A Comparative Study On The Rules Of "notice" And "delete" In Sino-us Safe Harbor System

Technology is the driving forces of the development of copyright legal system. In today's society, digital technologies and the development of Internet has brought a comprehensive and profound impact on copyright protection, under the network environment, how to protect the interests of the copyright holders has become important issues for copyright legal system of all countries.In the information society, on the one hand, it's necessary to protect the interests of the copyright holder, and infringe sanctions acts of copyright networks; on the other hand, in order to promote and protect the healthy development of information industry, it is necessary to appropriate service providers to reduce the responsibility of the network. Based on the needs of this reality, the United States first introduced a mechanism to resolve this issue, that is, "safe haven system" to establish that the system lies in the "notice and delete" rule. Intermediary as a result of network service providers cannot afford to carry out prior review of content, general information prior to the existence of knowledge of infringement, it adopted a "notice and delete" rules, the intermediary of the network service provider responsible for indirect infringement of the restriction is realistic and feasible. China has also promulgated in May 2006 the "right to the protection of information network dissemination of regulations," and specifically the spread of a network of "safe haven principle", the core content from the practice of the United States set up to deal with infringement dispute "notice and delete" simple procedure . The introduction of this procedure in promoting the economic development of China's network has a positive meaning. On the one hand, it can be used in indirect responsibility in that, to some extent one can know that the illegal infringement of third parties and is conducive to the interests of copyright owners; on the other hand, it helps enable network service providers from a day search and judged them to be violations of the activities associated with the liberation of more beneficial to the growth of network service providers.The purpose of this article, is formulate the "notice and delete" rules both of China and the United States through case analysis and comparison of applicable in practice, relevant legislation and its meaning, and pointed out the imperfections of China's copyright legislation in the network, and the reasonable measures to avoid the legislative services for the network to provide "safe harbor" alienation as a "storm angle."The first chapter introduces the "notice and delete" rules in the United States the provisions of relevant legislation; the second chapter of legislation and judicial practice from two perspectives on China's "notice and delete" rules; the third chapter of the Sino-US the rules of the specific meaning of a comparative analysis, and pointed out that the existence of the rules of the inadequacies; Chapter IV pointed out that the "notice and delete" the rules that exist in practice, such as whether the failure to inform the network of service providers to set up subjective the "knowledge and should know", as well as the relevant parties under the rules of the real balance of interests achieved; the fifth chapter of our country's "notice and delete" rule to be sound legislative proposals.