本文關(guān)鍵詞： 網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商 構(gòu)成要件 歸責原則 責任承擔形態(tài) 間接侵權(quán)　出處：《華東政法大學》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)隨著時代的發(fā)展日新月異,網(wǎng)絡(luò)發(fā)展產(chǎn)生的巨大影響滲透入當前生活的方方面面。我國有著基數(shù)龐大的網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶,根據(jù)《中國互聯(lián)網(wǎng)發(fā)展狀況統(tǒng)計報告》的第35次統(tǒng)計結(jié)果,到2014年12月為止,我國已經(jīng)有超過5.5億人次的手機網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶,網(wǎng)絡(luò)變得越來越便利將互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的普及率帶至47.9%。隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶人數(shù)的增加,網(wǎng)絡(luò)事務(wù)的不斷增多,現(xiàn)存的法律制度也受到了日益發(fā)展的網(wǎng)絡(luò)科技的巨大挑戰(zhàn)。本文第一部分講了網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商的概念與類型、歸責基礎(chǔ)。隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)提高新型服務(wù)方式的出現(xiàn),網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商概念內(nèi)涵也在不斷擴大中,在當前學術(shù)界,關(guān)于其概念與類型區(qū)分存在廣義說與狹義說。廣義網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商包括內(nèi)容服務(wù)與平臺服務(wù)提供者,狹義網(wǎng)絡(luò)商僅包括平臺服務(wù)提供商。在當前的外國立法中,將網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商進行分類,并且根據(jù)不同的類型來規(guī)定不同的免責條款,是外國立法中比較普遍采取的一種立法方式。關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之概念,我們應(yīng)當明確《侵權(quán)責任法》以及我們的研究中并不包括網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容提供商,網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容提供商的侵權(quán)問題與一般侵權(quán)問題并無二致,因此,我們的研究特指網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺服務(wù)提供商。關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商的類型,雖然《侵權(quán)責任法》并未詳細列舉,筆者認為《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護條例》的規(guī)定中“自動接入服務(wù)”,“自動傳輸服務(wù)”,“自動存儲”,“提供信息存儲空間”,“提供搜索或鏈接服務(wù)”幾種類型是借鑒了外國立法例之后作出的分類,并且對其不同的免責事由的適用也作出了科學的劃分,可以滿足實踐的需求。在適用《侵權(quán)責任法》進行分析斷案時,應(yīng)據(jù)此對其進行分類并區(qū)分不同免責條款。關(guān)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責任歸責基礎(chǔ)學界觀點主要有如下三種:1.過錯論:網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之所以應(yīng)當對侵權(quán)承擔責任的原因在于其對于侵權(quán)事實的發(fā)生具有過錯。2.直接獲利論:網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商因其提供網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)的經(jīng)營內(nèi)容而獲利,從而對于其經(jīng)營內(nèi)容范圍內(nèi)的侵權(quán)亦應(yīng)負有責任。3.實際控制論:網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商因?qū)η謾?quán)事實有實際控制力,因此如果沒有采取合理措施,就應(yīng)當承擔責任。過錯論、直接獲利論與實際控制論作為當前三種主流理論,都具有相當程度上的影響力。然而亦存在一些的不足,在筆者認為修正后網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責任理論基礎(chǔ)應(yīng)為:網(wǎng)絡(luò)商在合理過濾技術(shù)設(shè)立前提下,由于知悉和并未及時采取措施處理侵權(quán)事宜而應(yīng)承擔侵權(quán)責任。第二部分討論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責任之歸責原則。外國有關(guān)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)侵權(quán)責任研究較之我國有的時間更早,具有借鑒意義。美國對不同類型網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商規(guī)定不同免責條款,確立了嚴格責任限制之歸責原則;歐盟采取的為過錯責任原則;德國在網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)容提供者責任承擔中采取的為無過錯責任的歸責原則,而在其他類網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商的責任承擔方面均采取的是過錯責任原則�！肚謾�(quán)責任法》36條由第二款規(guī)定了“通知-移除”規(guī)則,第三款規(guī)定了“知道”規(guī)則。在理論界對于不同類型網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商適用的歸責原則是否應(yīng)當統(tǒng)一也具有爭議,筆者認為,網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責任歸責原則為過錯責任原則更為合理:對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)適用過錯推定,對一般權(quán)利則適用過錯原則。第三部分講網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責任之構(gòu)成要件。筆者認為“三要件說”較為合理:三個要件即損害事實、因果關(guān)系和主觀過錯足以概括一般侵權(quán)責任之構(gòu)成。《侵權(quán)責任法》第36條的第2款與第3款,在借鑒了國外的相關(guān)制度的情況下,為我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責任的成立中的主觀過錯構(gòu)成要件之成立提供了法律依據(jù);關(guān)于損害事實網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)所侵犯之客體分為財產(chǎn)性權(quán)利與人身性權(quán)利,財產(chǎn)性權(quán)利如侵犯他人版權(quán)或者商標權(quán)從而謀取經(jīng)濟上的利益,人身性權(quán)利如對他人之隱私披露、名譽詆毀等使得權(quán)利人精神上利益遭到侵犯之情況。被侵權(quán)方無論是基于過錯推定的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人或者是基于過錯原則歸責之一般權(quán)利的權(quán)利人,均需要在訴訟中對自己所遭到的損害進行證明;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之侵權(quán)責任的成立,必須是網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之行為與侵權(quán)損害后果之間存在有因果聯(lián)系,這里的因果聯(lián)系包括兩層:首先是網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶利用網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商提供之便利實施了侵權(quán)行為與被侵權(quán)方之損害結(jié)果存在有因果聯(lián)系;其次是網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商之注意義務(wù)未履行對于侵權(quán)損害后果的發(fā)生或者擴大存在有因果聯(lián)系。在這兩層因果聯(lián)系中,前者是后者發(fā)生之前提。第四部分討論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責任之承擔的問題。