本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)聚合類服務(wù) + 深度鏈接　； 參考：《河北大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：網(wǎng)絡(luò)聚合類服務(wù)近期引起國內(nèi)大眾關(guān)注,是被號稱“不生產(chǎn)新聞,只做新聞搬運工”的“今日頭條”獲高額融資后身陷著作權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛、后又被國家版權(quán)局立案調(diào)查并被確認(rèn)構(gòu)成侵權(quán)限期整改引發(fā)的。以我國現(xiàn)在的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)實踐來看,網(wǎng)絡(luò)聚合類服務(wù)包括以“今日頭條”為代表的新聞聚合類服務(wù)、以“嗶哩嗶哩彈幕網(wǎng)”為代表的視頻聚合類服務(wù)、以百度音樂為代表的下載聚合類服務(wù),因其具有類似的行為特征及相同的技術(shù)特征,故本文將其一同探討。網(wǎng)絡(luò)聚合類服務(wù)主要使用的為深度鏈接技術(shù),我國法律未對其性質(zhì)作出明確規(guī)定,其主要落入《著作權(quán)法》的“信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)”的規(guī)制范疇。在實踐中,長期存在著對其法律性質(zhì)的爭議,其是否構(gòu)成侵權(quán),直接侵權(quán)還是間接侵權(quán),對其評判適用用戶感知標(biāo)準(zhǔn)還是服務(wù)器標(biāo)準(zhǔn),對這些問題都無定論。本文擬由各類聚合類服務(wù)來分析網(wǎng)絡(luò)聚合類服務(wù)的行為特征和技術(shù)特征,從而對其服務(wù)提供者責(zé)任進行分析。在其責(zé)任分析部分,本文認(rèn)為,其不存在免責(zé)的可能性、侵犯著作權(quán)訴訟雙方主體適格、其行為具有違法性、具有一定主觀過錯、對權(quán)利人造成一定損害后果、并且損害后果與服務(wù)提供者行為具有因果關(guān)系,其行為構(gòu)成侵權(quán);但由其使用鏈接技術(shù)的行為特征,不應(yīng)認(rèn)定其為直接侵權(quán)。針對以上問題,本文提出了一些《著作權(quán)法》方面的立法構(gòu)想,如實行舉證責(zé)任倒置、明確“明知”“應(yīng)知”的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等,以明確網(wǎng)絡(luò)聚合類服務(wù)提供者的行為準(zhǔn)則,避免行為失范。在我國現(xiàn)階段立法對其行為規(guī)制不夠完善的情況下,可以使用反不正當(dāng)競爭法的一般性條款進行規(guī)制,其對著作權(quán)人的行為構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競爭,應(yīng)承擔(dān)責(zé)任。本文認(rèn)為,與其盲目競爭,不如加深同著作權(quán)人的合作,如建立版權(quán)交易平臺和集體管理制度等,雙方進行利益協(xié)調(diào),從而取得共贏。
[Abstract]:The network aggregation service has recently attracted the attention of the domestic public. It is the "headline of Today", which is known as "not producing news, only doing news porters", has been involved in copyright infringement disputes after obtaining high financing. It was later investigated by the National copyright Administration and confirmed to constitute infringement within a time limit. Judging from the current Internet practice in our country, the network aggregation services include the news aggregation services represented by "headlines of Today" and the video aggregation services represented by the "Blee Missile screen Network". Baidu Music as the representative of the download aggregation service, because of its similar behavior and the same technical characteristics, so this paper will discuss it together. The network aggregation type service mainly uses the deep link technology, the law of our country does not make the explicit stipulation to its nature, it mainly falls into the regulation category of "the information network dissemination right" in the copyright Law. In practice, there is a dispute about its legal nature for a long time, whether it constitutes infringement, direct infringement or indirect infringement, the judgment of which is applicable to the standard of user perception or the standard of server, and there is no conclusion on these issues. In this paper, the behavior and technical characteristics of network aggregation services are analyzed, and the responsibility of service providers is analyzed. In the part of its liability analysis, this paper holds that there is no possibility of exemption, the infringement of copyright litigation parties are appropriate, its behavior is illegal, has a certain subjective fault, causing certain damage to the obligee. And the damage consequence has causality relation with the service provider's behavior, its behavior constitutes the infringement, but the behavior characteristic of its using the link technology should not be regarded as the direct infringement. In view of the above problems, this paper puts forward some legislative ideas on copyright Law, such as putting the burden of proof upside down, defining the judgment standard of "knowing" and "should know", and so on, in order to clarify the standards of conduct of network aggregating service providers. Avoid misconduct. Under the condition that the legislation of our country is not perfect at the present stage, the general provisions of anti-unfair competition law can be used to regulate the behavior of copyright owners, which constitutes unfair competition and should bear the responsibility. This paper holds that instead of blindly competing, it is better to deepen cooperation with copyright owners, such as establishing copyright trading platform and collective management system, so as to coordinate the interests of both sides so as to achieve a win-win situation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河北大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.41

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王軍;;我國新聞侵權(quán)糾紛現(xiàn)狀、對策及研究回顧[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年03期

2 盧純昕;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索引擎服務(wù)提供者著作權(quán)糾紛的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];法制與社會;2011年10期

3 李銀霞;;P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者著作權(quán)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定[J];法制與社會;2011年18期

4 王清;唐伶俐;;國際版權(quán)法律改革動態(tài)概覽[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2014年05期

5 周應(yīng)江;謝冠斌;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索引擎服務(wù)商的版權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];科技與法律;2009年03期

6 周珍妮;;“深度鏈接”信息定位服務(wù)提供者侵權(quán)問題研究——評“十一大唱片公司訴雅虎案”[J];科技廣場;2008年02期

7 付國華;雷艷珍;;深度鏈接提供者版權(quán)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定[J];湖北經(jīng)濟學(xué)院學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2012年02期

8 葛紅;;音樂搜索引擎服務(wù)商承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的條件[J];人民司法;2008年08期

9 王遷;;三論“信息定位服務(wù)提供者”間接侵權(quán)的認(rèn)定——兼評“泛亞訴百度案”一審判決[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年02期

10 劉家瑞;;論我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商的避風(fēng)港規(guī)則——兼評“十一大唱片公司訴雅虎案”[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年02期

，

本文編號：1959165