网络服务提供者承担连带责任的缺陷与重构

发布时间：2018-01-08 12:39

本文关键词：网络服务提供者承担连带责任的缺陷与重构　出处：《武汉大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：网络服务提供者实施侵权行为主要分为两种方式,一种是网络服务提供者本身积极主动并在其"故意侵权谋利"的主观意图支配下独立实施侵权行为或者事先与他人"共谋"并积极主动实施侵权行为;另一种是侵权用户利用网络服务提供者提供的"信息平台"、"存储空间"实施某种侵权行为,网络服务提供者在收到被侵权人的通知后没有及时采取有效的制止措施或者在"知道"侵权行为存在后消极不作为,造成侵权结果的进一步扩大,此时这种消极不作为也是一种侵权行为。在前一种侵权行为中,独立实施的行为承担自己责任,与他人积极共谋的行为承担连带责任,在理论界不存在争议。对于网络服务提供者后一种侵权行为,我国《侵权责任法》第36条第2款和第3款规定其应当承担连带责任,但是仅因为其对网络用户实施侵权行为具有"表象帮助",其为网络用户实施侵权行为创造了条件,就认为两行为之间构成共同侵权并承担连带责任在理论界存在争议。本文从司法审判案例出发,提出对连带责任制度①的质疑,并从理论和司法实践两个方面分析网络服务提供者承担连带责任的困境,进而提出本文观点,网络提供者应当根据其行为的过错程度承担按份责任。第一章主要通过在司法实践中"同案不同判"现象引出本文讨论话题,对于同是网络用户利用网络服务提供者提供的"信息平台"实施侵权行为,人民法院同是根据《侵权责任法》第36条第2款的规定进行裁判,但是一个判决网络服务提供者承担连带责任,一个判决网络服务提供者不承担连带责任。第二章主要讨论网络服务提供者承担连带责任的两个理论基础:共同侵权理论和政策理论。网络服务提供者与直接侵权用户在实施侵权行为时不存在主观上的意思联络,而且其造成的损害结果与网络侵权用户造成的损害结果是可分的,网络服务提供者与网络侵权用户不构成共同侵权。根据政策理论要求网络服务提供者承担连带责任有悖于公平正义理念。得出结论:网络服务提供者承担连带责任缺乏理论正当性。第三章主要分析网络服务提供者承担连带责任在司法适用中的困境。首先从人民法院角度分析存在四个困境,即法院忽略作为必要共同诉讼人的直接侵权行为人,法院在审判案件时对扩大损害部分难以界定,法院难以根据"知道"规则判断全部赔偿的范围,人民法院在审判网络侵权案件时,并没有将《侵权责任法》第36条作为裁判依据,或者即使将该规定作为裁判依据,但不再提及"共同位权"的字样。其次从网络服务提供者角度分析存在三个困境,即网络服务提供者在应诉时忽略直接侵权人,网络服务提供者追偿权难以实现,容易引发其与未实施侵权行为的网络用户的诉讼纠纷。得出结论:网络提供者承担连带责任在司法实践中不具有可行性。第四章主要分析网络服务提供者承担按份责任,分别从其合理性和可行性分析,并对该制度进行立法构建,将《侵权责任法》第36条第2款和第3款改为:网络服务提供者接到通知后未及时采取必要措施的,对损害的扩大部分与侵权用户各自承担相应的责任;网络服务提供者明知或者应知网络用户利用其网络服务侵害他人民事权益,未采取必要措施的,与该网络用户各自承担相应的责任。同时在确定具体赔偿数额时,最高人民法院进行司法解释时应当规定网络服务提供者因其消极不作为承担赔偿责任时,如果网络服务提供者获得了经济利益,且获得的利益易于计算,赔偿金额以其获利金额为准;如果网络服务提供者没有获得经济利益,或者获得的经济利益难以计算,则规定网络服务提供者承担的赔偿责任不得高于被侵权人所遭受经济损失的百分之四十,具体赔偿金额在该范围内,结合其他因素加以综合判断
[Abstract]:The Internet service provider tort is mainly divided into two ways, one is the network service providers themselves actively and in the "intentional tort profit" subjective intention under the control of independent implementation of tort or advance with others and actively implement the "conspiracy" tort; another is to provide users with internet service providers tort the "information platform", "space" to implement some kind of tort, the network service provider in the received notice of the infringer did not take timely and effective measures to stop or "know" tort exists after negative nonfeasance, to further expand the tort caused by the results, then this negative omission is a tort. In front of a tort, take their own responsibility independent of the implementation of the act, assume joint responsibility with others actively collusive behavior, there is no dispute in the theory circle. For network service providers after an infringement, China's "tort liability law > thirty-sixth and paragraph second of the provisions of the third paragraph should be jointly and severally liable, but only because of its appearance help users on the network to commit a tort, the infringement for network users to create the conditions that constitute the two joint tort between behavior and assume joint liability controversial in theory. In this paper, starting from the judicial case, questioned the joint liability system, and from two aspects of theory and judicial practice of network service providers bear joint liability dilemma, then proposed the viewpoint of this article, the network provider shall, according to the degree of fault to bear its behavior responsibility. The first chapter mainly through judicial practice in" somesentence "phenomenon leads to the topic of discussion, for the same network users using the network service provider. The implementation of the infringement for "information platform", the people's court is the same according to the provisions of paragraph second of the tort liability law > thirty-sixth, but a decision network service provider assume joint liability, joint liability does not assume a decision network service provider. The second chapter mainly discusses two theoretical basis of the network service provider jointly and severally responsibility: the common tort theory and policy theory. The network service provider and the user does not exist direct infringement on the subjective meaning of contact in the implementation of the infringement, and the damage caused by the results of network infringement damage caused by the user is separable, Internet service providers and network users do not constitute a joint tort tort according to the policy. Theory of network service providers jointly and severally liable is contrary to the idea of fairness and justice. Conclusion: the network service provider shall be jointly and severally liable the lack of reason The theory of legitimacy. The third chapter mainly analyzes the network service provider shall be jointly and severally liable in judicial application dilemma. First from the people's court analysis there are four difficulties, namely the court ignored as a direct infringement of the necessary joint action, the court case of expanding damage is difficult to define, the court according to "know" rule of full compensation, the people's court in the trial of network infringement cases, and no "tort liability law > thirty-sixth as the basis of decision, or if the provisions as the basis of decision, but no mention of" common right ". Secondly, there are three difficulties from the network service provider perspective, i.e. the network service provider to ignore the direct infringer in the respondent, the network service provider is difficult to achieve the right of recourse, and not easily lead to the implementation of the infringement of Internet users litigation Confused. Conclusion: network providers assume joint liability is not feasible in judicial practice. The fourth chapter mainly analyzes the network service providers bear the responsibility, from the rationality and feasibility analysis, and legislative construction of the system, the second and third paragraphs of "tort liability law > thirty-sixth to: network services after receiving the notice provider fails to take necessary measures, the expanded portion of the damages of tort and the user shall take their respective responsibility; the network service provider knows or should know he's rights against the Internet users through the network services, did not take the necessary measures, and the network users to bear their respective responsibilities. At the same time in determining the specific the amount of compensation, the Supreme People's court for judicial interpretation should be included in the network service provider because of its negative omission liability, if the network service provider For obtaining economic interests, and the benefits of easy to calculate, the amount of compensation is subject to the amount of profit; if the network service provider does not have access to economic interests or economic interests cannot be calculated, provides compensation responsibility of the Internet service providers shall not be higher than the infringee suffered economic losses of forty percent, the specific amount of compensation in this range, combined with other factors to comprehensive judgment

【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】