本部分通過對網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商責任形承擔形式不同階段與不同形式的研究和討論,筆者認為關(guān)于我國的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責任形態(tài)承擔,應(yīng)當適用外部連帶責任與內(nèi)部按份責任。立法中出于一定目的之考慮課以網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商連帶責任,使得被侵權(quán)方的救濟更為方便及時,而我們在對其內(nèi)部責任分配時也應(yīng)當注意,也不應(yīng)使網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商承擔終局責任,而是應(yīng)當在連帶責任承擔之后在內(nèi)部按照各自過錯與原因力,對份額進行合理的分配。第五部分討論的是間接侵權(quán)責任。構(gòu)建間接侵權(quán)制度是外國的立法例中解決網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)制度的普遍做法,本部分通過這樣的一種做法與我國的采用“共同侵權(quán)”方式來解決網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商侵權(quán)責任的模式相比較所存在的優(yōu)勢的研究,討論了間接侵權(quán)概念在我國提出時的爭議,間接侵權(quán)所包括的類型,并且借鑒了國外的間接侵權(quán)制度構(gòu)建框架,對我國的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責任的相關(guān)法律規(guī)定提出立法構(gòu)想與修改建議。
[Abstract]:With the development of network technology change rapidly, the huge impact of the development of network has infiltrated in all aspects of life. China has a huge number of Internet users, according to the thirty-fifth statistical results of development of Chinese internet report >, until December 2014, there have been more than 550 million people in the mobile phone users in China, network become more and more convenient to the Internet popularity rate to 47.9%. with the increase of the number of network users, network services continue to increase, the existing legal system has also been a huge challenge to the growing network of science and technology. In the first part of this paper about the concept and types of network service providers, imputation basis. With the increase of the new service the way of the network technology, the connotation of the concept of ISP is also expanding, in the current academic circles about the concept and types of distinguish between broad sense say The generalized and narrow sense. The network service provider includes content services and platform service providers, network operators including only narrow platform service providers. In the current foreign legislation, network service providers are classified, and according to different types require different disclaimers, is a kind of legislation is generally adopted in foreign legislation. Concept of the network service provider, we should clear the tort liability law study < > and we did not include the Internet content provider, there is no infringement of Internet content providers and general tort problems caused by two, therefore, the service provider network platform. We study in particular types of network service providers, although the "tort liability law the author thinks that not a detailed list >, < Information Network Transmission Right Protection Ordinance" provisions of the "automatic access service", "automatic transmission service", "Automatic storage", "information storage", "search or link service types from the classification made after the foreign legislation, and the different exemption applies also to make a scientific division, can meet the needs of practice. In the case of the application of the" tort liability law >, we should classify and distinguish different disclaimer. About Internet service providers tort liability imputation basis of the academic point of view there are three main types: 1. fault theory: the network service provider is that it has a fault for.2. should be the direct benefit of the fact of infringement reasons of tort liability in network because of the service provider to provide network services business and profit, which for its business within the scope of tort should be responsible for the actual control of.3. network service providers because of the infringement In the actual control, so if you do not take reasonable measures, it shall bear the liability. Fault theory, direct profit theory as the three mainstream theories and actual control, has considerable influence. However, there are some deficiencies in the modified theory of the tort liability of Internet service providers should be for network operators in the establishment of reasonable filtration technology under the premise of knowing and not due to take timely measures to deal with matters of infringement shall bear tort liability. The second part discusses the imputation principle of the tort liability of Internet service provider. The research on the tort liability of network service foreign than China earlier, has the reference significance. The provisions of