版权过滤认定为“必要措施”的解释论反思与矫正  

Interpretative Reflection and Correction of Copyright Filtering as a"Necessary Measure"

作　　者：焦和平[1] 梁龙坤 Jiao Heping;Liang Longkun

机构地区：[1]西安交通大学法学院

出　　处：《知识产权》2025年第1期76-93,共18页Intellectual Property

基　　金：2024年陕西省社会科学基金“为谱写中国式现代化陕西新篇章提供更优质法治保障研究”专项项目(项目编号:2024FS09);中国版权保护中心2024年度版权研究课题“面向生成式人工智能发展的著作权规则体系完善研究”(项目编号:BQ2024003)。

摘　　要：“通知—删除”规则是网络版权治理的重要制度。司法实践和理论研究中均有观点认为,该规则中的“必要措施”包含版权过滤这一防范侵权措施,由此导致网络服务提供者的版权过滤义务有进一步法定化解释的趋势。但在解释论视角下,法律适用中将“必要措施”解释为包含版权过滤,存在超越“必要措施”涵摄范围、改变法律条文体系定位、特殊规则普遍适用和架空“反通知”规范的意义等问题。合理解释“必要措施”,应从遵循体系解释规则、维护立法的体系设定、防范衍生普遍义务和受到“反通知”规则的限制四个方面把握。依循这一解释进路,应反思和调整“必要措施”的法律解释路径,以防范法律解释的合理空间异化为径行创设义务的造法风险。The"notice-and-takedown"rule constitutes a pivotal institutional provision within the domain of online copyright governance.Judicial practice and theoretical research have underscored the"necessary measures"delineated within this rule,including copyright filtering as a preventive measure against infringement.This has led to a trend of further statutory interpretation of the copyright filtering obligation of network service providers.However,from an interpretive perspective,the expansion of the"necessary measures"interpretation to encompass copyright filtering beyond the scope of"necessary measures"has the potential to alter the legal systemic positioning of legal provisions,generalize the application of special rules,and diminish the significance of"anti-notice"rules.A reasonable interpretation of"necessary measures"should be informed by four principles:adherence to the rules of systemic interpretation,safeguarding the systemic framework of the legislation,prevention of the derivation of general obligations,and limitation by the rule of"anti-notice."Adopting this interpretive approach,the legal interpretation of"necessary measures"requires critical reflection and adjustment to avoid the distortion of interpretive space to the risk of lawmaking through the arbitrary establishment of obligations.

关 键 词：过滤义务 必要措施 “通知—删除”规则 “避风港”规则 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]