中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護(hù)

TheIPJudicialProtectioninChina

夏君麗XiaJunliBerkeley,Oct.2012Fortheconferenceonly,nofurtherdistribution中國(guó)法院層級(jí)系統(tǒng)

HierarchyofCourtSystem–China中華人民共和國(guó)最高人民法院TheSupremePeople’sCourt,PRC32個(gè)高級(jí)人民法院32HighPeople’sCourts10個(gè)海事法院10MaritimeCourts406個(gè)中級(jí)人民法院406IntermediatePeople’sCourts3122個(gè)基層人民法院3122PrimaryPeople’sCourts中國(guó)人民解放軍軍事法院ThePeople’sLiberationArmy’sMilitaryCourt各大軍區(qū)、各軍兵種軍事法院TheMilitaryCourtsoftheMilitaryAreasandMilitaryServices基層軍事法院ThePrimaryMilitaryCourts

兩審終審制度

Two-TierAppellateSystem人民法院審理案件，實(shí)行兩審終審制度。Thecasewillendwhenitundergoesthetrialsoftwolevelofcourtsandthedecisionmadebythesecondtrialcourtwillcomeintoforce.當(dāng)事人對(duì)已經(jīng)發(fā)生法律效力的判決、裁定認(rèn)為有錯(cuò)誤，可以向上一級(jí)人民法院申請(qǐng)?jiān)賹彛煌Ｖ古袥Q裁定的執(zhí)行。Ifapartyconsidersthatalegallyeffectivejudgmentororderhassomeerror,hemayapplytoapeople’scourtatthenexthigherlevelforretrial;however,theexecutionofthejudgmentor

ordershallnotbesuspended.

知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判庭

IPTribunals最高人民法院、高級(jí)人民法院和中級(jí)人民法院普遍設(shè)立知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判庭。TheIPtribunalsaregenerallysetupintheSupremePeople’scourt,highpeople’scourtsandintermediatepeople’scourts.129個(gè)基層人民法院經(jīng)最高人民法院批準(zhǔn)，可以管轄商標(biāo)、著作權(quán)、不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)案件。3個(gè)試點(diǎn)基層法院可以審理實(shí)用新型和外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利糾紛案件。WiththeapprovaloftheSupremePeople’sCourt,129primarypeople’scourtsmayhavejurisdictionovertrademark,copyrightandunfaircompetitioncases.3pilotprimarycourtsmayhearthedisputecasesofutilitymodelsanddesignpatents.共有從事知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判的法官2000多名Thereareover2,000IPjudges.最高人民法院知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭

IPTribunaloftheSupremePeople’sCourt審理著作權(quán)、商標(biāo)權(quán)、專利權(quán)、不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、技術(shù)合同、植物新品種、不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)等第一審、第二審知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件FirstandsecondinstanceofIntellectualPropertycasesforcopyright,trademarkright,patentright,unfaircompetition,technicalcontract,newvarietyofplant,etc.不服下級(jí)人民法院生效裁判的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)民事再審案件；IPcivilretrialcasesforrefusingtoaccepttheeffectivejudgmentsoflowerpeople’scourts;不服北京高級(jí)人民法院生效的商標(biāo)、專利授權(quán)確權(quán)類知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行政再審案件IPadministrativeretrialcasesforrefusingtoacceptthetrademarkandpatentauthorizationandrightconfirmationoftheBeijingHigherPeople’sCourt.

司法解釋

JudicialInterpretation

制定司法解釋MakingJudicialInterpretationisoneofthemethodsfortheSPCtofulfillitsfunctionofadjudicationguidance.在中國(guó)最高人民法院的判例不具有先例地位，但可以作為下級(jí)法院裁判案件的指導(dǎo)和參考。TheSPC’sjudgmentsandrulingsdonotpossessthestatusofprecedents,yettheycanserveasaguidanceandreferenceforthecourtsatlowerlevelsincasehearing.

