著作权法强制性过滤机制的中国选择

为了解决所谓的"价值差"问题,《欧盟数字单一市场版权指令》引入强制性过滤机制,将发现侵权内容的责任由权利人变成网络服务提供者,将"通知—移除"规则改为"通知—筛除"规则.欧盟的这一立法极具争议,被认为存在侵犯基本权利、损害竞争与创新等问题.美国也曾试图在法律中引入强制性过滤机制,但因受到互联网企业的强烈反对而终止.中国应着眼于提升本土互联网企业的创新能力和全球竞争能力,审慎对待"通知—移除"规则的改革,暂时不宜在法律中引入强制性过滤机制.     

欧盟《版权指令》"版权内容过滤条款"指南解读及借鉴

历时两年实践调研,欧盟委员会颁布了针对《单一数字市场版权指令》中"版权内容过滤条款"的专门性指南.该指南不仅权威解释了法案条款中独创性术语的内涵,以统一各方对条款的解读,且对网络服务商版权责任配置革新涉及的寻求版权授权义务、版权内容过滤标准、公众合法权益的保护等问题给予回应,为制度的落地适用提供了切实、细致的参考标准,...     

长视频平台版权滥用行为的反垄断法规制

在“内容为王”的时代，视频版权是长视频平台的关键资源和核心竞争力。长视频平台通过版权集中建立了其他平台难以逾越的版权壁垒，生态系统建设有助于长视频平台实施生态型垄断行为，长视频平台突破权利边界实施的版权滥用行为损害了长视频市场和相邻短视频市场的竞争，进而触发反垄断法的规制。反垄断法意义上的版权滥用行为包括长视频平台与交易相对人达成的变更独家授权或者转授权价格、联合抵制交易、版权共享等垄断协议，以及具有市场支配地位的长视频平台实施的垄断高价、拒绝交易、差别待遇等滥用市场支配地位的行为，还涉及版权交易的经营者集中。为了确保版权滥用行为反垄断法规制的有效和适度，应坚持以利益平衡原则协调版权保护与版权滥用规制的关系，确立竞争损害标准作为反垄断法介入的标准，推动网络视频领域版权授权模式的改革。     

电子商务交易领域的知识产权侵权责任规则

《电子商务法》第41-45条规定了电子商务交易领域的知识产权侵权责任规则,除了第41条规定了电子商务平台经营者保护知识产权的义务之外,第42-45条规定的是电子商务交易领域中的知识产权侵权责任规则,包括"避风港"原则和"红旗"原则。在"避风港"原则中,知识产权权利人对平台内经营者实施的侵权行为享有通知权,一经行使,电子商务平台经营者即发生相应的及时采取必要措施等义务;错误行使通知权的,不仅自己要承担侵权的补偿性赔偿责任或者惩罚性赔偿责任,而且对方即平台内经营者产生反通知权,以对行使通知权的行为予以反制。电子商务平台经营者负有通知知识产权权利人等义务,知识产权权利人享有投诉或者起诉的权利。适用"红旗"原则的要件是电子商务平台经营者知道或者应当知道平台内经营者实施了侵权行为而不采取必要措施,构成共同侵权行为中的帮助行为,应当与平台内经营者共同承担侵权连带责任。     

公司减资违反通知义务时股东的赔偿责任——《最高人民法院公报》载“德力西案”评释

《公司法》第177条第2款未规定公司减资违反通知义务时股东的赔偿责任。实践中,公司减资违反通知义务的类型包括未履行通知义务和通知形式不适当。违反通知义务的法律后果,一是债权人的法定救济权被阻却,二是债权人获得对股东的求偿权。股东承担赔偿责任的公司法理据系资本维持原则,请求权基础系《公司法解释(三)》第14条第2款而非第13条第2款或《民法通则》侵权责任之规定。股东赔偿责任的性质为法定责任、有限责任、补充责任、内部连带责任;股东赔偿责任的构成要件包括减资决议有效、公司违反通知义务、公司不能清偿债务使债权无法实现以及股东主观存在过错。股东赔偿责任的确定基准为减资数额,赔偿范围包括减资额和利息。     

