本文選題：“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則 + 網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)保護　； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：在當(dāng)今社會,網(wǎng)絡(luò)已成為人們獲取信息和對外交流的重要手段,廣泛深入到社會生活的各個方面,無論對國家還是個人都產(chǎn)生了深刻影響。網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)的內(nèi)容和形式也變得多種多樣,而網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)侵權(quán)問題也越來越突出。2000年以后,與數(shù)字版權(quán)相關(guān)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案件大量涌入各級法院。為了有效應(yīng)對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)發(fā)展所帶來的信息傳播問題,我國出臺了一系列新的法律和規(guī)定,解決了網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)領(lǐng)域出現(xiàn)的一些問題。但由于網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵犯著作權(quán)行為和方式的復(fù)雜性,目前的法律規(guī)定還遠不能滿足司法實踐的需要,現(xiàn)有的規(guī)定在司法適用中仍存在很大的爭議,其中“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的適用就出現(xiàn)了不少問題。本文從“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的起源入手,概括了“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則所具有的現(xiàn)實意義。通過對《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護條例》第22條免責(zé)條款的分析,找出“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則在立法移植和司法實踐中的缺陷,并通過這些不足提出了一些完善意見。 本文除前言和結(jié)語外共分為五個部分。 第一部分：“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的由來及其價值意義�！氨茱L(fēng)港”規(guī)則最早起源于美國的司法實踐,它是在一系列司法案例基礎(chǔ)上確立起來的,并通過國會立法《數(shù)字千年版權(quán)法》最終明確下來。“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的確立對于網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)保護具有里程碑似的意義。 第二部分：外國“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的立法實踐。在借鑒DMCA基礎(chǔ)之上,德國、歐盟等國家和組織結(jié)合本國實際,制定出自己的“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則�！氨茱L(fēng)港”規(guī)則有效平衡了網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商、著作權(quán)人和社會公眾的利益,保護了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)。促進了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)的發(fā)展,實現(xiàn)了科技與法律的雙贏。 第三部分：我國“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的適用現(xiàn)狀及存在的問題。該部分對我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)保護立法狀況進行了簡單介紹。在我國,目前較為全面規(guī)定“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的法律是《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護條例》,雖然《條例》在實踐中還存在很多問題,但它在網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)保護領(lǐng)域中的地位是不可撼動的。 第四部分：“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的適用條件分析。以《條例》第22條為出發(fā)點,結(jié)合具體案例,分析了“明確標示”、“未改變”、“明知或應(yīng)知”、“直接獲得經(jīng)濟利益”、“通知-刪除”規(guī)則在司法實踐中出現(xiàn)的爭議。 第五部分：“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則適用的完善建議。立法移植上的缺陷造成了“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則在司法實踐中的困境,但不能因此否認“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則制度的價值。通過司法實踐中出現(xiàn)的一些問題,筆者提出了完善法律體系、規(guī)范法律用語、明確侵權(quán)主體分類、規(guī)定適當(dāng)?shù)谋O(jiān)察義務(wù)等建議。相信通過立法思想、配套法規(guī)的完善,“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則在我國定能發(fā)揮更重要的作用。
[Abstract]:In today's society, the network has become an important means for people to obtain information and communicate with foreign countries. The content and form of network service have become various, and the problem of network copyright infringement has become more and more prominent. Since 2000, the network copyright infringement cases related to digital copyright have poured into the courts at all levels. In order to effectively deal with the problem of information dissemination brought by the development of the Internet, China has issued a series of new laws and regulations to solve some problems in the field of network copyright. However, due to the complexity of network infringement of copyright, the current legal provisions are far from meeting the needs of judicial practice, and the existing provisions are still very controversial in the judicial application. Among them, there are many problems in the application of the "safe haven" rules. Starting with the origin of the "haven" rules, this paper summarizes the practical significance of the "haven" rules. Based on the analysis of the exemption clause in Article 22 of the regulations on the Protection of Information Network Transmission right, this paper finds out the defects of the "safe haven" rules in the legislative transplantation and judicial practice, and puts forward some perfect suggestions through these deficiencies. This paper is divided into five parts except preface and conclusion. The first part: the origin and value significance of the "safe haven" rules. The "safe haven" rule originated from the judicial practice of the United States. It was established on the basis of a series of judicial cases and was finally clarified through the enactment of the Digital Millennium copyright Act by Congress. The establishment of the "safe haven" rules has a landmark significance for the protection of network copyright. The second part: the legislative practice of foreign "safe haven" rules. On the basis of DMCA, Germany, European Union and other countries and organizations make their own "safe haven" rules. The "safe haven" rules effectively balance the interests of Internet service providers, copyright owners and the public, and protect intellectual property rights. It promotes the development of Internet enterprises and realizes the win-win of science and technology and law. The third part: the application status and existing problems of the "safe haven" rules in China. This part gives a brief introduction to the legislation of network copyright protection in China. In our country, at present, the law of "safe haven" regulation is "Information Network Communication right Protection Regulation". Although there are still many problems in practice, its position in the field of network copyright protection is unshakable. The fourth part: the analysis of the applicable conditions of the "safe haven" rules. Taking Article 22 of the regulations as the starting point and combining with specific cases, this paper analyzes the disputes arising from the rules of "clear marking", "unchanged", "knowing or should know", "directly obtaining economic benefits" and "Notification-deletion" rules in judicial practice. The fifth part: the perfect suggestion of the application of the "safe haven" rules. The defects in legislative transplantation have caused the dilemma of the "haven" rule in judicial practice, but the value of the "haven" rule system cannot be denied. Through some problems in judicial practice, the author puts forward some suggestions, such as perfecting the legal system, standardizing legal terms, clarifying the classification of torts, and prescribing proper supervision obligations. It is believed that the "haven" rules will play a more important role in our country through the legislative thought and the perfection of supporting laws and regulations.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D922.16

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 姚洪軍;;中美處理網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者著作權(quán)問題的比較[J];比較法研究;2011年05期

2 安輝;;淺析我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商的避風(fēng)港規(guī)則[J];北京郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2010年02期

3 李振;郭德忠;;淺論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的責(zé)任問題[J];北京理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年02期

4 趙明;;論避風(fēng)港規(guī)則的適用條件[J];長春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2012年05期

5 王遷;;視頻分享網(wǎng)站著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問題研究[J];法商研究;2008年04期

6 王遷;;視頻分享網(wǎng)站著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問題再研究[J];法商研究;2010年01期

7 胡開忠;;“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”在視頻分享網(wǎng)站版權(quán)侵權(quán)認定中的適用[J];法學(xué);2009年12期

8 許春明;王彥志;黃武雙;;百度侵權(quán)門的罪與罰[J];檢察風(fēng)云;2011年09期

，

本文編號：1953542