the different types of network service providers of different exemption clause, established the strict limitation of liability imputation principle; the principle of fault liability for the EU to take Germany within the network; Content providers responsibility for taking no fault liability principle, and in other types of network service providers are taking responsibility is the principle of fault liability. The tort liability law >36 by the provisions of the second paragraph of the "notice - remove" rules, the provisions of the third paragraph of the "know" rule in the theory circle. The imputation principle for the different types of network service providers should also have uniform dispute, the author believes that the network service provider, the imputation principle of tort liability fault liability principle is more reasonable: the intellectual property rights of the general presumption of fault, it applies the principle of fault. The third part is about the infringement of the network service provider of the elements. The author thinks that the "three elements" is more reasonable: three elements namely damage fact, causality and subjective fault to summarize general tort liability form of tort liability. Any law > thirty-sixth of paragraph second and paragraph third, in reference to the relevant foreign system under the condition of the establishment of China's Internet service providers tort liability in the subjective fault of the components of the establishment provides a legal basis; the object of damage to the fact that Internet service providers tort infringes the property rights and the people divided into personal rights, property rights such as infringement of copyright or trademark rights to seek economic benefits, such as personal rights of others privacy disclosure, reputation slander obliges spiritual interests infringed the infringed party. Whether it is based on the presumption of fault, intellectual property rights or general rights the principle of fault liability based on the rights of the people, are in need of litigation by his own damage proof; tort liability of Internet service provider of network services must be provided. There is a causal link between taking the behavior and consequence of tort, the causal link consists of two layers: the first is to provide network users to facilitate the implementation of infringement and tort party results in a causal link with the network service provider; second is the network service provider that does not fulfill its obligations for tort consequences there is a causal relationship between the occurrence or expansion. In the two layer of causality, the former is the premise of the latter. The fourth part discusses the network service providers bear tort liability problems. Through this part of the network service provider liability form assume different forms with different forms of the stage of research and discussion, the author thinks that the bear form network service provider tort liability in China, shall be jointly and severally liable according to internal and external responsibility. Consider a certain purpose for legislation A network service provider liability, the infringement relief party is more convenient and timely, and we in the internal allocation of responsibility should also pay attention to, also should not make the network service provider to take the final responsibility, but should be after be liable in accordance with their respective fault and causes in the internal force, on reasonable distribution share. The fifth part is to discuss the indirect infringement liability. Constructing the system of indirect infringement is a common practice to solve the network service provider tort legislation cases of foreign research, this part adopts "through such an approach and our common tort" way to solve the infringement of the network service provider model compared to the existing advantages the discussion of the concept of indirect infringement dispute in our country is proposed, including the types of indirect infringement, and from the system of indirect infringement of foreign construction The framework provides legislative ideas and amendments to the relevant legal provisions of the tort liability of network service providers in China.

【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 劉文杰;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的安全保障義務(wù)[J];中外法學;2012年02期

，

本文編號：1462426