本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)中介服務(wù)提供者　切入點(diǎn)：間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任　出處：《湖南師范大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著信息技術(shù)的迅猛發(fā)展,互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的使用已經(jīng)滲透到各個(gè)領(lǐng)域。大量信息和作品的傳播在給人們帶去便捷和愉悅的同時(shí),各種版權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛問題也日益凸顯。作為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)主要行為人的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中介服務(wù)提供者,其版權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任成為了近年來的熱點(diǎn)問題。網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者版權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任存在著“直接侵權(quán)”和“間接侵權(quán)”之分。對于直接提供內(nèi)容服務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者一般情況下承擔(dān)直接侵權(quán)責(zé)任這一點(diǎn),學(xué)界沒有太大爭議。但網(wǎng)絡(luò)中介服務(wù)提供者由于其在法律地位、運(yùn)營方式及技術(shù)模式等方面的特殊性,則可能由于其客觀上幫助了直接侵權(quán)行為人而承擔(dān)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任。與美國等西方發(fā)達(dá)國家對“間接侵權(quán)”規(guī)則的完善規(guī)定相比,我國立法上僅出現(xiàn)了一些有關(guān)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任認(rèn)定的分散的零星的規(guī)定,這些規(guī)定很多情況下是在沒有相關(guān)法理基礎(chǔ)支撐的情況下照搬國外的立法或司法實(shí)踐形成的,往往導(dǎo)致不能很好的適用于中國的司法實(shí)踐中。對于有效保護(hù)版權(quán)人的合法權(quán)益還顯得過于單薄,現(xiàn)實(shí)案例中往往是版權(quán)人的訴求和損失難以依照既有法律規(guī)定得到滿足。正是由于我國版權(quán)法對版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任沒有明確系統(tǒng)的規(guī)定,法院在司法實(shí)踐過程中遇到間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任問題時(shí),往往只能借用民法框架下的共同侵權(quán)制度來彌補(bǔ)版權(quán)法上的缺憾。這不但對法院的司法實(shí)踐缺乏相應(yīng)的指導(dǎo),而且在理解適用的過程中容易產(chǎn)生歧義。尤其是對諸如“百度案”、“雅虎案”這樣類似案件的不同判決所引發(fā)的爭議,使得我們必須加快完善立法,進(jìn)一步完善版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任制度。 全文從網(wǎng)絡(luò)中介服務(wù)提供者版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的基本理論入手,分析了網(wǎng)絡(luò)中介服務(wù)提供者承擔(dān)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的合理性,對侵權(quán)責(zé)任的類型,間接侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件及間接侵權(quán)與共同侵權(quán)的區(qū)別等進(jìn)行了闡述。對我國現(xiàn)存立法中有關(guān)網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)的規(guī)定進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)介紹,同時(shí)結(jié)合我國司法實(shí)踐,論述了我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)制度立法之不足,指出了明確規(guī)定網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任制度的必要性。在立足我國現(xiàn)狀,借鑒外國先進(jìn)立法的基礎(chǔ)上,形成符合我國國情的平衡網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶、網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者和版權(quán)人三者間利益的責(zé)任機(jī)制。具體而言,建議引入替代侵權(quán)并完善幫助侵權(quán)責(zé)任制度以構(gòu)建系統(tǒng)的版權(quán)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任制度,同時(shí)明確網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)者“主觀過錯(cuò)”的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及其合理注意義務(wù),明確已有法條的具體應(yīng)用條件及標(biāo)準(zhǔn),以期更好的指導(dǎo)司法實(shí)踐,進(jìn)一步探索出解決互聯(lián)網(wǎng)版權(quán)糾紛的途徑。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of information technology, the use of the Internet has penetrated into all fields. All kinds of copyright infringement disputes are also becoming increasingly prominent. As the main perpetrator of indirect copyright infringement on the Internet, the Internet intermediary service provider, The liability for copyright infringement has become a hot issue in recent years. There are "direct infringement" and "indirect infringement" between copyright infringement liability of network service provider. In general, to assume direct liability for tort, There is no great controversy in academic circles. However, because of its particularity in legal status, operation mode and technical model, network intermediary service provider, It may be because it objectively helps the direct tortfeasor to bear the indirect tort liability. Compared with the perfect regulations of the "indirect tort" rules in the United States and other western developed countries, In our legislation, there are only a few scattered provisions on the identification of indirect tort liability, many of which are formed by copying foreign legislation or judicial practice without the support of relevant legal theories. It often leads to not being well suited to the judicial practice in China. It is still too weak for the effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of copyright holders. In real cases, it is difficult to satisfy the demand and loss of copyright owners in accordance with the existing laws and regulations. It is precisely because there is no clear and systematic regulation on the liability for indirect copyright infringement in China's copyright law. When the court encounters the problem of indirect tort liability in the course of judicial practice, it can only use the common tort system under the framework of civil law to make up for the defects in copyright law, which is not only lack of corresponding guidance to the judicial practice of the court. Moreover, it is easy to produce ambiguity in the process of understanding its application. In particular, disputes over different judgments in similar cases, such as the Baidu case and the Yahoo case, make it necessary for us to speed up the improvement of the legislation. Further improve the system of indirect copyright infringement liability. Starting with the basic theory of indirect copyright infringement liability of network intermediary service provider, this paper analyzes the rationality of network intermediary service provider's undertaking indirect tort liability, and the types of tort liability. The constitution of indirect infringement and the difference between indirect infringement and joint infringement are expounded. The provisions of the existing legislation on indirect infringement of network copyright in our country are introduced in detail, and combined with the judicial practice of our country, This paper discusses the deficiency of the legislation of indirect infringement of network copyright in our country, and points out the necessity of clearly stipulating the system of indirect tort liability of network copyright. Based on the present situation of our country, the author draws lessons from the advanced legislation of foreign countries. To form a liability mechanism to balance the interests of network users, network service providers and copyright owners in line with the national conditions of our country. It is suggested that the system of indirect liability for copyright infringement should be constructed by introducing alternative tort and perfecting the system of helping tort liability, and at the same time, the judgment standard of "subjective fault" and the reasonable duty of care of network server should be clarified. In order to guide judicial practice better and further explore the ways to solve Internet copyright disputes, we should clarify the specific application conditions and standards of the existing articles in order to guide judicial practice better.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.41