司法解釋

JudicialInterpretation最高人民法院的司法解釋不是立法，而是對(duì)審判過(guò)程中如何具體應(yīng)用法律進(jìn)行的解釋，與法律具有同等效力，是法官辦案的直接依據(jù)。法院將司法解釋作為裁判依據(jù)的，應(yīng)當(dāng)在司法文書(shū)中援引。TheSPC’sjudicialinterpretationsarenotlegislationbutexplanationonhowtoapplythelawsinthetrailproceedings.Theyareofthesameeffectasthelawsandmayactasadirectbaseforthejudgesincasehandingandshouldbecitedinthejudicialdocuments.司法解釋

JudicialInterpretation自2000年以來(lái)，根據(jù)入世和建設(shè)創(chuàng)新型國(guó)家的需要，制定了23件知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的司法解釋。Since2000,23IntellectualPropertyjudicialinterpretationshavebeenmadebasedontherequirementsofentryintotheWTOandconstructionofaninnovationcountry.涉及案件管轄、保全、訴前臨時(shí)禁令等程序性規(guī)定，也涉及專利、商標(biāo)、著作權(quán)、不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、反壟斷、技術(shù)合同、馳名商標(biāo)保護(hù)的侵權(quán)判定等法律適用問(wèn)題。Theseinterpretationsarerelatedtotheproceduralregulationsoncasejurisdiction,preservation,pre-judgmentinterlocutoryinjunction,etc.andtheapplicationoflawforjudgingtheinfringementoftheprotectionofpatent,trademark,copyright,unfaircompetition,anti-trust,technicalcontractandwell-knowntrademark.正在起草關(guān)于信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的司法解釋。Thejudicialinterpretationonrightcommunicationthroughinformationnetworkisbeingdrafted.司法解釋稿的主要內(nèi)容

TheMainContentoftheDraftJudicialInterpretation意見(jiàn)稿共22條，對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶、網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者侵犯著作權(quán)行為，以及侵權(quán)認(rèn)定情形做出規(guī)定。ThedraftofApril2012provideshowtodeterminetheinfringementandcivilliabilityifthenetworkusersandNSPsinfringeRCIN.基本原則：人民法院審理侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)民事糾紛案件，在行使裁量權(quán)時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)兼顧權(quán)利人、網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者和社會(huì)公眾的利益平衡。Thebasicprinciple:InthecourseoftrialsofcivildisputesrelatedtoinfringementsofRCIN,thePeople'sCourtsshallbalancetheinterestsamongrightowners,networkserviceproviders(“NSP”)andthepublicwhenexercisingtheirdiscretion.信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)及提供行為

RCINandActofProviding意見(jiàn)稿指出，網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶、網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者未經(jīng)許可，通過(guò)信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)提供他人享有權(quán)利的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)判令其承擔(dān)侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的民事責(zé)任。ThePeople’sCourtsshallberesponsibleformakingrulingsandordersthatnetworkusersandNSPswhoprovideworks,performances,audioandvideoproductsofothersthoughinformationnetworkswithoutauthorizationmustbearcivilliabilityforinfringementsofRCIN.上傳到網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)器或者以其他方式，將作品、表演、錄音錄像制品置于向公眾開(kāi)放的信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)中，使公眾可以以下載、瀏覽或者其他方式獲得的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定其構(gòu)成作品、表演或者錄音錄像制品的提供行為。Whereworks,performances,andaudioandvideoproductsofothersthatareplacedonapublicly-accessibleinformationnetworkthroughuploadingtonetworkserversorinanothermannerbecomeavailabletothepublicthroughdownloading,browsingorothermeans,thePeople’sCourtsshalldeterminethatsuchactsconstituteanactofprovidingworks,performances,andaudio-visualproducts.提供行為的例外

ExceptiontoActofProviding

原告能夠舉證證明網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者具有提供作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的外觀，人民法院可以認(rèn)定其實(shí)施了提供行為，但網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者能夠證明其僅為被訴侵權(quán)的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品提供了自動(dòng)接入、自動(dòng)傳輸、信息存儲(chǔ)空間、搜索、鏈接、點(diǎn)對(duì)點(diǎn)技術(shù)等服務(wù)的除外。WhereaplaintiffcanprovethatanNSPappearstohaveprovidedawork,performance,oraudio-visualproduct,thePeople’sCourtsmaydeterminethattheNSPhascommittedtheactof“providinga[work]”,providedhoweverthattheNSPcanprovethatitmerelyprovidedservicessuchasautomaticaccess,automatictransmission,informationhosting,searching,linking,orpoint-to-pointtechnologyfortheallegedlyinfringedwork,performance,audio-visualproduct.網(wǎng)頁(yè)快照和縮略圖的合理使用

