當(dāng)前學(xué)術(shù)界,關(guān)于其概念與類型區(qū)分存在廣義說與狹義說。廣義網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商包括內(nèi)容服務(wù)與平臺(tái)服務(wù)提供者,狹義網(wǎng)絡(luò)商僅包括平臺(tái)服務(wù)提供商。在當(dāng)前的外國立法中,將網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商進(jìn)行分類,并且根據(jù)不同的類型來規(guī)定不同的免責(zé)條款,是外國立法中比較普遍采取的一種立法方式。關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之概念,我們應(yīng)當(dāng)明確《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》以及我們的研究中并不包括網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容提供商,網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容提供商的侵權(quán)問題與一般侵權(quán)問題并無二致,因此,我們的研究特指網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)服務(wù)提供商。關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商的類型,雖然《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》并未詳細(xì)列舉,筆者認(rèn)為《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》的規(guī)定中“自動(dòng)接入服務(wù)”,“自動(dòng)傳輸服務(wù)”,“自動(dòng)存儲(chǔ)”,“提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間”,“提供搜索或鏈接服務(wù)”幾種類型是借鑒了外國立法例之后作出的分類,并且對(duì)其不同的免責(zé)事由的適用也作出了科學(xué)的劃分,可以滿足實(shí)踐的需求。在適用《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》進(jìn)行分析斷案時(shí),應(yīng)據(jù)此對(duì)其進(jìn)行分類并區(qū)分不同免責(zé)條款。關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任歸責(zé)基礎(chǔ)學(xué)界觀點(diǎn)主要有如下三種:1.過錯(cuò)論:網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之所以應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)侵權(quán)承擔(dān)責(zé)任的原因在于其對(duì)于侵權(quán)事實(shí)的發(fā)生具有過錯(cuò)。2.直接獲利論:網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商因其提供網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)的經(jīng)營內(nèi)容而獲利,從而對(duì)于其經(jīng)營內(nèi)容范圍內(nèi)的侵權(quán)亦應(yīng)負(fù)有責(zé)任。3.實(shí)際控制論:網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商因?qū)η謾?quán)事實(shí)有實(shí)際控制力,因此如果沒有采取合理措施,就應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)責(zé)任。過錯(cuò)論、直接獲利論與實(shí)際控制論作為當(dāng)前三種主流理論,都具有相當(dāng)程度上的影響力。然而亦存在一些的不足,在筆者認(rèn)為修正后網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任理論基礎(chǔ)應(yīng)為:網(wǎng)絡(luò)商在合理過濾技術(shù)設(shè)立前提下,由于知悉和并未及時(shí)采取措施處理侵權(quán)事宜而應(yīng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。第二部分討論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任之歸責(zé)原則。外國有關(guān)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究較之我國有的時(shí)間更早,具有借鑒意義。美國對(duì)不同類型網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商規(guī)定不同免責(zé)條款,確立了嚴(yán)格責(zé)任限制之歸責(zé)原則;歐盟采取的為過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則;德國在網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容提供者責(zé)任承擔(dān)中采取的為無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則,而在其他類網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商的責(zé)任承擔(dān)方面均采取的是過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則�！肚謾�(quán)責(zé)任法》36條由第二款規(guī)定了“通知-移除”規(guī)則,第三款規(guī)定了“知道”規(guī)則。在理論界對(duì)于不同類型網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商適用的歸責(zé)原則是否應(yīng)當(dāng)統(tǒng)一也具有爭議,筆者認(rèn)為,網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則為過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則更為合理:對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)適用過錯(cuò)推定,對(duì)一般權(quán)利則適用過錯(cuò)原則。第三部分講網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任之構(gòu)成要件。筆者認(rèn)為“三要件說”較為合理:三個(gè)要件即損害事實(shí)、因果關(guān)系和主觀過錯(cuò)足以概括一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任之構(gòu)成�！肚謾�(quán)責(zé)任法》第36條的第2款與第3款,在借鑒了國外的相關(guān)制度的情況下,為我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任的成立中的主觀過錯(cuò)構(gòu)成要件之成立提供了法律依據(jù);關(guān)于損害事實(shí)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)所侵犯之客體分為財(cái)產(chǎn)性權(quán)利與人身性權(quán)利,財(cái)產(chǎn)性權(quán)利如侵犯他人版權(quán)或者商標(biāo)權(quán)從而謀取經(jīng)濟(jì)上的利益,人身性權(quán)利如對(duì)他人之隱私披露、名譽(yù)詆毀等使得權(quán)利人精神上利益遭到侵犯之情況。被侵權(quán)方無論是基于過錯(cuò)推定的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人或者是基于過錯(cuò)原則歸責(zé)之一般權(quán)利的權(quán)利人,均需要在訴訟中對(duì)自己所遭到的損害進(jìn)行證明;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之侵權(quán)責(zé)任的成立,必須是網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之行為與侵權(quán)損害后果之間存在有因果聯(lián)系,這里的因果聯(lián)系包括兩層:首先是網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶利用網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商提供之便利實(shí)施了侵權(quán)行為與被侵權(quán)方之損害結(jié)果存在有因果聯(lián)系;其次是網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之注意義務(wù)未履行對(duì)于侵權(quán)損害后果的發(fā)生或者擴(kuò)大存在有因果聯(lián)系。在這兩層因果聯(lián)系中,前者是后者發(fā)生之前提。第四部分討論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任之承擔(dān)的問題。