panel 3 jiarui liu english chinese - stanford law school...
TRANSCRIPT
Jiarui Liu 刘家瑞 Assistant Professor of Law University of New Hampshire School of Law 新罕布什尔州立大学法学院助理教授 J.S.D. Candidate Stanford Law School 斯坦福大学法学院博士候选人 Email电邮: [email protected] Mobile移动电话号码: (650) 868-‐6516
� Does Chinese copyright law include any safe harbors for ISPs?
� 中国版权法上是否存在网络服务商避⻛风港? � Do the safe harbors provide extra protection for ISPs beyond traditional copyright law?
� 避⻛风港是否为网络服务商提供了附加保护? � Do ISPs have any incentive to comply with the requirement under the safe harbors?
� 网络服务商是否有动力遵守避⻛风港的规定?
� First generation cases – direct liability � 第一代案例 – 直接责任
� Sony v. Chinamp3 (新力唱片(香港)有限公司诉北京世纪悦博科技有限公司, (2004)一中民初字第428号)
� Pushsound v. Baidu (2005) (上海步升音乐文化传播有限公司诉北京百度网讯科技有限公司,(2005)海民初字第14665号)
� Second generation cases – no liability � 第二代案例 – 无责任
� Sony BMG v. Baidu (2006)(SONY BMG音乐娱乐(香港)有限公司诉北京百度网讯科技有限公司,(2005)一中民初字第10170号)
� Third generation cases – indirect liability
� 第三代案例 – 间接责任 � Sony BMG v. Yahoo! China (2007)(SONY
BMG音乐娱乐(香港)有限公司诉北京阿里巴巴信息技术有限公司,(2007)高民终字第1239号)
� Observations and Comments � 分析评论
� US influences � 美国的影响
� 1995 White Paper (Intellectual Property and National Information Infrastructure)
� Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-‐Line Communication Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
� Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (“incorporation Test” and “server test”)
� Strict liability v. indirect liability � 严格责任与间接责任
� Linking ≠ network communication � 链接不等于网络传播 � Contributory infringement � 帮助侵权
� Subjective fault � 主观上的过错
� Actual knowledge v. constructive knowledge � 明知与应知
� Leading cases � 相关典型案例
� Ci Wen v. Shu Lian (2008) (北京慈文影视制作有限公司诉广州数联软件技术有限公司(2006)粤高法民三终字第355 号)
� Zhong Kai v. Shu Lian (2008) (广东中凯文化发展有限公司诉广州数联软件技术有限公司(2008)沪高民三(知)终字第7号)
� Pushsound v. Kuro (2006) (上海步升音乐文化传播有限公司诉北京⻜飞行网音乐软件开发有限公司 (2005)二中民初字第13739号)
� Observations and Comments � 分析评论
� US influences � 美国的影响 � A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001) � MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005)
� Contributory infringement (Napster) � 帮助侵权
� Three-‐element test � 三步分析法 � “Capable of substantial non-‐infringing uses” & actual knowledge � 实质性非侵权用途与明知 � No patent counterpart under Chinese law � 中国专利法无相关概念
� Inducement infringement (Grokster) � 诱导侵权
� Advertisement & no filtering � 广告和无过滤 � Inducing what infringement? – uploading v. downloading � 诱导如何侵权 – 上载和下载 � Downloading is not infringement under Chinese Copyright Law � 下载不构成侵权
� Leading cases � 相关典型案例
� Xin Chuan v. Quan Tu Dou (2008) (新传在线(北京)信息技术有限公司诉上海全土豆网科技有限公司(2008)沪高民三(知)终字第62号)
� Wang Le v. Quan Tu Dou (2009) (网乐互联(北京)科技有限公司诉上海全土豆网络科技有限公司,(2009)沪一中民五(知)终字第19号)
� Hai Dao v. Qian Jun (2010) (上海海岛投资管理咨询有限公司诉广州市千钧网络科技有限公司等,(2010)二中民终字第06109号)
� Observations and Comments: � 分析评论
� Comparable US cases with opposite outcomes � 相关美国案例
� Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F. 3d (2nd Cir. 2012)
� UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners (9th Cir. 2013)
� Three elements absent in the US cases: � 三点不同之处
� Duty of censorship � 审查的义务 � Separate channels for “TV Shows and Movies” and
“Originals” � 电影电视频道和原创频道的区分 � General knowledge that the infringing content is
prevalent in certain channels gives rise to a legal duty to affirmatively monitor the uploaded content therein
� 一般性知晓侵权普遍存在可产生对上载内容的主动审查义务
� Safe harbors are usually unavailable � WHY?
� 为何上述案例均未提及避⻛风港?
� Safe Harbor III (Article 22) – Hosting (comparable to §512(c)) � 存储提供商的避⻛风港
� Indicates that the information storage space is provided for users and publishes its own name, contact person and IP address;
� 明确标示该信息存储空间是为服务对象所提供,并公开网络服务提供者的名称、联系人、网络地址
� Does not modify the content uploaded; � 未改变服务对象所提供的作品、表演、录音录像制品 � Does not know and has no reason to know the infringement
(“red flag” ); � 不知道也没有合理的理由应当知道服务对象提供的作品、表演、录音录像制品侵权
� Does not obtain any direct economic benefit; and � 未从服务对象提供作品、表演、录音录像制品中直接获得经济利益 � Promptly removes the infringing content upon receipt of
notification � 在接到权利人的通知书后,根据本条例规定删除权利人认为侵权的作品、表演、录音录像制品
� Safe Harbor IV (Article 23) – Information Location Tool (comparable to §512(d))
� 搜索引擎避⻛风港 � Not liable for any damages if it promptly
removes the link to the infringing content upon receipt of notification
� 在接到权利人的通知书后,根据本条例规定断开与侵权的作品、表演、录音录像制品的链接的,不承担赔偿责任
� Notwithstanding, it should assume joint and several liability if it knows or should know the infringement
� 但是,明知或者应知所链接的作品、表演、录音录像制品侵权的,应当承担共同侵权责任
� Limitation of liability or rule for liability? � 免责条件还是归责条件?
Thank You! 谢谢您