The Influence Of The Classification Of Internet Service Provider On Tort Liability Rules

With the perpetual popularity of the internet and the development of network technology,internet has gradually been changing the way people live to a great extent. But it also brings someproblems. For example, nowadays the network tort is very common and how to define the tortliability of Internet service providers is the most important thing. It’s also the most urgent problemwhich scholars and legislations of Network must face.Tort liability law of our country has beenimplemented On July1,2010.But it also has some controversies on Article36of Tort Law whichshould be furtherly discussed here.If we want to determine a reasonable definition on the tort liability of Internet ServiceProvider, we has to compare the difference of service which has been provided by all kinds ofInternet Service Providers. This paper combines with the rules of Tort Liability Law on InternetService Providers, from the perspective of the classification of Internet Service Providers, thenanalyzes the influence on tort liability law. This paper is made up by four parts. In part one, Ianalyze different classification theories of Internet Service Providers and compare advantages anddisadvantages of each theory. With combining foreign legislations of Internet Service Providers, Iput it into Internet Content Service Providers and Internet Mediation Service Providers. ThenInternet Mediation Service Providers is furtherly divided into four categories. In part two, I discussthe characters of different service by Internet Service Providers of all kinds and think that the rulesof Tort Law for Internet Service Providers on applying fault principle is deficient. We shoulddistinguish the infringement behaviors of Internet Service Providers. In the field of intellectualproperty right, Internet Service Providers is applied to the principle of strict liability and in othercases it’s applied to doctrine of presumption. In part three, I discuss the components of theliability of all kinds of Internet Service Providers under system of Tort Law and summarizetortious action of each Internet Service Provider. The meaning of fault elements of article36inTort Law should be explaining for "have reason to know "and "should know". In part four, firstly Ianalyze the different conditions which make Internet Service Providers assume Joint tortresponsbilities. Secondly, based on the above analysis, I think that Article36of Tort Law is notsuitable for every type of Internet Service Providers. It is mainly suitable for indirect infringement of Internet Mediation Service Providers. At the same time, I discuss the nature of joint tort ofInternet Service Providers.