本文選題：惡意屏蔽廣告行為 + 侵權(quán)責任　； 參考：《武漢大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：互聯(lián)網(wǎng)廣告屏蔽行為主要通過廣告屏蔽軟件、瀏覽器插件或者路由器等媒介來實現(xiàn)。廣告屏蔽軟件或插件的提供者與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)營者之間雖然不存在同業(yè)競爭關(guān)系,但提供廣告屏蔽功能服務的一方不正當?shù)乩昧似渌ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)營者的競爭優(yōu)勢,主要表現(xiàn)為不正當?shù)負寠Z網(wǎng)絡用戶,以增強自己的競爭能力,在廣告屏蔽軟件或硬件設備提供者與受侵害的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)營者之間存在廣義的競爭關(guān)系。惡意屏蔽廣告行為有悖于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)經(jīng)營者所公認的良好行為慣例,而這一行為慣例可以作為公認的商業(yè)道德的判斷依據(jù);以用戶粘性為導向可以發(fā)現(xiàn),屏蔽行為直接造成了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)營者實際用戶量的流失,帶來經(jīng)營利益的減損�；诖�,為了搶奪互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶而不正當?shù)仄帘位ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)廣告的行為,滿足了承擔侵權(quán)責任的構(gòu)成要件;而因該行為具有明顯的主觀惡意,不能援引技術(shù)中立原則而免責。本文共分為五個部分。第一部分:通過對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)廣告屏蔽行為的分析,認定惡意屏蔽廣告行為的違法性不宜直接適用《著作權(quán)法》和《侵權(quán)責任法》,《反不正當競爭法》作為《侵權(quán)責任法》在市場競爭環(huán)境中的特別規(guī)范,在這一問題上有適用的空間�！斗床徽敻偁幏ā妨信e的具體不正當競爭行為并不包含互聯(lián)網(wǎng)領(lǐng)域的不正當競爭行為,應當通過對一般條款的解釋來規(guī)制此類行為。第二部分:適用《反不正當競爭法》一般條款的核心在于公認的商業(yè)道德的識別。而道德本身的不確定性容易導致法官自由裁量權(quán)過大,因此需要更為客觀的識別方法。從個案中總結(jié)出來的"非公益必要不干擾"原則依舊不夠明確,良好的行業(yè)慣例能夠作為認定互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)內(nèi)公認的商業(yè)道德的依據(jù)。第三部分:《反不正當競爭法》的目的在于,通過為經(jīng)營者和消費者的合法權(quán)益提供保護,使經(jīng)營者在實現(xiàn)自身權(quán)益的過程中開展正當經(jīng)營活動,以促進良性市場競爭秩序的形成。從經(jīng)營者合法權(quán)益出發(fā),被惡意屏蔽廣告行為所破壞的商業(yè)模式雖然不構(gòu)成反不正當競爭法的保護對象,但經(jīng)營者采取特定商業(yè)模式后,通過正當經(jīng)營活動獲取的合法經(jīng)營利益應當被視為合法競爭利益而得到《反不正當競爭法》的保護。第四部分:只有特定行為足以擾亂市場競爭秩序,才能夠依據(jù)《反不正當競爭法》對其進行規(guī)制。而擾亂市場競爭秩序的前提在于行為實施人與受害人之間存在競爭關(guān)系。競爭關(guān)系不應該局限于同業(yè)競爭,而應該從狹義的同業(yè)競爭關(guān)系擴展為廣義的競爭關(guān)系。而在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)領(lǐng)域,競爭關(guān)系早已跳出了行業(yè)和地域的限制,用戶群才是認定廣告屏蔽軟件(插件)提供者與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)營者之間競爭關(guān)系的連接點。第五部分:惡意屏蔽廣告行為的實施者應當承擔侵權(quán)責任。技術(shù)中立原則不能夠作為廣告屏蔽軟件提供者承擔侵權(quán)責任的免責事由,適用技術(shù)中立原則需要結(jié)合廣告屏蔽行為是否針對惡意廣告、是否為獲取利益、是否針對特定的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)營者等因素來判斷行為主體是否存在主觀惡意。
[Abstract]:Internet advertising shielding behavior mainly through advertising screening software, browser plug-in or router and other media to achieve. Between the advertisements or plug-in providers and Internet operators although there is no competition between the industry, but to provide a service advertising shielding unfair use of other Internet operators competitive advantage, mainly for improperly from Internet users, to enhance their competitive ability, there is competition between the generalized advertising shield software or hardware equipment providers and the infringement of Internet operators. Malicious behavior is contrary to practice good shielding advertising behavior in the Internet industry operators are recognized, and this behavior can be used as the basis to judge the practice of business ethics recognized by users; viscous orientation can be found, shielding behavior directly caused by the actual use of Internet operators Weight loss, impairments business interests. Based on this, in order to grab the Internet users and the improper shielding of Internet advertising behavior, meet the tort liability of the constituent elements; and as a result of the act has obvious malice, no principle of technological neutrality and exemption. This paper is divided into five parts. The first part: through the analysis of Internet advertising shielding behavior, illegal advertising behavior should not be identified malicious shield directly applicable to the copyright law > > and < < > of tort liability law, anti unfair competition law as the "tort liability law > > in the market competitive environment of the special specification, unfair competition behavior space. Application of the Anti Unfair Competition Law" lists the specific acts of unfair competition are not included in the field of the Internet on this issue, based on the general provisions shall explain to regulate such behavior. The second part: the application of the " The core of the general clause of Anti Unfair Competition Law "lies in the identification of business ethics and morality itself recognized. The uncertainty can lead to excessive discretion of the judge, so the need for more recognition. Objectively summed up from the case of" non public unnecessary interference principle is not clear enough, good industry practice can be identified as the Internet industry generally recognized business ethics basis. The third part: the "Anti Unfair Competition Law" is to provide protection for operators and consumers through the legitimate rights and interests of the operators to carry out business activities in the process of realizing their own legitimate rights and interests, to promote the formation of healthy market competition order. From the legitimate rights and interests of operators, destroyed by malicious shield advertising behavior although the commercial pattern does not constitute the object of protection of the anti unfair competition law, but operators take specific business model After getting through the proper business activities of legitimate business interests should be regarded as legitimate competing interests and "Anti Unfair Competition Law" protection. The fourth part: the only specific behavior enough to disturb the market competition order, according to "Anti Unfair Competition Law" to regulate it. The premise and disturb the order of market competition there is a competitive relationship between behavior and victims. Competition should not be confined to the competition, but should be extended from the competition between the industry and narrow competitive relationship in broad sense. In the Internet field, the competition between the long jump out of the industry and geographical constraints, the user group is that advertisements (plug-in) connection the point of competition between providers and Internet operators. The fifth part: the implementation of malicious shield Advertising Act shall bear tort liability. The principle of technological neutrality cannot be used widely Excusatio to screening software provider tort liability, apply the principle of technological neutrality requires a combination of advertising shielding behavior is against malicious advertising, whether for profit, whether specific Internet operators and other factors to determine whether there is subjective malicious behavior.

【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】：D922.294

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 曹麗萍;張璇;;網(wǎng)絡不正當競爭糾紛相關(guān)問題研究——《反不正當競爭法》類型化條款與一般條款適用難點探析[J];法律適用;2017年01期

2 宋旭東;;論競爭關(guān)系在審理不正當競爭案件中的地位和作用[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年08期

，

本文編號：1769863