网络服务提供者连带责任的反思与重构  

Reflection and Amendment of Internet Service Provider(ISP) Joint Liability

作　　者：张凌寒[1] 

机构地区：[1]东北师范大学政法学院,吉林长春130117

出　　处：《河北法学》2014年第6期58-66,共9页Hebei Law Science

基　　金：吉林省社科基金项目<网络服务提供者侵权责任认定规则研究>(2012BS4);东北师范大学校内青年基金项目<物权法视野下的网络虚拟财产保护路径研究>(11QN055)的阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：《侵权责任法》第36条第2、3款规定了网络用户侵权,网络服务提供者因其不作为而承担连带责任。一般认为此种连带责任设置或因网络服务提供者帮助型共同侵权,或因保护受害人利益的政策考量。而网络服务提供者主观违反注意义务不构成帮助型共同侵权的主观要件,因果关系也不符合帮助型共同侵权的"一因一果",其与间接侵权中的"帮助侵权"被混淆;从政策考量角度,过于注重救济受害人而忽视了网络产业发展与公民言论自由。连带责任的设置从理论基础和政策考量都不具有正当性。网络服务提供者间接侵权应与侵权责任法第37条和第40条统一,规定为补充责任,既兼顾权利人利益和网络用户自由,也可以使负有不同程度注意义务的网络服务提供者承担不同的责任份额。Joint liability with the third person of ISP is represented by article 36 of Chinese Tort Liability Law. The ISP is considered to help-joint tort as a result they assume joint liability. Joint liability is also the policy of victim protection. However, ISP liability should not be joint liability. Firstly, the subjective fault is not intentionally help-contributory, but violates the duty of care. Secondly, causation is not ＇ one cause and one result＇ as joint liability would indicate. It is confused with the contributory infringement of indirect tort. Joint liability, as a legal policy, gives weight to victim protection, but neglects industry development and freedom of speech. Therefore Joint liability is not logical. The ISP liability should be supplementary liability, the same as article 37、40 of Chinese Tort Liability Law.

关 键 词：网络服务提供者 连带责任 帮助型共同侵权 立法政策 补充责任 

分 类 号：DF49[政治法律—经济法学]