一身专属性理论视角下的数字遗产继承  

Inheritance of Digital Heritage from the Perspective of Exclusive Theory

作　　者：张挺 Zhang Ting

机构地区：[1]杭州师范大学沈钧儒法学院

出　　处：《法学》2023年第2期120-134,共15页Law Science

基　　金：国家社科基金项目“网络平台信息内容审查处置权的私法规制路径研究”(项目编号:20CFX043)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：数字遗产的属性争论对于数字遗产可否继承并无实质意义,难以解释人格性数字遗产的可继承性问题。将数字遗产区分为财产性数字遗产和人格性数字遗产从而区分可否继承的分离理论难以自圆其说。我国《民法典》第1122条第2款“根据其性质不得继承”之规定应解释为具有一身专属性的数字遗产不得继承。以金钱给付以及可转化为金钱给付为权利义务的数字遗产可以继承,人格性数字遗产并非完全不能继承。网络服务合同中“不得继承”的格式条款并非当然无效,至于是否构成网络服务提供者的抗辩事由,则需要查明网络服务提供者和网络用户之间的信任、能力和技术状况,尊重网络用户的意思。通信秘密不能成为数字遗产继承的抗辩事由,而继承人可能侵害被继承人死后人格权的要件事实可以作为网络服务提供者的抗辩事由。The debate on the attributes of digital heritage has no substantial value on whether digital heritage can be inherited, and it is difficult to explain the inheritability of personal digital heritage. It is difficult to justify the separation theory of distinguishing digital heritage into property digital heritage and personality digital heritage. Article 1122(2) of the Civil Code stipulates that “it shall not be inherited according to its nature”, which should be interpreted to mean that the exclusive digital heritage shall not be inherited. The digital inheritance of rights and obligations that can be transformed into monetary payments can be inherited, but the personality digital heritage is not completely uninheritable. The standard clause of “non-inheritance” in the network service contract is not of course invalid, whether it constitutes a defense for the network service provider, it is necessary to identify the trust, ability and technical status between the network service provider and the network user, and respect the meaning of the network user. Communication secrecy cannot be a defense for the inheritance of digital heritage, and the essential fact that the inheritor may infringe upon the posthumous personality rights can be a defense for network service providers.

关 键 词：数字遗产 一身专属性 死后人格权 通信秘密 

分 类 号：D923.5[政治法律—民商法学]