Study On The Safe Harbor Rule

The rapid development of network technology not only enriches people's lives, but also challenges the protection of copyright. The finding of liabibility of Internet service providers effect not only the interests of copyright owner, but also the development of the Internet industry. Protection of copyright in network is mainly achieved by reasonably define the responsibility of Internet service providers. The Safe Harbor Rule, born in the U.S., is to clarify the responsibility of Internet service providers and to prevent Internet service providers bearing a disproportionate burden.Regulations on Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, promulgated in 2006, also introduced the Safe Harbor Rule. However, our legal system is different from that of the States. The earlier judicial practice on relevant issues is also different. Besides, our Safe Harbor Rule is not completely transplanted from the U.S, resulting in many problems in applying the rule to the judicial practice. By introduction of the legislative background of Safe Harbor Rule of United States, combined with earlier judicial practice in China, from the perspective of finding copyright infringement of video-sharing website, this article will analyze the validity of the Safe Harbor Rule as well as the specific meaning of the exemption clauses with an expectation to provide helpful experience for our judicial practice.Part I introduces the legal background and legislative purpose of the Safe Harbor Rule. In early judicial practice in America, it was controversial as to whether network service provider should bare strict liability, that is, whether the network service providers should bare liability for the user's direct infringement. To clarify the responsibility of Internet service providers, the Safe Harbor Rule was born.Part II mainly explains the validity of the Safe Harbor Rule in our country. Unlike the U.S., there is no argument as to what liability internet service providers should undertake in earlier Chinese judicial practice. Except that, our Safe Harbor Rule was incompletely migrated from the United States. I this chapter, the author attempts to interpret the effectiveness of the provisions of the Safe Harbor Rule within our law system. Article 22 of Information Network Transmission Right protection Ordinance is not the necessary and sufficient conditions for liability. The five items of Article 22 could be divided into two categories: one is corresponding to the attribution of infringement liability, including the finding of direct and indirect infringement liability; the other is not.Part III analyses the definition of altering the work and obtaining economic benefit which are controversial in judicial practice. The author believe that the act of adding logos, changing the format of the video in the process of playing, which is negative, automatic so cannot be regarded as the behavior of altering the work. Advertising in the video sharing websites is not the behavior of obtaining economic benefit. Whether obtaining economic benefit could be one of the elements to find the subjective status of accused infringers.