FairUsetoWebPagesandThumbnailImages

網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者為提供搜索服務(wù)，按照一定的技術(shù)安排生成作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的網(wǎng)頁(yè)快照、縮略圖等并向公眾提供的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定其構(gòu)成提供行為。WhereanNSPusescertaintechniquestogeneratecachedwebpagesorthumbnailimagesofworks,performances,oraudio-visualproductsforthepurposesofprovidingsearchingserviceandmakesthemavailabletothepublic,thePeople’sCourtsshalldeterminesuchactsas“providing[works]”.前款規(guī)定行為未影響作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的正常使用，亦未不合理?yè)p害權(quán)利人對(duì)作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的合法權(quán)益，網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者主張其構(gòu)成合理使用的，人民法院應(yīng)予支持。Whereanactspecifiedintheprecedingparagraphneitheraffectthenormalexploitationofthework,performance,oraudio-visualproductnorunreasonablyprejudicesthelegitimateinterestsofrightownersintheirwork,performances,oraudio-visualproducts,iftheNSPclaimsthattheactconstitutesfairuse,thePeople’sCourtsshallsupporttheclaim.

共同侵權(quán)行為承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任

JointInfringementandJointandSeveralLiability網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者主張其僅提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間、搜索、鏈接、點(diǎn)對(duì)點(diǎn)技術(shù)等網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)，但有證據(jù)證明其與侵權(quán)作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的提供者，通過(guò)分工合作等方式共同實(shí)施提供行為，符合共同侵權(quán)行為要件的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)判令其承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。

WhereanNSPclaimsthatitmerelyprovidednetworkservicessuchasinformationhosting,search,linking,andpoint-to-pointtechnologies,ifthereisevidenceprovingthattheNSP,inthemannerofdivisionoflabor,cooperation,etc.,jointlycommitstheactofprovidinginfringingworks,performance,audio-visualproductswiththeprovidersofthesame,andiftheactmeettheconditionsforafindingofjointinfringement,thePeople’sCourtsshallordertheNSPtobearjointandseveralliability.連帶責(zé)任和幫助侵權(quán)

網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間、搜索、鏈接、點(diǎn)對(duì)點(diǎn)技術(shù)等網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)時(shí)，教唆或者幫助網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶實(shí)施侵犯他人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)行為的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)判令其承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者明知或者應(yīng)知其網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶侵害他人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定其構(gòu)成幫助侵權(quán)行為。WhereanNSPwhoprovidesinternetservicessuchasstorage,hosting,search,linkingandpoint-to-pointtechnology,instigatesorassistsnetworkuserstocommitanactofinfringementagainsttheRCIN,thePeople’sCourtshallholdtheNSPjointlyandseverallyliable.WheretheNSPknowsorshouldhaveknownthatitsnetworkuserswereinfringinguponRCIN,thePeople’sCourtshalldeterminetheNSP’sacttoconstituteassistanceofinfringement.

JointandSeveralLiabilityandAssistanceofInfringement過(guò)錯(cuò)的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

Determinationof“Fault”判斷網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者是否具有過(guò)錯(cuò)，一般應(yīng)當(dāng)以其是否明知或者應(yīng)知網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶侵犯他人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的具體事實(shí)為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的具體事實(shí)明顯，網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者仍為其提供服務(wù)或者不采取合理措施的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定其構(gòu)成應(yīng)知。IndeterminingwhetherornotanNSPhasfault,thePeople’sCourtsshallgenerallymakeadeterminationbasedonthestandardofwhetherornottheNSPkneworshouldhaveknownoftheconcretefactsrelatedofitsnetworkuser’sinfringementofanother’sRCIN.Wheretheconcretefactsprovingtheinfringementbyanetworkuserofanother’sRCINareobvious,iftheNSPcontinuestoprovideservicesorfailstoadoptreasonablemeasures,thePeople’sCourtshallfindthattheNSPshouldhaveknown[i.e.,constructiveknowledgeexists].明知應(yīng)知的考慮因素

