网络服务提供者间接侵权免责制度研究

Indirect Liability Immunity Systems of Internet Service Providers

针对网络服务提供者的间接侵权行为,国际社会普遍采用“以免责为原则,归责为例外”的立场。我国现有立法能够发挥免责功能,但不属于严格意义上的免责制度。主要原因在于,其向网络服务提供者施加了一般性注意义务,并将承担连带责任作为违反该义务的法律后果。遵循免责逻辑并不意味着为网络服务提供者提供更多的逃避责任的机会。相反,借助“数字好撒马利亚人”机制,免责制度鼓励网络服务提供者自发地参与网络生态治理,为其创造更具弹性的政策空间。在认定免责主体时,宜将其外延限定为从事中介型服务的网络服务提供者,采用“实质贡献”而非“编辑职能”作为丧失免责资格的判断依据。最后,提出我国基于网络信息内容性质与网络服务性质的不同,构建梯度化的免责标准的建议。

The international community generally adopts a stance of“immunity as the rule,liability as the exception”regarding the indirect infringement by Internet service providers.While existing legislation in China can serve the function of immunity,it is not strictly an immunity regime.This is mainly due to imposing a general duty of care on Internet service providers and making joint liability the legal consequence of breaching this duty.Following the logic of immunity does not mean providing Internet service providers with more opportunities to shirk responsibility.On the contrary,through a“digital good Samaritan”mechanism,the immunity regime encourages Internet service providers to voluntarily participate in the governance of the Internet ecosystem,thus creating a more flexible policy space for them.When determining the subjects of immunity,it is advisable to limit their scope to Internet service providers which engage in intermediary services and to use“material contribution”rather than“editorial function”as the criteria for losing immunity eligibility.Finally,it is recommended that China should establish a vertical immunity standard based on the different nature of online content and Internet services.