本部分通過對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商責(zé)任形承擔(dān)形式不同階段與不同形式的研究和討論,筆者認(rèn)為關(guān)于我國的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任形態(tài)承擔(dān),應(yīng)當(dāng)適用外部連帶責(zé)任與內(nèi)部按份責(zé)任。立法中出于一定目的之考慮課以網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商連帶責(zé)任,使得被侵權(quán)方的救濟(jì)更為方便及時(shí),而我們?cè)趯?duì)其內(nèi)部責(zé)任分配時(shí)也應(yīng)當(dāng)注意,也不應(yīng)使網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商承擔(dān)終局責(zé)任,而是應(yīng)當(dāng)在連帶責(zé)任承擔(dān)之后在內(nèi)部按照各自過錯(cuò)與原因力,對(duì)份額進(jìn)行合理的分配。第五部分討論的是間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任。構(gòu)建間接侵權(quán)制度是外國的立法例中解決網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)制度的普遍做法,本部分通過這樣的一種做法與我國的采用“共同侵權(quán)”方式來解決網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責(zé)任的模式相比較所存在的優(yōu)勢(shì)的研究,討論了間接侵權(quán)概念在我國提出時(shí)的爭議,間接侵權(quán)所包括的類型,并且借鑒了國外的間接侵權(quán)制度構(gòu)建框架,對(duì)我國的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任的相關(guān)法律規(guī)定提出立法構(gòu)想與修改建議。
[Abstract]:With the development of network technology change rapidly, the huge impact of the development of network has infiltrated in all aspects of life. China has a huge number of Internet users, according to the thirty-fifth statistical results of development of Chinese internet report >, until December 2014, there have been more than 550 million people in the mobile phone users in China, network become more and more convenient to the Internet popularity rate to 47.9%. with the increase of the number of network users, network services continue to increase, the existing legal system has also been a huge challenge to the growing network of science and technology. In the first part of this paper about the concept and types of network service providers, imputation basis. With the increase of the new service the way of the network technology, the connotation of the concept of ISP is also expanding, in the current academic circles about the concept and types of distinguish between broad sense say The generalized and narrow sense. The network service provider includes content services and platform service providers, network operators including only narrow platform service providers. In the current foreign legislation, network service providers are classified, and according to different types require different disclaimers, is a kind of legislation is generally adopted in foreign legislation. Concept of the network service provider, we should clear the tort liability law study < > and we did not include the Internet content provider, there is no infringement of Internet content providers and general tort problems caused by two, therefore, the service provider network platform. We study in particular types of network service providers, although the "tort liability law the author thinks that not a detailed list >, < Information Network Transmission Right Protection Ordinance" provisions of the "automatic access service", "automatic transmission service", "Automatic storage", "information storage", "search or link service types from the classification made after the foreign legislation, and the different exemption applies also to make a scientific division, can meet the needs of practice. In the case of the application of the" tort liability law >, we should classify and distinguish different disclaimer. About Internet service providers tort liability imputation basis of the academic point of view there are three main types: 1. fault theory: the network service provider is that it has a fault for.2. should be the direct benefit of the fact of infringement reasons of tort liability in network because of the service provider to provide network services business and profit, which for its business within the scope of tort should be responsible for the actual control of.3. network service providers because of the infringement In the actual control, so if you do not take reasonable measures, it shall bear the liability. Fault theory, direct profit theory as the three mainstream theories and actual control, has considerable influence. However, there are some deficiencies in the modified theory of the tort liability of Internet service providers should be for network operators in the establishment of reasonable filtration technology under the premise of knowing and not due to take timely measures to deal with matters of infringement shall bear tort liability. The second part discusses the imputation principle of the tort liability of Internet service provider. The research on the tort liability of network service