FactorsofKnowledge認(rèn)定網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者是否明知或者應(yīng)知其提供服務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶侵害他人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)，可以根據(jù)案件的具體情況、網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者提供服務(wù)的性質(zhì)、方式及其引發(fā)侵權(quán)的可能性大小，綜合考慮以下因素：WhendeterminingwhetheranNSPkneworshouldhaveknownthatthenetworkuserservedbyanNSPhasinfringedanotherperson’sRCIN,thePeople’sCourtmayrefertothespecificcircumstancesofthecases,thenatureandmeansoftheservicesprovidedbytheNSPandthelikelihoodofinfringement,andtakeintoaccountthefollowingfactors:

（一）網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者應(yīng)當(dāng)具備的管理信息的能力；thecapabilitiesofinformationmanagementoftheNSP;（二）傳播的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的類型、知名度及侵權(quán)信息的明顯程度；thetypesanddegreeoffameofthedisseminatedworks,performanceoraudio-videorecordingproducts,andthelevelofobviousnessoftheinformation(indicatingthe)infringement;（三）網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者因傳播作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的直接獲利情況；thesituationwithrespecttotheNSP’sdirectbenefitsderivedfromdisseminationofworks,performance,oraudioandvideorecordingproducts;（四）網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者是否主動(dòng)對(duì)作品、表演、錄音錄像制品進(jìn)行了選擇、編輯、修改、推薦等；whethertheNSPproactivelytakesactions,suchasselection,editing,modification,recommendation,etc.,ofworks,performances,oraudio-videorecordingproducts;（五）網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者是否采取了同行業(yè)普遍采取的、預(yù)防侵權(quán)的技術(shù)措施、對(duì)侵權(quán)通知是否做出合理的反應(yīng)；whethertheNSPadoptscommonly-adoptedindustrypracticesandinfringementpreventiontechnologicalmeasures,andwhethertheNSPmakesreasonablereactionstonotificationsofinfringement（六）網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者是否針對(duì)同一作品的重復(fù)侵權(quán)行為采取了相應(yīng)的合理措施；whethertheNSPadoptsreasonablemeasurestoaddressrepeatinfringementsofthesame work;（七）其他相關(guān)情形。otherrelevantcircumstances.不具有過(guò)錯(cuò)的考慮因素

FactorsforNoFault網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者未對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶侵害他人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的行為進(jìn)行主動(dòng)審查的，人民法院一般不將其作為網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者具有過(guò)錯(cuò)的考量因素。。

WhereanNSPdoesnotcarryoutaproactivereviewofactofinfringementsofRCINsbynetworkusers,asageneralrule,thePeople’sCourtwillnotconsiderthisasafactorinfindingfaultbytheNSP.網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者主動(dòng)采取相關(guān)技術(shù)措施，防止侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)行為發(fā)生的，人民法院可以根據(jù)案件具體情況，將其作為認(rèn)定網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者不具有過(guò)錯(cuò)的考量因素。WhereanNSPproactivelyadoptsrelevanttechnologicalmeasurestopreventtheoccurrenceofinfringementsofRCINs,thePeople’sCourtsmay,inaccordancewiththeactualcircumstances,considerthisasafactorwhendeterminingthattheNSPdoesnothavefault.網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者采取合理、有效的技術(shù)措施，仍難以發(fā)現(xiàn)侵權(quán)行為的，人民法院一般不認(rèn)定其明知或者應(yīng)知網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶侵害他人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)WhereanNSPhasadoptedreasonableandeffectivetechnologicalmeasures,butitisdifficulttodiscoverinfringements,thePeople’sCourtsshouldgenerallynotfindthattheNSPkneworshouldhaveknownthatitsnetworkusersinfringedtheRCINsofothers.

