网络服务提供商适用“避风港规则”问题研究——以《谭谈交通》侵权案为视角
Research on the Application of “Safe Harbor Rule” by Internet Service Providers—From the Perspective of “Tan Tan Traffic” Infringement Case
摘要: 现代社会中,网络侵权已经占据侵权事件的高地,避风港原则作为网络侵权的免责事由也广受关注。其中,网络服务提供商在网络侵权事件中扮演着重要的中枢角色,一方面其为网络信息的交流传播提供了广阔的舞台,另一方面也潜在地增大了相关著作权作品面临侵权的风险。因此,对网络服务提供商的责任边界进行规制十分有必要,合理准确适用避风港规则厘清网络服务提供商的责任区间有助于构建优良有序的网络环境。本文将围绕“谭谈交通侵权案”展开,简要论述避风港规则在实践中面临的困境,并对此提出完善建议。
Abstract:
In modern society, network infringement has occupied the high ground of infringement, and the principle of safe haven, as an exemption for network infringement, has also attracted wide attention. Among them, Internet service providers play an important central role in network infringement. On the one hand, they provide a broad stage for the exchange and dissemination of network information, on the other hand, they also potentially increase the risk of infringement of related copyright works. Therefore, it is necessary to regulate the responsibility boundary of network service providers. Reasonable and accurate application of safe haven rules to clarify the responsibility interval of network service providers is helpful to build an excellent and orderly network environment. This paper will focus on the “Tan Tan Traffic Tort Case”, briefly discuss the difficulties faced by the safe haven rule in practice, and put forward suggestions for improvement.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
刘晋名, 艾围利. “避风港规则”的法律适用困境及消解路径[J]. 南京社会科学, 2020(8): 95-99+116.
|
|
[2]
|
主持人谭乔: 发表声明称《谭谈交通》重新上线[J]. 方圆, 2022(24): 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|
|
[3]
|
张松. “红旗规则”视域下网络服务提供者版权保护法定注意义务认定研究[J]. 中国出版, 2022(21): 44-46.
|
|
[4]
|
杨显滨. 搜索引擎服务提供者的注意义务[J]. 法商研究, 2022, 39(3): 30-41.
|
|
[5]
|
麻昌华, 陈明芳. 《民法典》中“应当知道”的规范本质与认定标准[J]. 政法论丛, 2021(4): 127-138.
|
|
[6]
|
陈灿平, 宋一平. 我国避风港规则存在的问题与完善建议[J]. 天津法学, 2019, 35(3): 12-19.
|
|
[7]
|
徐明. 避风港原则前沿问题研究——以“通知-删除”作为诉讼前置程序为展开[J]. 东方法学, 2016(5): 28-36.
|