期刊文献+

论网络服务提供者的间接侵权责任 被引量:2

On The Internet Service Providers' Responsibility for Indirect Infringement
下载PDF
导出
摘要 关于网络服务提供者是否应为第三人提供的内容承担侵权责任,中国和美国的做法不同,中国把疏忽责任和过错责任相结合,而美国采取的是不承担责任原则。两种做法各有利弊,单独适用难以令人满意。若能在权衡的基础上适用混合责任或改进的疏忽责任,则解决了法学界的一大难题。 In response to the question of whether Internet service providers should be liable for materials to the third party,America and China practice differently.China has integrated negligence liability with fault liability,but America adopted the principle of non-liability.Each of the three approaches achieves the height of his ability,but applying a single one is far from satisfactory.If we can adopt the mixed liability or improve negligence liability on the basis of weighting carefully,then a tough problem in law circle is to be settled.
作者 李可眉
出处 《邵阳学院学报(社会科学版)》 2010年第5期48-50,共3页 Journal of Shaoyang University:Social Science Edition
关键词 网络服务提供者 间接侵权责任 疏忽责任 过错责任 不承担责任 Internet service providers indirect infringement liability negligence liability fault liability non-liability
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

  • 1全国人民代表大学常务委员会法制工作委员会编.中华人民共和国侵权责任法释义[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
  • 2Ryan Savage.E-commerce:Between a Rock and a Hard Place:Defamation and Internet Service Providers[DB/OL].http://www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/.
  • 3David R.Sheridan.Zeran v.AOL and The Effect of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act Upon Liability for Defamation On The Internet[DB/OL].http://www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth./.
  • 4Matthew Schruers.The History and Economics of ISP Liability for Third Party Content[DB/OL].Virginia Law Review,Vol.88,No.1 (Mar.,2002).

同被引文献9

引证文献2

二级引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部