互联网平台的责任结构与规制路径——以审查义务和经营者责任为基础

互联网平台角色的模糊性与多样性导致了对其行为责任认定的困难。网络服务提供者的身份使得作为信息中介的平台获得了避风港原则的保护,降低了平台的审查和注意义务标准。同时,部分平台业务突破信息中介身份而介入了实质交易,却仍然逃避作为经营者的主体责任。互联网平台交易模式的创新性不能排斥规制路径的延伸,以《侵权责任法》第36条为核心的网络主体责任存在双层结构,应以"禁止任意招揽与信息公开"规则为基础,明确信息中介平台的审查义务和信息发布者责任;同时,应通过分析组织结构、风险与利润分配等经济实质,认定平台具有垂直性组织体的经营者身份并追究其相应主体责任。     

短视频平台帮助侵权与责任认定——以上海新创华文化发展有限公司与杭州秀秀科技有限公司侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案为例

就短视频平台用户的行为是否构成"合理使用",应先认定行为是否符合《著作权法》规定的具体情形,再以是否影响作品正常使用和是否不合理损害著作权人合法权益来判断.就短视频平台"应知"用户直接侵权的认定,应通过平台性质、经营模式来判断其注意义务高低,在此基础上具体分析短视频的呈现方式,包括是否设有榜单、专区等,判断平台是否"应...     

电子商务平台经营者安保责任研究

《电子商务法》具有自身特殊的调整对象和范围,其中,第38条第2款规定的审核义务或者安全保障义务对应的权利主体特指三方主体关系下的"消费者"。实践中争议比较大的电子商务平台经营者的相应责任应当属于民事责任,而且是一种包容性的民事责任,既可能是补充责任,少数情形下也可能是连带责任或者按份责任,具体应根据电子商务平台经营者的审核或者安全保障义务内容及相关实际情形进行判断。从《电子商务法》第38条的内部关系上看,第1款的连带责任是基于主观的共同侵权行为,而第2款可能构成的连带责任是基于客观的共同侵权行为,两者具有明显的界分,在适用中不能混淆。     

版权过滤机制的多元属性与本土生成

版权过滤机制作为算法时代由网络服务提供者选择采用的一项制度，在我国更多地被视为网络服务提供者注意义务标准提升和必要措施范畴扩大的结果，进而导致对平台责任的探讨陷入“技术水平—责任水平”的循环比较。回顾互联网平台适用版权过滤机制的历史可知，过滤机制并非主动过滤义务，而是涵盖确权、授权和侵权治理三个方面内容的版权治理私立规则，旨在基于商业模式和传播技术的变化将交易成本在著作权人、网络服务提供者和网络用户三方之间灵活分配。因此，有必要在司法审判中认可和细化对“转授权”的合法性判断，保障网络服务提供者能够借助过滤机制创设新的大规模许可渠道。同时，应避免将算法过滤技术直接作为提高注意义务标准或扩张必要措施范畴的依据，以保障合理使用等规则的正常适用。     

版权保护自动化实施与言论自由冲突的化解——欧盟的法律实践及其超越

内容自动化识别技术为解决网络版权侵权问题提供了新的方案,但也因可能发生技术误判、请求人错误主张,以及网络服务提供者过度执行,而侵害用户的言论自由。欧盟在要求在线内容分享服务提供者承担过滤义务的同时,通过明确过滤对象和过滤标准、配套错误过滤救济机制,以及规制滥用过滤机制的行为,平衡保障用户言论自由。然而,由于欧盟相关指令将侵权内容识别后的处置方案限定为过滤,内容自动化识别技术对用户言论自由的影响仍是单纯消极的。通过将内容自动化识别技术与格式化条件的许可要约结合,将有效解决用户上传场景下非标准化、低净值版权交易市场中的交易成本问题,从而积极拓宽用户言论的可能边界。     