搜索引擎服務(wù)的應(yīng)知

“ShouldHaveKnown”ofSearchEngine網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者僅通過(guò)搜索引擎根據(jù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶指令自動(dòng)提供搜索結(jié)果鏈接的，人民法院一般不認(rèn)定其應(yīng)知他人利用其網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)侵害權(quán)利人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)。WhereanNSPmerelyprovidesautomaticsearchresultsthroughasearchenginebasedoncommandsmadebynetworkusers,thePeople’sCourtsshallgenerallynotdeterminethattheNSPsshouldhaveknownsomeoneelseusedtheirnetworkservicestoinfringetheRCINofarightholder.網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者有下列情形之一的，人民法院一般可以認(rèn)定其構(gòu)成應(yīng)知侵權(quán)：Asageneralrule,thePeople’sCourtmayfindtheNSP“shouldhaveknown”ofaninfringementinanyofthefollowingcircumstances:（一）通過(guò)對(duì)熱播影視作品、流行度較高的文字作品、音樂(lè)作品設(shè)置榜單、目錄、索引并提供深層鏈接服務(wù)的；providingrankinglists,catalogues,indexingandprovidingdeeplinkingservicesforcurrenthotbroadcastfilmsortelevisionprograms,literaryworksormusicworkswithrelativelyhighdegreeofpopularity;（二）通過(guò)描述性段落、內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介等方式對(duì)鏈接作品、表演、錄音錄像制品等進(jìn)行推薦的；recommendinglinkedworks,performances,recordingsandvideoworksandotherworksbymeansofdescriptiveparagraphs,introductorydescriptionofcontents,etc.;（三）為主要從事侵權(quán)活動(dòng)的第三方網(wǎng)站提供定向鏈接的；directingweblinkagetoathirdpartywebsitewhichismainlyengagedininfringingactivities;（四）可以認(rèn)定應(yīng)知的其他情形。othercircumstances.

信息存儲(chǔ)空間提供者的應(yīng)知

“ShouldHaveKnown”ofInformationHosting

有下列情形之一的，人民法院可以根據(jù)案件具體情況，認(rèn)定信息存儲(chǔ)空間的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者應(yīng)知網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶提供的被訴作品、表演、錄音錄像制品侵權(quán)：

Underthefollowingcircumstances,thePeople’sCourtsmayfindthataninformationhostingserviceprovidershouldhaveknownthattheworks,performanceoraudio-videorecordingproductsindisputeprovidedbyanetworkuserareinfringing:（一）將標(biāo)有明確的權(quán)利人、著作權(quán)保護(hù)權(quán)限等信息的內(nèi)容完整的熱播影視作品等，置于首頁(yè)、其他主要頁(yè)面等能夠?yàn)榫W(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者明顯感知位置的；placingcompletecopiesofhotcurrentfilmsorbroadcastingtelevisionprograms,etc.,whichareidentifiedwithclearinformation,suchasthe(thenameofthe)rightowners,limitationsoncopyrightauthorization,etc.,atanobviouslyperceptibleplacebytheNSP,suchasthehomepageandothermainpagesofwebsites.（二）對(duì)本條第（一）項(xiàng)熱播影視作品的主題、內(nèi)容主動(dòng)進(jìn)行選擇、編輯、整理、推薦，或者為其設(shè)立專門的排行榜的；proactivelyconductingselection,editing,organizingandrecommendationofthethemeorcontentofthehotshowing/airingfilmsortelevisionprogramsasreferredtoitem(1)hereof,orprovidingspecialrankingliststhereof;（三）其他可以明顯感知相關(guān)作品、表演、錄音錄像制品侵權(quán)性質(zhì)，仍未采取合理措施的情形anyothercircumstanceswheretheNSPcanobviouslyperceivethenatureoftheinfringementoftherelevantworksbutfailstotakereasonablemeasures. 信息存儲(chǔ)空間的無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)認(rèn)定

Determinationof“NoFault”ofInformationHosting提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶提供的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的下列改變情形，人民法院一般不認(rèn)定其具有過(guò)錯(cuò)：Underfollowingcircumstances,thePeople’sCourtsmaygenerallyfindthatanNSPofawebhostingservicedoesnothavefaultforthechangesmadetoworks,performancesoraudio-videorecordingproductsprovidedbyitsnetworkusers:（一）僅改變作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的存儲(chǔ)格式；merelymakingchangestothestorageformatsoftheworks,performanceoraudioandvideorecordingproducts;（二）對(duì)作品、表演、錄音錄像加注數(shù)字水印等網(wǎng)站標(biāo)識(shí)；addingwebsiteidentificationinformation,etc.,suchasdigitalwatermarkstoworks,performances,audio-videorecordingproducts;（三）其他不足以認(rèn)定構(gòu)成過(guò)錯(cuò)的改變行為。anyotherchanges[byNSPs]thatareinsufficienttobedeterminedasconstituting“fault”.直接經(jīng)濟(jì)利益與過(guò)錯(cuò)的認(rèn)定

