本文關鍵詞：網絡服務提供者承擔連帶責任的缺陷與重構　出處：《武漢大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關文章： 連帶責任 幫助侵權 按份責任 審查義務

【摘要】：網絡服務提供者實施侵權行為主要分為兩種方式,一種是網絡服務提供者本身積極主動并在其"故意侵權謀利"的主觀意圖支配下獨立實施侵權行為或者事先與他人"共謀"并積極主動實施侵權行為;另一種是侵權用戶利用網絡服務提供者提供的"信息平臺"、"存儲空間"實施某種侵權行為,網絡服務提供者在收到被侵權人的通知后沒有及時采取有效的制止措施或者在"知道"侵權行為存在后消極不作為,造成侵權結果的進一步擴大,此時這種消極不作為也是一種侵權行為。在前一種侵權行為中,獨立實施的行為承擔自己責任,與他人積極共謀的行為承擔連帶責任,在理論界不存在爭議。對于網絡服務提供者后一種侵權行為,我國《侵權責任法》第36條第2款和第3款規(guī)定其應當承擔連帶責任,但是僅因為其對網絡用戶實施侵權行為具有"表象幫助",其為網絡用戶實施侵權行為創(chuàng)造了條件,就認為兩行為之間構成共同侵權并承擔連帶責任在理論界存在爭議。本文從司法審判案例出發(fā),提出對連帶責任制度①的質疑,并從理論和司法實踐兩個方面分析網絡服務提供者承擔連帶責任的困境,進而提出本文觀點,網絡提供者應當根據其行為的過錯程度承擔按份責任。第一章主要通過在司法實踐中"同案不同判"現象引出本文討論話題,對于同是網絡用戶利用網絡服務提供者提供的"信息平臺"實施侵權行為,人民法院同是根據《侵權責任法》第36條第2款的規(guī)定進行裁判,但是一個判決網絡服務提供者承擔連帶責任,一個判決網絡服務提供者不承擔連帶責任。第二章主要討論網絡服務提供者承擔連帶責任的兩個理論基礎:共同侵權理論和政策理論。網絡服務提供者與直接侵權用戶在實施侵權行為時不存在主觀上的意思聯絡,而且其造成的損害結果與網絡侵權用戶造成的損害結果是可分的,網絡服務提供者與網絡侵權用戶不構成共同侵權。根據政策理論要求網絡服務提供者承擔連帶責任有悖于公平正義理念。得出結論:網絡服務提供者承擔連帶責任缺乏理論正當性。第三章主要分析網絡服務提供者承擔連帶責任在司法適用中的困境。首先從人民法院角度分析存在四個困境,即法院忽略作為必要共同訴訟人的直接侵權行為人,法院在審判案件時對擴大損害部分難以界定,法院難以根據"知道"規(guī)則判斷全部賠償的范圍,人民法院在審判網絡侵權案件時,并沒有將《侵權責任法》第36條作為裁判依據,或者即使將該規(guī)定作為裁判依據,但不再提及"共同位權"的字樣。其次從網絡服務提供者角度分析存在三個困境,即網絡服務提供者在應訴時忽略直接侵權人,網絡服務提供者追償權難以實現,容易引發(fā)其與未實施侵權行為的網絡用戶的訴訟糾紛。得出結論:網絡提供者承擔連帶責任在司法實踐中不具有可行性。第四章主要分析網絡服務提供者承擔按份責任,分別從其合理性和可行性分析,并對該制度進行立法構建,將《侵權責任法》第36條第2款和第3款改為:網絡服務提供者接到通知后未及時采取必要措施的,對損害的擴大部分與侵權用戶各自承擔相應的責任;網絡服務提供者明知或者應知網絡用戶利用其網絡服務侵害他人民事權益,未采取必要措施的,與該網絡用戶各自承擔相應的責任。同時在確定具體賠償數額時,最高人民法院進行司法解釋時應當規(guī)定網絡服務提供者因其消極不作為承擔賠償責任時,如果網絡服務提供者獲得了經濟利益,且獲得的利益易于計算,賠償金額以其獲利金額為準;如果網絡服務提供者沒有獲得經濟利益,或者獲得的經濟利益難以計算,則規(guī)定網絡服務提供者承擔的賠償責任不得高于被侵權人所遭受經濟損失的百分之四十,具體賠償金額在該范圍內,結合其他因素加以綜合判斷
[Abstract]:The Internet service provider tort is mainly divided into two ways, one is the network service providers themselves actively and in the "intentional tort profit" subjective intention under the control of independent implementation of tort or advance with others and actively implement the "conspiracy" tort; another is to provide users with internet service providers tort the "information platform", "space" to implement some kind of tort, the network service provider in the received notice of the infringer did not take timely and effective measures to stop or "know" tort exists after negative nonfeasance, to further expand the tort caused by the results, then this negative omission is a tort. In front of a tort, take their own responsibility independent of the implementation of the act, assume joint responsibility with others actively collusive behavior, there is no dispute in the theory circle. For network service providers after an infringement, China's "tort liability law > thirty-sixth and paragraph second of the provisions of the third paragraph should be jointly and severally liable, but only because of its appearance help users on the network to commit a tort, the infringement for network users to create the conditions that constitute the two joint tort between behavior and assume joint liability controversial in theory. In this paper, starting from the judicial case, questioned the joint liability system, and from two aspects of theory and judicial practice of network service providers bear joint liability dilemma, then proposed the viewpoint of this article, the network provider shall, according to the degree of fault to bear its behavior responsibility. The first chapter mainly through judicial practice in" somesentence "phenomenon leads to the topic of discussion, for the same network users using the network service provider. The implementation of the infringement for "information platform", the people's court is the same according to the provisions of paragraph second of the tort liability law > thirty-sixth, but a decision network service provider assume joint liability, joint liability does not assume a decision network service provider. The second chapter mainly discusses two theoretical basis of the network service provider jointly and severally responsibility: the common tort theory and policy theory. The network service provider and the user does not exist direct infringement on the subjective meaning of contact in the implementation of the infringement, and the damage caused by the results of network infringement damage caused by the user is separable, Internet service providers and network users do not constitute a joint tort tort according to the policy. Theory of network service providers jointly and severally liable is contrary to the idea of fairness and justice. Conclusion: the network service provider shall be jointly and severally liable the lack of reason The theory of legitimacy. The third chapter mainly analyzes the network service provider shall be jointly and severally liable in judicial application dilemma. First from the people's court analysis there are four difficulties, namely the court ignored as a direct infringement of the necessary joint action, the court case of expanding damage is difficult to define, the court according to "know" rule of full compensation, the people's court in the trial of network infringement cases, and no "tort liability law > thirty-sixth as the basis of decision, or if the provisions as the basis of decision, but no mention of" common right ". Secondly, there are three difficulties from the network service provider perspective, i.e. the network service provider to ignore the direct infringer in the respondent, the network service provider is difficult to achieve the right of recourse, and not easily lead to the implementation of the infringement of Internet users litigation Confused. Conclusion: network providers assume joint liability is not feasible in judicial practice. The fourth chapter mainly analyzes the network service providers bear the responsibility, from the rationality and feasibility analysis, and legislative construction of the system, the second and third paragraphs of "tort liability law > thirty-sixth to: network services after receiving the notice provider fails to take necessary measures, the expanded portion of the damages of tort and the user shall take their respective responsibility; the network service provider knows or should know he's rights against the Internet users through the network services, did not take the necessary measures, and the network users to bear their respective responsibilities. At the same time in determining the specific the amount of compensation, the Supreme People's court for judicial interpretation should be included in the network service provider because of its negative omission liability, if the network service provider For obtaining economic interests, and the benefits of easy to calculate, the amount of compensation is subject to the amount of profit; if the network service provider does not have access to economic interests or economic interests cannot be calculated, provides compensation responsibility of the Internet service providers shall not be higher than the infringee suffered economic losses of forty percent, the specific amount of compensation in this range, combined with other factors to comprehensive judgment