信息网络传播权侵害中的通知与必要措施规则

美国版权法第512条首创的是针对网络接入、系统缓存、信息存储空间、信息定位工具等四类网络服务提供者的通知与必要措施规则。我国《信息网络传播权保护条例》仅不完整地移植和借鉴了美国版权法第512条首创的通知与必要措施规则中的通知与删除规则,从而导致信息存储空间、搜索链接服务提供者之外的网络服务提供者与著作权人利益的失衡。《侵权责任法》第36条第2款恢复了通知与必要措施规则的本来面目,纠正了《信息网络传播权保护条例》的缺陷,并且创造性地将通知与必要措施规则扩大适用于所有网络服务提供者。在涉及侵害信息网络传播权纠纷案件中,除了信息存储空间服务提供者、搜索链接服务提供者的责任规则以及有关通知和反通知的法定要件,应当优先适用《信息网络传播权保护条例》之外,其他种类网络技术服务提供者的责任规则,应当优先适用《侵权责任法》第36条第2款。     

电商领域知识产权“通知—删除”规则的困境与出路

《电子商务法》“通知—删除”规则呈现出滥用和错误通知概率高,损失风险大,实质作用可能得不到发挥等问题,源于其对电商知识产权侵权治理效果的积极追求,以及因此形成的对传统“通知—删除”思路的改动式借鉴——允许在认为侵权情况下发出通知但不提供恢复选择,结果是这一“通知—删除”规则不具备诉前禁令的条件却具有类似的效果。现有完善思路意图让这套规则更接近真正意义的诉前禁令,却因忽视了两者的本质区别而难有成效。电子商务治理应该注重发挥利用平台的管控力,基于此形成的平台自治能够通过平台的实质性介入引导纠纷解决和提高处理效率,从而控制滥用、降低风险,缓解规则存在的弊端。实现平台自治一方面需要在不违背法律价值和不降低法律要求的前提下通过“约定—同意”的方式探索自治空间;另一方面需要在规范层面赋予平台一定的自治权限,让平台有权根据实际情况在收到反通知后确定采取必要措施的期限。     

Balancing in Light of the Purposes of Copyright: Whether Video Music Lessons Constitute Copyright Infringement

Faced with diminished sources of revenue, school systems in recent years have cut funding for music education. Looking for alternative ways to learn about music, budding musicians have turned to the Internet. On YouTube and other Web sites, visitors can view thousands of instructional videos on how to play popular songs, complex genres, and a seemingly unlimited variety of musical techniques. Despite altruistic motivations, creators of video music lessons routinely use copyrighted content during lessons. This article argues that the defense of fair use should protect the creators of video music lessons from liability in a copyright infringement lawsuit. Specifically, the author argues that it is the purpose of copyright law to promote knowledge and that video music lessons further this objective.     

From gatekeepers to publishers: Liability of internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content

This article aims to analyse the liability of Internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content. In the absence of any statutory law relating to online defamation, the courts in India have had to rely upon comparable developments in the United Kingdom to define the contours of liability of the intermediaries for facilitating the publication of defamatory content on the Internet. However, affixing liability on intermediaries in the absence of similar statutory immunities provided to them under the UK law may prove prejudicial to the intermediaries. Therefore, this article argues that India should enact a comprehensive law to statutorily limit the grounds on which liability may be imposed on Internet intermediaries for hosting online defamatory content. This article further argues that India should adopt and codify the ‘notice and notice plus’ approach to intermediary liability as it ensures that intermediaries are not held liable as publishers for hosting the defamatory content, but in the meantime are also encouraged to take active steps to ensure effective justice to the victims of online defamation.     

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998: A Proposed Amendment to Accommodate Free Speech

Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 limits liability for copyright infringement for online service providers if they remove from their services material posted by users that copyright holders allege infringes on their rights. This article argues that the Title provides too much incentive to OSPs to remove the material, creating an imbalance in the "fair-use" tradition of copyright law and threatening freedom of speech. The article suggests that the law be amended to require that copyright holders prove infringement before OSPs are made liable for infringement.     