DirectEcnomicInterestandDeterminationofFault

提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者從其網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶提供的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品中直接獲得經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的，人民法院可以推定其對(duì)該網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶侵害信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的行為具有過(guò)錯(cuò)。

Whereaninformationhostingserviceproviderobtainsdirectfinancialbenefitsfromtheworks,performanceoraudio-videorecordingproductsprovidedbyitsnetworkusers,thePeople’sCourtsmayassumethattheNSPhasfaultfortheactofinfringementofRCINsconductedbyitsnetworkusers.提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者按照時(shí)間、流量等向其服務(wù)對(duì)象收取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)費(fèi)用的，不屬于前款規(guī)定的直接獲得經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的情形。WheretheNSPofawebhostingservicechargesstandardfeestoitscustomersbasedondatavolumeorduration,itsrevenueshallnotbedeemedas“directlyobtainingfinancialbenefits”asprovidedintheprecedingparagraph.網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者因提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間服務(wù)而收取的廣告費(fèi)，一般不認(rèn)定為直接獲取的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者針對(duì)特定作品、表演、錄音錄像制品投放廣告所獲取的收益，或者有其他證據(jù)證明與提供作品、表演、錄音錄像制品存在特定聯(lián)系的獲利，可以根據(jù)案件具體情況認(rèn)定為直接獲得的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。Whereaninformationhostingserviceproviderchargesadvertisingfeesforitshostingservices,asageneralrule,thePeople’sCourtshouldnotfind[thatcollectingtheadvertisementfeeconstitutes]“directfinancialbenefits”.WheretheNSPderivesbenefitsfromadvertisementtargetingatspecificworks,performanceoraudioandvideorecordingproducts,orthereisotherevidenceshowingspecificconnectionbetweenbenefitsandthemakingavailableofspecificworks,performanceoraudioandvideorecordingproducts,thePeople’sCourtsmay,basedonthespecificcircumstancesofthecase,determinethattheNSPobtaineddirectfinancialbenefits.通知Notification

權(quán)利人向網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者提交的刪除或斷開(kāi)鏈接的通知應(yīng)當(dāng)符合法律、行政法規(guī)的特別規(guī)定。權(quán)利人提交的通知未告知被訴侵權(quán)的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的網(wǎng)絡(luò)地址，但網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者根據(jù)該通知的內(nèi)容已足以對(duì)其進(jìn)行準(zhǔn)確定位的，可以視為該通知符合法律、行政法規(guī)的要求。

Thenotificationofdeletionordisconnectionoflinksshouldcomplywithspecialrulesoflawsandadministrativeregulations.Whereanotificationsentbyrightownerdoesnotindicatethenetworkaddressesoftheallegedinfringingworks,performance,audioandvideorecordingproducts,iftheNSPisalreadyabletomakeaccurateidentificationbasedonthecontentofthenotifications,suchnotificationshallberegardedashavingcompliedwiththerequirementsoflawsandadministrativeregulations.

認(rèn)定是否能夠足以準(zhǔn)確定位，應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮所涉網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)的類型、要求刪除或者斷開(kāi)鏈接的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的文件類型以及作品、表演、錄音錄像制品是否具有特定性等因素。Todeterminewhetherserviceprovidersareabletoaccuratelyidentify[infringingmaterials],thePeople’sCourtsshouldconsiderfactors,suchasthetypeofinternetservices,theformatoffilesoftheworks,performances,audio-videorecordingproductstobedeletedordisconnected,etc.,andconsiderfactorssuchasthespecificnatureoftheworks,performances,audio-videorecordingproducts,etc.網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者接到權(quán)利人符合法律、行政法規(guī)要求的通知，未在合理期限內(nèi)采取刪除、屏蔽、斷開(kāi)鏈接等必要措施的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定其明知或者應(yīng)知通知所定位的侵權(quán)行為。WhereanNSPreceivesarightowner’snotificationthatcomplieswithlawsandadministrativeregulations,iftheNSPfailstotakenecessarymeasures,suchasdeleting,blockingordisconnecting,withinareasonabletimethePeople’sCourtsshallfindtheNSP“kneworshouldhaveknown”oftheinfringingactsidentifiedandindicatedinthenotification.來(lái)自美國(guó)的關(guān)注

CommentsfromtheUSA美國(guó)全國(guó)商會(huì)全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)中心

U.SChamberofCommerceGlob