Introduction介紹

Background 背景
信息時(shí)代和網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代以各種方式造福了全世界的人們�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)提供商（ISP），在各種形式的存在，使我們能夠免費(fèi)獲得一個(gè)信息世界。我們接觸到的內(nèi)容訪問(wèn)和豐富的便利性是驚人的：我們只需要輸入百度，谷歌或Bing一個(gè)關(guān)鍵詞，我們只需點(diǎn)擊即可到幾十萬(wàn)的材料，我們找到有用的，不超過(guò)1秒了。搜索引擎服務(wù)，媒體網(wǎng)站，社交媒體等的市場(chǎng)如此快速發(fā)展，使得幾乎沒(méi)有企業(yè)不具有多個(gè)在線業(yè)務(wù)。此外，領(lǐng)先的營(yíng)銷和媒體現(xiàn)在都知道的“內(nèi)容”的重要意義，在各種形式制作了廣泛的受眾材料的感覺(jué)。好的內(nèi)容，比如一塊的副本吸引了眾多消費(fèi)者，還是一個(gè)很好的劇本，使一個(gè)獲獎(jiǎng)影片，就是最賺錢的市場(chǎng)，最重要的事情。
然而，當(dāng)市場(chǎng)需求激增和廣闊的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益發(fā)揮作用，一系列的法律問(wèn)題也浮出水面。最突出的這些都涉及到互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)提供商著作權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛案件。這種情況下，在發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家迅速增加，都發(fā)展中國(guó)家，但是，似乎立法當(dāng)前正在使用不充分，以解決這些問(wèn)題。雖然國(guó)家保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)，如美國(guó)歷史悠久，有更詳細(xì)的法律法規(guī)來(lái)處理侵權(quán)案件，也似乎是在網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)空白。最近才成為相當(dāng)關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)日益嚴(yán)重的國(guó)家苦于缺乏全面系統(tǒng)的多。
The age of information and internet has benefited people all over the world in various ways. Internet Service Providers (ISPs), in their various forms of existence, enable us to access a world of information for free. The convenience of access and abundance of content we are exposed to are amazing: we need only input a key word in Baidu, Google or Bing, and we are only one click away to hundreds of thousands of materials we find useful, in no more than one second too. The market of search engine services, media websites, social media and so onare developing so fast so that there are almost no business that does not have multiple online presence.Furthermore, leading marketers and media nowadays are all aware of the significance of “content”, in the sense of materials produced in all kinds of forms for a wide range of audience. Good content, such as a piece of copy that attracts consumers, or a good script that makes a winning film, is the most important thing to the most lucrative markets.
However, when market demand surges and vast financial interests come into play, a series of legal problems also emerge. The most salient of which are copyright infringement dispute cases related to ISPs. Such cases are rapidly increasing in developed countries and developing countries alike, however, and legislationsthat are currently in use seems to be insufficient to address these problems. Although countries with a long history of protecting intellectual properties, such as the US, have more elaborate laws and regulations to deal with infringement cases, there seem to be blanks in internet infringement. Countries that only quite recently became more and more serious about online infringement suffer more from the lack of a comprehensive system. 

Table of Contents目錄
Compare ISP liability for copyright infringement in China with USA 1
Introduction 1
Literature review 2
Direct infringement 7
Vicarious liability: 10
Contributory liability: 11
Protection for ISP 13
Case reviews 14
Conclusion 15

Conclusion總結(jié)

After a thorough comparison conducted between the ISP liability laws and regulations of China and US, we can almost intuitively argue that Chinese relevant laws are at a much more basic level and is in urgent need to catchup with the requirement of business and society. The cost of intellectual property violation is high enough. Fortunately, IP law is naturally international. What has been more established in the US can be, with reasonable adaptations, applied to China, in order to address the need for IP protection for both foreign companies and Chinese companies. 
China has already borrowed some legal framework to build its own, as we have seen in the thesis. However, there are a few notes that China need to get pushing. Firstly, ISPs' copyright liability should establish its legal presence in the highest order of China’s law system, for example to be edited in the China Copyright Law. Secondly, courts should improve in unanimity regarding standards and interpretations. And finally, China does not recognize vicarious liability at present, adding to the complexities in categorizing lawsuits and how to try them. US experience in vicarious liability is valuable to learn from.
It can be seen that China doesn’t have definite rule about how to judge liability and doesn’t have its own principle for different subjects. Furthermore, it didn’t regulate the presumption of know the infringement. Thus, it caused some ISPs escape their contributory liability. Therefore, the conclusion of this essay may be that the ICP should be applicable for strict principle and the OSP apply the principle of fault will be more effective to protect the movies copyright online in China (proposed conclusion).
 
