本文選題：避風(fēng)港制度 + 知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)��； 參考：《中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的興起以及迅猛發(fā)展在給人們的生活帶來(lái)極大便利的同時(shí),也給網(wǎng)絡(luò)上盜版作品的傳播提供了一個(gè)平臺(tái)。網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶不費(fèi)吹灰之力就可以分享、獲取受版權(quán)保護(hù)的作品,而權(quán)利人對(duì)此卻無(wú)可奈何。網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者作為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)環(huán)境下新的參加者,主要為用戶提供上傳、下載、分享作品的服務(wù)�，F(xiàn)今要求網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者(英文全稱為Internet Service Provider,為方便論述,若非必要,全文除標(biāo)題和引文外均以“ISP”簡(jiǎn)稱)為用戶實(shí)施侵權(quán)的行為承擔(dān)責(zé)任成為一種基本趨勢(shì)。避風(fēng)港制度就是用以確定ISP是否為用戶實(shí)施的侵權(quán)行為承擔(dān)責(zé)任的制度。而“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”又是判斷ISP是否能夠享受避風(fēng)港庇護(hù)的一種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。美國(guó)是避風(fēng)港制度的發(fā)源地,其避風(fēng)港制度中的“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”也規(guī)定得較為完善。而我國(guó)由于立法技術(shù)的落后等原因,雖移植了美國(guó)的避風(fēng)港制度,但仍舊存在很多問(wèn)題。本文旨在通過(guò)對(duì)中美避風(fēng)港制度中的“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”進(jìn)行比較研究,指出我國(guó)避風(fēng)港制度中“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”存在的問(wèn)題并提出完善的建議。本文除緒論和結(jié)語(yǔ)外,主要分為四章:第一章:中美避風(fēng)港制度中“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”概述。本章介紹了ISP的概念,討論了避風(fēng)港制度的基本概念以及中美法律關(guān)于避風(fēng)港制度的相應(yīng)規(guī)定,分析了避風(fēng)港制度中的“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”的基本概念以及中美法律中關(guān)于“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”的一般法律規(guī)定。第二章:中美“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”中“通知-移除”規(guī)則比較。本章討論了“通知-移除”規(guī)則的概念及中美關(guān)于“通知-移除”規(guī)則的一般法律規(guī)定,對(duì)中美“通知-移除”規(guī)則下關(guān)于“合格”通知的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了比較,指出了我國(guó)在“通知-移除”規(guī)則中存在的問(wèn)題。第三章:中美“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”中“紅旗”規(guī)則比較。本章主要對(duì)中美兩國(guó)的“紅旗”規(guī)則進(jìn)行比較,論述了“紅旗”規(guī)則的概念以及中美關(guān)于“紅旗”規(guī)則的一般法律規(guī)定,分別從“知道”特定與否、主客觀因素認(rèn)定方法以及“注意義務(wù)”這三個(gè)方面比較了中美ISP在“紅旗”規(guī)則的異同點(diǎn),指出了我國(guó)“紅旗”規(guī)則存在的問(wèn)題。第四章:中國(guó)避風(fēng)港制度中“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”的問(wèn)題與完善。本章主要是通過(guò)比較中美兩國(guó)關(guān)于“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”的差異,指出我國(guó)避風(fēng)港制度及其“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”存在的問(wèn)題,并針對(duì)這些問(wèn)題提出了一些完善的建議。
[Abstract]:The rise and rapid development of the Internet not only bring great convenience to people's life, but also provide a platform for the dissemination of pirated works on the Internet. Internet users can share and obtain copyrighted works without any effort, but the right-holders have no choice but to do so. As a new participant in Internet environment, web service provider mainly provides upload, download and share work service for users. Nowadays, it is a basic trend to require the network service provider (Internet Service Provider,) to be responsible for the infringement by the user except for the title and citation, if it is not necessary. The safe haven system is used to determine whether ISP is responsible for the user's tort. The "know standard" is also a criterion for judging whether ISP can enjoy safe haven. The United States is the birthplace of the safe haven system. Because of the backwardness of legislative technology, our country has transplanted the American safe haven system, but there are still many problems. The purpose of this paper is to make a comparative study of the "know standard" in the safe harbour system between China and the United States, and to point out the problems existing in the "know standard" in our country's safe haven system and to put forward some suggestions to improve it. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is mainly divided into four chapters: chapter one: an overview of the standards of knowledge in the Sino-American safe havens system. This chapter introduces the concept of ISP, discusses the basic concept of the safe haven system and the corresponding provisions of the Chinese and American laws on the safe haven system. This paper analyzes the basic concept of the "standard of knowledge" in the system of safe havens and the general legal provisions of the "standard of knowledge" in Chinese and American laws. Chapter two: comparison of "Notification-removal" rules in the Standard of knowledge between China and the United States. This chapter discusses the concept of "Notification-removal" rules and the general legal provisions of the "Notification-removal" rules in China and the United States, and makes a comparison of the criteria for judging "eligible" notifications under the "Notification-removal" rules between China and the United States. The problems in "Notification-removal" rule in China are pointed out. Chapter three: the comparison of Red Flag rules in the Standard of knowledge between China and the United States. This chapter mainly compares the "red flag" rules of China and the United States, and discusses the concept of "red flag" rules and the general legal provisions of the "red flag" rules of China and the United States. This paper compares the similarities and differences between Chinese and American ISP in "Red Flag" rules, and points out the problems existing in the "Red Flag" rules of our country. Chapter four: the problem and perfection of "know standard" in the system of safe haven in China. By comparing the differences between China and the United States about the "standards of knowledge", this chapter points out the problems existing in our country's haven system and its "standards of knowledge", and puts forward some perfect suggestions for these problems.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D997.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 崔斌;中美避風(fēng)港制度中“知道標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”比較研究[D];中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué);2017年

2 潘甜;視頻分享網(wǎng)站“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則在我國(guó)的適用[D];上海師范大學(xué);2017年

3 麻帥;網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)責(zé)任中的“通知規(guī)則”研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號(hào)：1803113