数字版权语境下避风港规则与红旗原则的适用
|
摘要
在数字化时代网络侵权日益严重的今天,网络服务商援引避风港规则用以免除自己侵权责任的频率越来越高。从某些程度上讲,避风港原则已成为认定网络侵权的唯一准则,至于避风港规则的例外——红旗原则,则完全被网络服务商选择性地忽视。事实上,红旗原则应当优先于避风港规则。避风港规则的适用只不过是网络侵权的一种例外规定,只适合网络服务商在"不明知,不应知"的情况下发生的侵权行为的免责。而当侵权行为明显到如同鲜艳的红旗一样,连非专业人士也能轻易辨别时,则网络服务商就应当承担相应的侵权责任。
In the Digital Age it is noticeable that there has been an increase in serious Internet Copyright Infringement. Network service providers cite Safe Harbor Agreement to avoid Internet Copyright Infringement liability. Even though in many cases Safe Harbor Agreement has become the network's sole criterion to determine copyright infringement, there is the exception of the Red Flag Test, which is selectively ignored by network service providers. In fact, the Red Flag Test should have priority over the Safe Harbor Agreement. Safe Harbor Agreement is applicable only to Internet Copyright Infringement when network service providers are "unaware" of violations that have occurred. Although it is known that internet users typically engage in some form of copyright infringement, thus the network service providers should be held responsible in all cases.
In the Digital Age it is noticeable that there has been an increase in serious Internet Copyright Infringement. Network service providers cite Safe Harbor Agreement to avoid Internet Copyright Infringement liability. Even though in many cases Safe Harbor Agreement has become the network's sole criterion to determine copyright infringement, there is the exception of the Red Flag Test, which is selectively ignored by network service providers. In fact, the Red Flag Test should have priority over the Safe Harbor Agreement. Safe Harbor Agreement is applicable only to Internet Copyright Infringement when network service providers are "unaware" of violations that have occurred. Although it is known that internet users typically engage in some form of copyright infringement, thus the network service providers should be held responsible in all cases.
引文
1.中国加大打击互联网侵权行为百度等知名公司被处罚,http://gb.cri.cn/42071/2013/12/31/5931s4375079.htm,2015年6月10日访问。
2.参见U.S.Copyright Office Summary:"THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998",http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf,2015年6月10日访问。
3.DMCA article 512:"Limitations on liability relating to material online",http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512,2015年6月20日访问。
4.本文不严格区分网络服务提供商。
5.事实上,DMCA 512(d)款:“但是,明知或应知所链接的作品……侵权的,应当承担共同侵权责任”即体现了有该原则。
6.史学清、汪涌:《避风港还是风暴角——解读<信息网络传播权保护条例>第23条》,载《知识产权》2009年第3期,第23页。
7.芦世玲:《被误读的“避风港”——网络服务商著作权侵权纠纷适用法律分析》,载《现代出版》2014年第4期,第24页。
8.Jabeen Bhatti.Supreme Court Rules File Hosting Sites Must Do More to Prevent Infringement.World Intellectual Property,2012(9):14.转引自李萍:《网络服务提供商发展将面临新问题——技术的发展与避风港原则的适用》,载《科技与出版》2014年第5期,第90页。
2.参见U.S.Copyright Office Summary:"THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998",http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf,2015年6月10日访问。
3.DMCA article 512:"Limitations on liability relating to material online",http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512,2015年6月20日访问。
4.本文不严格区分网络服务提供商。
5.事实上,DMCA 512(d)款:“但是,明知或应知所链接的作品……侵权的,应当承担共同侵权责任”即体现了有该原则。
6.史学清、汪涌:《避风港还是风暴角——解读<信息网络传播权保护条例>第23条》,载《知识产权》2009年第3期,第23页。
7.芦世玲:《被误读的“避风港”——网络服务商著作权侵权纠纷适用法律分析》,载《现代出版》2014年第4期,第24页。
8.Jabeen Bhatti.Supreme Court Rules File Hosting Sites Must Do More to Prevent Infringement.World Intellectual Property,2012(9):14.转引自李萍:《网络服务提供商发展将面临新问题——技术的发展与避风港原则的适用》,载《科技与出版》2014年第5期,第90页。