Bibliography注解

References文獻(xiàn)

1. Albert G. P. (2006) Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace 208 (Cumul. Supp. BNA, Wash. D.C. 2006).
2. Boyle J and Jenkins J, Intellectual Property: Law& the Information Society-Cases& Materials: An Open Casebook (2014 end) Chap 14 Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement & Safe Harbors in the Digital Age [online]
3. Brown M D, ArmonO,Ploemer L and Traynor M, ‘Secondary liability for inducing copyright infringement after MCM v. Grokster: Infringement prevention and Product Design’ (2005) Journal of Internet Law
4. Chen, D. Durkee, M. Friend, J & Urban, J. (2011) Updating 17 U.S.C. § 512’s Notice and Takedown Procedure for Innovators, Creators, and Consumers Copyright Reform Act Prepared on behalf of Public Knowledge.
5. Chik, W.B. (2011) The Google conundrum: Perpetrator or facilitator on the net? - Forging a faircopyright framework of rights, liability and responsibility in response to search engine 2.0
6. Cloak, Trevor (2007)The Digital Titanic: The Sinking of YouTube.com in the DMCA's Safe Harbor Vanderbilt Law Review SSRN 00422533, Issue 1st October 2007
7. Darrow J and Ferrera G, ‘Social Networking Web Sites and the DMCA: A Safe-Harbor from Copyright Infringement Liability or the Perfect Storm?’  [2007]
8. David L. Hayes, Esq (2013) Advanced Copyright Issues On The Internet, Fenwick & West LLP
9. Dinwoodie G B, Dreyfuss R C and Kur Annette, The law Applicable to Secondary Liability in Intellectual Property Cases (2009) 42 (201) 202-233
10. Dolinsky, Kyle (2014)CAD's Cradle: Untangling Copyright ability, Derivative Works, and Fair Use in 3D Printing, Washington & Lee Law Review, 2014
11. Farano, B. M. (2012) Internet Intermediaries’ Liability for Copyright and Trademark Infringement: Reconciling the EU and U.S. Approaches. A Stanford – Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum Working Paper. 
12. Fitzgerald B and Montgomery L, ‘Copyright and the creative industries in China’ [2006] 9(3) International Journal of Cultural Studies 407-418
13. Galloway, A. (2007) Preserving Competition for Computer Maintenance in the DMCA Era: 17 U.S.C. §117(c) and §1201 (a)(1) after Storage Tek Berkeley Technology Law Review. Volume 22 Issued 21st January 2007
14. Geraldine SzottMoohr, The Crime of Copyright Infringement: An Inquiry Based on Morality, Harm, and Criminal Theory [2009] 83(4) U of Houston Law Center, 9 orld Intellectual
15. Greene, S. Reconciling Napster With The SONY Decision And Recent Amendments To Copyright Law. American Business Law Journal Issue 09/2001
16. Harrop M, Something for nothing: Copyright, ISP liability and P2P File Sharing (2009)
17. Hong Lu (2013) Comparative Studies on ISPs' Secondary Copyright Liability in China and the US
18. Intentional Inducement of Copyright Infringements Act of 2004 (2004) Statement of Marybeth Peters The Register of Copyrights before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate 108th Congress, 2d Session 
19. Jonathan J. Darrow and Gerald R. Ferrera, Social Networking Web Sites and the DMCA: A Safe-Harbor from Copyright Infringement Liability or the Perfect Storm? 6 Nw. J. Tech. &Intell. Prop. 1 (2007). 
20. Katz, P. (2004)Copyright infringement: the perils of indirect liability, Intellectual Property & Technology Law J, June 2004 Issue
21. Kravis Randy S.(1993) Does A Song By Another Name Still Sound As Sweet?: Digital Sampling and Its Copyright Implications.
22. Lau, T. Johnson, Lee. Flatworld Knowledge,Business Law and Ethics. The Saylor Foundation. 
23. Lee, Ya-Ching (2001)A step toward balance third-party liability in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Communications and the Law, March 2001 Issue
