摘要
杭州互联网法院近期对我国首例小程序侵权案作出一审判决。本案争议的焦点问题在于小程序类平台是否符合'网络自动接入(传输)服务提供者'主体要件,以及是否承担'通知—删除'义务。立足我国法律规定和司法实践,借鉴'避风港'制度源起的美国相关法律规定、立法解释和相关判例,结合对网络自动接入(传输)服务提供者的主体界定、驶入'避风港'的资格门槛等的深入辨析,不应将小程序类平台简单地认定为'网络自动接入(传输)服务提供者'。同时根据网络服务提供者在特定侵权活动中的多重角色,应关注多重规制的存在,特别是注意与新实施的《电子商务法》电商平台知识产权保护规则相衔接。
Recently,Hangzhou Internet Court made a first instance judgment on the earliest mini program infringement case.The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the Mini Program platform conforms main requirements of'internet automatic access(transmission)service provider'and whether it should undertake the obligation of'notification-delete'.Based on the legislative provisions and judicial practice of our country,we further learn from relevant legal provisions,legislative history and precedents of the United States as the origin of the'safe harbor'system thus make an in-depth analysis on the definition of'internet automatic access(transmission)service providers'and qualification threshold of entering the'safe harbor',then it is believed that mini program platform cannot be simply identified as'internet automatic access(transmission)service provider'.At the same time,according to the multiple roles of the internet service provider in specific infringing activity,we should pay attention to the existence of multiple regulations,especially the new implementation of e-commerce platform intellectual property protection rules in the'E-commerce Law'.
出处
《北方法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2019年第5期26-37,共12页
Northern Legal Science
基金
国家留学基金资助和支持
关键词
小程序平台
避风港制度
网络自动接入(传输)服务
电子商务
mini program platform
safe harbor system
internet automatic access(transmission)service
provider e-commence
作者简介
李小草,北京航空航天大学法学院博士研究生,加州大学伯克利分校访问学者,中国法制出版社编辑。
