摘要
《信息网络传播权保护条例》模仿美国以免责条款的形式规定了避风港规则,唯一的作用是反面解释其中的主观要件,得出网络服务提供者帮助侵权责任的过错形态包括"应知"。但作为"免责条款"整体,却没有提供新的抗辩理由,"避风港"形同虚设。《侵权责任法》第36条、《北京高院网络意见》将避风港规则的各种免责条件都纳入侵权认定的过程,避风港规则已经名存实亡,是法律移植的败笔。
Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information imitated U.S.A. and stipulated safe harbor rulings in the form of exemption clauses. Its only function was to infer from its subjective elements that the faults of network service providers included ＂should know＂. However,the exemption clauses as a whole did not provide any new type of defense,thus making safe harbor rulings useless. Article 36 of Tort Law and Network Guidance issued by Beifing High Court brought all the exemption conditions of safe harbor rulings into the process of infringement judgment. Nowadays, safe harbor rulings exist in name only. It is a failure of transplantation of law.
出处
《齐齐哈尔大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》
2011年第4期72-75,共4页
Journal of Qiqihar University(Philosophy & Social Science Edition)
关键词
避风港
免责条款
网络侵权
法律移植
safe harbor
exemption clauses
network infringement
transplantation of law