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐烈;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代版權(quán)保護(hù)的法律問題[J];審計(jì)與理財(cái);2008年08期

2 喻磊;蔡文雅;;論版權(quán)保護(hù)中無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則的確立[J];江西科技師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年02期

3 王棟;眭鴻明;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商的合理注意義務(wù)[J];南京郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年04期

4 畢麗菊;謝丹;;我國圖書館服務(wù)與版權(quán)問題之探析[J];貴州民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年06期

5 謝惠加;;技術(shù)創(chuàng)新視野下版權(quán)立法之完善[J];科技進(jìn)步與對策;2008年03期

6 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

7 沙伊拉·珀?duì)栺R特;馮曉東;;美國版權(quán)法對實(shí)用藝術(shù)品的保護(hù)[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);1991年04期

8 蔣茂凝;版權(quán)保護(hù)在網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代的調(diào)整與改革[J];中國出版;1999年10期

9 段維;略論互聯(lián)網(wǎng)對版權(quán)保護(hù)的挑戰(zhàn)[J];出版科學(xué);2003年03期

10 張勝華;陶瓷行業(yè)版權(quán)保護(hù)初探[J];景德鎮(zhèn)陶瓷;2003年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 唐麗;;論科學(xué)作品的版權(quán)保護(hù)[A];2002年全國自然辯證法學(xué)術(shù)發(fā)展年會(huì)論文集[C];2002年

2 田震;陳高興;李改肖;王斌;;中國數(shù)字海圖生產(chǎn)與版權(quán)保護(hù)[A];全國地圖學(xué)與GIS學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];2004年

3 宋玉杰;劉瑞禎;譚鐵牛;;一種用于印刷品防偽的數(shù)字水印技術(shù)[A];中國圖象圖形學(xué)會(huì)第十屆全國圖像圖形學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議（CIG’2001）和第一屆全國虛擬現(xiàn)實(shí)技術(shù)研討會(huì)（CVR’2001）論文集[C];2001年

4 方英;;科技期刊與版權(quán)保護(hù)[A];科技期刊編輯研究文集（第三集）[C];1994年

5 劉e，

本文編號：1686952