foreign than China earlier, has the reference significance. The provisions of the different types of network service providers of different exemption clause, established the strict limitation of liability imputation principle; the principle of fault liability for the EU to take Germany within the network; Content providers responsibility for taking no fault liability principle, and in other types of network service providers are taking responsibility is the principle of fault liability. The tort liability law >36 by the provisions of the second paragraph of the "notice - remove" rules, the provisions of the third paragraph of the "know" rule in the theory circle. The imputation principle for the different types of network service providers should also have uniform dispute, the author believes that the network service provider, the imputation principle of tort liability fault liability principle is more reasonable: the intellectual property rights of the general presumption of fault, it applies the principle of fault. The third part is about the infringement of the network service provider of the elements. The author thinks that the "three elements" is more reasonable: three elements namely damage fact, causality and subjective fault to summarize general tort liability form of tort liability. Any law > thirty-sixth of paragraph second and paragraph third, in reference to the relevant foreign system under the condition of the establishment of China's Internet service providers tort liability in the subjective fault of the components of the establishment provides a legal basis; the object of damage to the fact that Internet service providers tort infringes the property rights and the people divided into personal rights, property rights such as infringement of copyright or trademark rights to seek economic benefits, such as personal rights of others privacy disclosure, reputation slander obliges spiritual interests infringed the infringed party. Whether it is based on the presumption of fault, intellectual property rights or general rights the principle of fault liability based on the rights of the people, are in need of litigation by his own damage proof; tort liability of Internet service provider of network services must be provided. There is a causal link between taking the behavior and consequence of tort, the causal link consists of two layers: the first is to provide network users to facilitate the implementation of infringement and tort party results in a causal link with the network service provider; second is the network service provider that does not fulfill its obligations for tort consequences there is a causal relationship between the occurrence or expansion. In the two layer of causality, the former is the premise of the latter. The fourth part discusses the network service providers bear tort liability problems. Through this part of the network service provider liability form assume different forms with different forms of the stage of research and discussion, the author thinks that the bear form network service provider tort liability in China, shall be jointly and severally liable according to internal and external responsibility. Consider a certain purpose for legislation A network service provider liability, the infringement relief party is more convenient and timely, and we in the internal allocation of responsibility should also pay attention to, also should not make the network service provider to take the final responsibility, but should be after be liable in accordance with their respective fault and causes in the internal force, on reasonable distribution share. The fifth part is to discuss the indirect infringement liability. Constructing the system of indirect infringement is a common practice to solve the network service provider tort legislation cases of foreign research, this part adopts "through such an approach and our common tort" way to solve the infringement of the network service provider model compared to the existing advantages the discussion of the concept of indirect infringement dispute in our country is proposed, including the types of indirect infringement, and from the system of indirect infringement of foreign construction The framework provides legislative ideas and amendments to the relevant legal provisions of the tort liability of network service providers in China.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 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

，

本文編號(hào)：1462426