【學位授予單位】：武漢大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 何瓊;呂璐;;“通知—刪除”規(guī)則在專利領域的適用困境——兼論《侵權責任法》第36條的彌補與完善[J];電子知識產權;2016年05期

2 劉潤濤;;“通知—移除”規(guī)則在網絡交易平臺商標侵權中的適用[J];電子知識產權;2015年11期

3 馮術杰;;網絡服務提供者的商標侵權責任認定——兼論《侵權責任法》第36條及其適用[J];知識產權;2015年05期

4 魏文圣;;網絡服務提供者侵權責任規(guī)則的法理思考——以《侵權責任法》36條為視角展開[J];湖北函授大學學報;2014年13期

5 王利明;;論網絡侵權中的通知規(guī)則[J];北方法學;2014年02期

6 李承亮;;非法發(fā)行鏈上的侵權所得賠償[J];法學研究;2014年01期

7 胡晶晶;;論“知道規(guī)則”之“應知”——以故意/過失區(qū)分為視角[J];云南大學學報(法學版);2013年06期

8 李中原;;論侵權法上因果關系與過錯的競合及其解決路徑[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2013年06期

9 王洪;謝雪凱;;網絡服務商第三方責任之現代展開——立法演進、立法思想與理論基礎[J];河北法學;2013年07期

10 宋素紅;;網絡服務提供者連帶責任否定論[J];國際新聞界;2013年04期

，

本文編號：1397178