【作者】 龙丹；

【导师】 魏纪林；

【作者基本信息】 武汉理工大学 ， 法学， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 网络服务提供者在提供的便捷的网络服务时,也客观上帮助了互联网上侵犯著作权的行为泛滥,网络服务提供者常常成为著作权侵权的被告。然而,网络服务提供者并非直接侵权人,我国现有的法律制度没有ISP承担责任的理论依据,造成了司法实践中尴尬。美国的网络侵权立法研究历经十多年的发展,取得非常丰富的成果,其中的间接侵权责任尤为值得借鉴。代理侵权责任与辅助侵权责任是间接责任的两种形式,和直接侵权责任一起共同构成了美国版权法上的三大侵权责任。间接责任早已有之,网络时代的到来,他们更是广泛运用于网络服务提供者的责任认定,并得到了快步的发展。1998年DMCA的颁布,在没有改变间接责任制度的基础上,对间接责任进行了补充,它要求审查ISP是否承担责任必须从避风港的适格性开始,如果不适格,才启动对ISP直接责任,辅助侵权责任或者代理责任的审查。本文分两个部分运用案例与理论相结合的方法对间接责任进行了分析,第一部分,辅助责任,主要介绍了辅助责任中的知悉要件如何认定的问题,其中主要分析了实质性非侵权用途标准以及DMCA中的通知要件与辅助侵权中的知悉要件的关系,并得出结论,实质性非侵权用途标准不能作为万能的唯一标准,只能适用于一定用途的技术产品中,在网络时代必须有新的标准,而DMCA中的通知要件也不能作为辅助侵权中的知悉要件,将两种制度相混同,无法实现利益平衡的目的。第二部分主要介绍了代理侵权责任的演进过程,首先是夏弗诺测试将代理侵权责任认定公式化,然后是到认定跳蚤市场获得直接经济利益标准的变化,到Napster监控能力测试标准的松动,到易趣案确立分步骤地进行测试的标准,利益平衡是著作权法追求的基本目标。代理侵权制度的法律价值在于,督促具有监控能力网络服务提供者共同保护著作权人的利益,实现网络服务产业和作品的共同繁荣。美国的代理侵权责任制度值得我们学习,我国只有直接责任形式,共同侵权责任与代理责任将无法代替间接责任制度,而司法实践中实际已经出现类似于辅助侵权与代理侵权的理论,因此,早日填补立法空白才能解决实践中的尴尬情形。文章最后,提出自己构建我国间接责任制度的想法。更多还原

【Abstract】 When Internet Service Providers (ISP) provide convenient and swift internet connection, they also provide the convenience for copyright infringement. So they are always accused by copyright owners. However, ISP is not the direct infringer;the law system of our country can’t support to impute ISP. But in the America, the researches on internet-infringement have more than ten years history and get a great achievement, especially the indirect infringement. Vicarious Infringement Liability and Contributory Infringement Liability are two kinds of indirect infringement, which are with direct infringement composed the three liabilities of Copyright Law. Indirect infringement, which was exist in copyright law from early day, however is applied in the copyright infringement on the web and developed very quickly in the digital day. Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 does not change the indirect liability but renew it. DMCA requires the courts firstly address the eligibility of safe harbor, if the ISP failed to safe harbor, and then can address the direct infringement, vicarious infringement liability or contributory infringement liability. This article uses two parts to analyze the two kinds of indirect liability. The first part is about contributory infringement liability. The knowledge requirement is mainly introduced. After analyzing the substantial non-infringing uses and the relation between safe harbor notice with contributory infringement knowledge, the conclusion is substantial non-Infringing uses is not the only and all, it can just used in some certain products, and safe harbor notice with contributory infringement knowledge can’t be conflated. The second part is about the history of vicarious infringement liability. Firstly, the vicarious infringement liability was formulated in Shapiro test, then made a change of direct benefit in the flea market, and then the actual control test is a little change, and the last formed the two steps in testing. The value of indirect infringement is to make ISP to make an eye in internet business and create an safe environment for both ISP and copyright owners. There isn’t indirect infringement in our law system;the con-infringement can’t replace the indirect infringement. But in the practice, courts have used the similar theory in the case., So to establish theindirect infringement is the most important thing. At the last of this article, I put forward my opinion to establish the indirect infringement in our law system.更多还原