[ 謝雪凱 ]——(2013-11-21) / 已閱18329次
[42]Gershcwin Publ's Corp.vColumbia Artists Mgmt., Inc，443 F.2d 1159, 1162 （2d Cir. 1971）;Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction,Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 264 （9th Cir. 1996）;Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 （9th Cir. 2004）.
[43]Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, § 12（1）：The words “should know” are used throughout the Restatement of this Subject to denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence or of the superior intelligence of the actor would ascertain the fact in question in the performance of his duty to another, or would govern his conduct upon the assumption that such fact exists.
[44]DMCA's knowledge standard “differs from existing law, under whichadefendant may be liable for contributory infringement if it knows or should have known that the material was infringing.” See House of Representatives, Report 105-796, 105th Congress,2d Session, 1998, p25.
[45]值得注意的是，最高人民法院在《關于審理侵犯信息網絡傳播權民事糾紛案件適用法律若干問題的規(guī)定》（征求意見稿）第8條中結合審判實踐列舉出判斷“明知”和“應知”的具體情形：可以根據案件的具體情況、網絡服務提供者提供服務的性質、方式及其引發(fā)侵權的可能性大小，綜合考慮以下因素：（一）網絡服務提供者應當具備的管理信息的能力；（二）傳播的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的類型、知名度及侵權信息的明顯程度；（二）網絡服務提供者因傳播作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的直接獲利情況；（四）網絡服務提供者是否主動對作品、表演、錄音錄像制品進行了選擇、編輯、修改、推薦等；（五）網絡服務提供者是否采取了同行業(yè)普遍采取的、預防侵權的技術措施，對侵權通知是否做出合理的反應；（六）網絡服務提供者是否針對同一作品的重復侵權行為采取了相應的合理措施……殊值借鑒。
出處:《東方法學》2013年第2期
總共3頁 [1] [2] 3
上一頁
