数字平台著作权侵权责任的认定困境与规则因应

The Dilemma of Determining Copyright Infringement Liability of Digital Platforms and the Corresponding Regulatory Responses

摘要: 数字平台已成为作品传播的核心枢纽，平台在著作权侵权中应承担何种责任，是数字时代著作权法的关键命题。以“通知–删除”为核心的避风港规则，原本建立在平台中立、被动、技术性的预设之上，意在为信息存储与链接服务划定责任边界。然而，短视频、算法推荐、网盘、NFT交易乃至生成式人工智能等新型业态，使平台从消极的“管道”转变为深度介入内容生产与分发的“组织者”，过错认定与必要措施这两大支点随之受到冲击。比较考察表明，部分法域维持避风港框架而强化通知程序，欧盟则通过《数字单一市场版权指令》令大型平台承担接近直接传播的责任，呈现由避风港向主动义务的范式转移。检视中国司法可知，注意义务的高低标准、算法推荐与“应知”的关系、新兴业态中“必要措施”的可行性等，构成认定难点。化解之道在于以过错为中心、按平台类型与技术介入程度进行分层治理，推动平台责任从被动免责走向合规治理。

Abstract: Digital platforms have become the central hubs for the dissemination of works. What kind of liability platforms should bear in copyright infringement cases is a key proposition of copyright law in the digital age. The safe harbor rule, centered on “notice-and-takedown”, was originally built on the premise that platforms are neutral, passive, and technical intermediaries, intended to delineate the boundaries of liability for information storage and linking services. However, new business formats such as short videos, algorithmic recommendations, cloud storage, NFT transactions, and even generative artificial intelligence have transformed platforms from passive “conduits” into “organizers” deeply involved in content production and distribution. As a result, the two pillars of fault determination and necessary measures have been shaken. A comparative analysis shows that some jurisdictions maintain the safe harbor framework while strengthening notification procedures, whereas the European Union, through the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, imposes liability on large platforms approaching that of direct communication, presenting a paradigm shift from safe harbor to proactive obligations. A review of Chinese judicial practice reveals that the standards for determining the level of duty of care, the relationship between algorithmic recommendations and “constructive knowledge”, and the feasibility of “necessary measures” in emerging business formats constitute major difficulties in liability determination. The solution lies in adopting a fault-centered, tiered governance approach based on platform types and the degree of technological involvement, thereby advancing platform liability from passive exemption to compliance governance.