An analysis of the fundamental tensions between copyright and social media: the legal implications of sharing images on Instagram

ABSTRACT

Copyright is inherently intertwined with the development of technology and none more so than the advent of the Internet and sharing technologies. More recently, social media platforms have become the latest challenge for copyright law and policy. This article builds on the literature that recognises the underlying conflict between copyright and social networking sites (SNSs); namely that the basic implication of copyright is the restriction of copying, whereas the ethos of social networking is the promotion of sharing. In particular, this article focuses on the disparity between the restricted acts of copying and communication to the public under copyright law and the encouragement of sharing on SNS Instagram. In doing so, it contextualises the debate surrounding copyright and social media and provides an understanding of the legal implications of using Instagram. As such this paper analyses (1) the infringement of copyright protected work on Instagram, and (2) the user-agreement and licensing of copyright material on Instagram. This study concludes that the disparity between the principles of copyright and social media lead to confusion and vulnerability of users. Therefore, it is suggested that Instagram should better inform its users of the implications of sharing third-party content as well as the terms of its user agreement. This could be done by implementing a copyright strategy, which includes a notice and takedown system as well as investing in producing educational content for users. Perhaps SNSs, such as Instagram might be more motivated to take steps to recognise intellectual property rights if they were considered Internet Services Provides such as YouTube.     

论非法经营罪的几个问题

非法经营罪的“其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为”概括抽象，故有人认为该罪已成新的“口袋罪”，应分解或废除。理解此款只要遵循有附属刑法、行政法规、司法解释的明文规定且可追究刑责才纳入的原则，此罪就无侵犯罪刑法定原则之虑；中国现继续深化改革国情决定此罪应有灵活性，没必要分解或废除：修正案（七）颁布后的传销行为不能再定本罪。无经营主体资格出版、印刷、销售他人享有着作权的作品的，其行为既符合本罪又符合侵犯他人着作权罪或销售侵权复制品罪，属于法条竞合犯，应以后者定处。     

Black Hats and White Hats: Authorisation of Copyright Infringement in Australia and the United States

This article explores the concept of authorisation in relationto the possible liability of manufacturers and suppliers oftechnology if, and when, their technology is used by purchasersor other users to infringe copyright. Cases over the last 30years brought by copyright owners or holders against the manufacturersand suppliers of technology which has the potential to infringecopyright are examined, as well as the differing copyright lawsin Australia and the United States relating to the authorisationof copyright infringement. The article concludes with a discussionon the current legal approaches to authorisation and on possiblefuture approaches.     

The E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China: E-commerce platform operators liability for third-party patent infringement

The E-Commerce Law of the People's Republic of China(E-commerce Law) was enacted on August 31, 2018. One of the hottest topics is e-commerce platform operators (EPOs) liability for third-party patent infringement. The EPOs, which provide platform services rather than participating in trade directly, must try to maintain the balance between patentees and social interests. Due to the particularities of the patent infringement review, it is difficult for the EPOs to fulfil the task. Thus, the EPOs liability for copyright and trademark infringement is likely unworkable in the patent area. A China practice review will be helpful in analysing the problem; the guiding case No. 83 is an especially meaningful reference. The E-Commerce Law is principled and advisory - it is impossible to distinguish the limits of EPOs liability for third-party patent infringement by differentiating the patent from other intellectual property rights. After reviewing the regulations on the general and intellectual property duty of care of EPOs, this article argues that the E-Commerce Law still has some specific problems. Consequently, to implement the E-Commerce Law, judicial interpretation and detailed rules for implementation should be formulated as soon as possible, and the potential solutions are described in the conclusion.     

论公司对外担保的法律效力

《公司法》第16条规定由公司章程确定对外担保的决议机关。当实际决议的机关与章程不一致时,担保合同的法律效力如何?应当认为随着对"推定通知理论"和"越权理论"的抛弃,公司章程的公开行为本身不构成第三人知道的证据,第三人对公司章程不负有审查义务。进而需要区分公司内部行为和外部行为的法律效力,不能以担保决议违反章程为由主张对外签订的担保合同无效,两者之间无效力牵连。当章程对担保"沉默"时,我国采行"股东会中心主义",应当运用"营利性"原则将董事会的决议权限定在公司正常经营活动的范围之内。董事、经理擅自对外担保构成无权代理,未经公司追认对公司不生效力,应当自行承担对第三人造成的损失。