摘要
通过分析典型案例,可以看到,中国避风港原则中通知删除程序的适用存在明显的不统一,司法界和学界对通知删除程序的理解和适用存在很大争议。争议主要集中在对明知或应知的理解不同;对注意义务的判定标准不同;对不合格通知的法律效力理解不同。网络服务商的注意义务主要应包括"红旗标准"所设定的注意义务、具有可实施性的善意审查义务、对可预见性侵权的审查义务。不合格通知的警示作用不能一概而论,根据不合格通知的侵权提示,若服务商可预见到侵权行为的存在,则应采取一定的审查或删除措施。
According to the analysis on some typical cases, it is noticed that obvious inconsistencies appearing in the application of ＂notice -takedown＂ （NTD）procedure in Safe Harbor Provision in China and considerable disputes exist in the understanding and application of NTD procedure in the judicial and academic world. The disputes are mostly from the different understanding of the ＂awareness＂ and the ＂should be aware＂, the diverse judging cri- teria for duty of care and the inconsistent understanding of the validity of unqualified notice. The duty of care on the internet service provider （ISP） should include the duty of care prescribed by the ＂Red Flag＂, the duty of practiea- ble goodwill examination and the duty of inspecting foreseeable infringements. The caution functions of unqualified notice should be treated accordingly, with reference to the infringement presentment of unqualified notice, the ISP should take certain steps to inspect or delete the information of infringement if it can be predicted.
出处
《嘉应学院学报》
2012年第4期44-47,共4页
Journal of Jiaying University
基金
广东省科技计划项目(2010B060400004)
关键词
避风港规则
通知删除程序
不合格通知
注意义务
Safe Harbor Provision
notice - takedown procedure
unqualified notice
duty of care