24. Lemley, Mark A. Reese, R. Anthony. (2004) Reducing digital copyright infringement without restricting innovation, Stanford Law Review, May 2004 Issue
25. Li, S. Yan, Z. (2006) Case Studies of ISP liability in the United States, and Discussion on Implications of China’s legislation.Faculty of law, Huaqiao University. Journal of Huaqiao University Philosophy & Social Science, Volume 2 2006. 
26. Liu, C. Sun, L. (2009) A comparative study on ISP Copyright Infringement Liabilityin China and the USJournal of UESTC (Social Sciences Edition) Dec.2009,Vol.11,No.6
27. Liu, J. (2006) The Vicarious Liability of Internet Service Providers
28. Lipinski, T. A. (2002) Librarian's guide to copyright for shared and networked resources.(Brief Article) Library Technology Reports, Jan-Feb 2002 Issue
29. Madison, Michael J. (2004)A pattern-oriented approach to fair use. William and Mary LawReview, March 2004 Issue
30. Michael D. Birnhack (2007)NimmerOn Copyright, §19E.01, (David Nimmer& Melville Nimmer eds., Matthew Bender, New York 2007).
31. National Copyright Administration,Ministry of Information Industry (incl. Ministry of Post & Telecommunications) (2005) Measures for the Administrative Protection of Internet Copyright
32. "News and comment on recent developments from around the world", Computer Law &Security Report Issue4th March 1996
33. Nimmer, D. (2003) Copyright: Sacred Text, Technology, and the DMCA (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2003)
34. Peter S. Menell, David Nimmer (2007) Legal Realism In Action: Indirect Copyright Liability’s Continuing Tort Framework And SONY’sdefactoDemise UCLA Law Review
35. Principles for User Generated Content Services.
36. Q. Tao (2012) The knowledge standard for the Internet Intermediary Liability in China, InternationalJournal of Law and Information Technology Issue 3rd January 2012
37. Sawyer, M.S. (2009) Filters, Fair Use and Feedback: User- Generated Content Principles and the DMCA. Berkeley Technology L. J. Volume 24:1, 2009
38. Reese R. A, The relationship Between the ISP Safe Harbors and Liability for Inducement (2011)
39. Regulation on the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China Act 4 (2002)
40. Sadeghi, Mohammad The knowledge standard for ISP copyright and trademark secondary liability: A comparative study on the analysis of US and EU laws, BrunelUniversity Research Archive BURA, 2014
41. Samson M. (2015) Harlan Ellison v. Stephen Robertson, et al. 357 F. 3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions
42. Seidenberg, S. (2009) Copyright In The Age Of YouTubeThe ABA Journal Issue 2nd February 2009.
43. Shenkman D. (2008) Copyright In The YouTube Age: Hosting And Linking Of Online Video
44. SIIA, “China Marketplace Summary,” January 2011; Vance, “Chasing Pirates,” November 6, 2010; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, November 3, 2010; industry representatives, telephone interviews by USITC staff, February 9, 11, 2011.
45. Song H. (2010) A Comparative Copyright Analysis of ISP Liability in China Versus the United States and Europe 
46. United States International Trade Commission (2011) China: Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement and Indigenous Innovation Policies on the U.S. EconomyInvestigation No. 332-519 USITC Publication 4226 May 2011
47. Westermeier, J.T. Davis, G. Gervaise, (2012)DMCA Section 512(c) "safe harbor" Requirements,Strategies, And Risks ", The Computer & Internet Lawyer, Dec2012 Issue
48. Yang Ming (2009), Analysis of Secondary Liability: from the Cases of Baidu and Yahoo! China.
50. Zebrak, Scott A. (2010)A DMCA thrown off balance: UMG v. Veoh and beyond.(Digital MillenniumCopyright Act of 1998, The Computer & Internet Lawyer, May 2010 Issue
51. Zhou S, The copyright protection of cinematographic works in the information age 2005

，

本文編號(hào)：86163