网络服务提供者“转通知”义务的适用研究

网络服务提供者的"转通知"义务,起源于美国《数字千年版权法》创设的"避风港"制度,其价值定位是作为沟通"通知-删除"规则与"反通知-恢复"规则之间的"辅助性措施"。随着网络技术与商业实践的持续更迭,传统"避风港"立法列举的"删除、断开链接"等制止网络侵权的必要措施难有用武之地。鉴于此,我国司法实践率先作出破局实验,将传统的辅助性的"转通知"义务扩展为网络服务提供者必须采取的制止网络侵权的"必要措施"。但是,司法对"转通知"义务的扩展,不仅与我国相关立法违背,而且在制度体系、制度平衡及实施效果等方面存在诸多质疑,不宜继续被采纳。我国《民法典》新规总概性地将"转通知"义务界定为独立于制止网络侵权"必要措施"之外的前置性措施。对此,本文建议,未来除应以《民法典》新规为基础,还应进一步深入明晰其适用的主体范围,扫清其实施的技术障碍,强化其执行的制度保障。

Research on the Application of the"Forwarding Notice"Obligation of Internet Service Provider

The obligation of"forwarding notice"of internet service providers originated from the"safe harbor"system created by the DIGITAL Millennium Copyright Act of the United States.Its value is positioned as a"supplementary measure"between the"notification-deletion"rule and the"counter-notification-recovery"rule.the continuous change of network technology and business practice makes it diffi cult for traditional"safe harbor"legislation to enumerate"deletion,disconnection and other necessary measures to stop network infringement.In view of this,China's judicial practice took the lead to make a breakthrough experiment,extending the traditional auxiliary"notification"obligation to the Internet service providers must take the"necessary measures"to stop Internet infringement.However,the judicial extension of the obligation of"forwarding notice"is not only contrary to the relevant legislation of our country,but also has many doubts in the system,balance and implementation effect,so it is not appropriate to continue to be adopted.New regulations in the Civil Code make the obligation of"forwarding notification"universal as a pre-emptive measure independent of the"necessary measures"to stop cyber abuse.This paper suggests that in the future,based on the new regulations of the Civil Code,the subject scope of its application should be clarifi ed in depth,the technical barriers to its implementation should be cleared,and the institutional guarantee of its implementation should be strengthened.