Network Service Provider Violated The Information Network Transmission Right

China has long been the main form of legislation to regulate Internet activity based ondepartments, the People’s Republic of China came into effect on July1,2010"Tort LiabilityAct36for the first time the National People’s Congress legislation clearly defines the networkservice providers liable for torts responsibility of notification rules and know the rules.Provides a new legal basis for the introduction of this provision for the trial of the disputednetwork infringement cases in the judicial practice. Network infringement cases is due to thecontinuous progress of network technology and new things came into being, compared to itstechnical and other tort cases are different, and therefore, there are many problems in thejudicial determination. Moreover, the new law promulgated in the understanding andapplication of legal provisions on online infringement will inevitably exist fuzzy puzzled at.In addition, the "Information Network Transmission Right Protection Ordinance" afterpromulgation, subject to a number of questions, mainly reflected in the23. This paperattempts to combine the Tort Liability Act "in the People’s Republic of China," InformationNetwork Transmission Right Protection Ordinance, as well as other civil law and judicialpractice, the status quo, the use of the comparative method as well as civil law explained onthe infringement of the network service provider responsibility to sort out and resolve,summed up the network acts constitute infringement of specific legal elements, in order tobetter interpret the relevant laws, to make a more clear explanation of judicial practice toprovide a unified law applicable standards, safeguard judicial practice on issues related tounity. The first part of the same by the Beijing Higher People’s Court of Final Appeal XIRecords, Inc. v. Yahoo case "and" Seven Records v. Baidu case, the two cases with similarfactual background, but has a different The results of the trial, which leads to the core issue tobe discussed-deep search link whether it constitutes a violation of the right to networkdissemination of information. I search in the second part of the music linked services relatedto basic concepts and techniques to sort out, including the areas to define the network serviceprovider, analytical search link technology as well as a list of music search link four servicemodels, to avoid the main problems in the discourse., of the chaos. The third part is dividedinto two types in the second part of the related concepts discussed on the basis of networkservice behavior, and further pointed out that the type of each network service may constitute infringement. I draw music search link service is absolutely impossible to constitute a directviolation of the right to network dissemination of information through the third part of theexposition, but under certain conditions may constitute a direct infringement of the right tonetwork dissemination of information "joint infringement", jointly and severally liable. Thefourth part is the focus of this article Following the third part, combined with the typicalforeign jurisprudence specifically addressed whether, subject to the conditions under whichthe network service behavior will constitute a "joint tortfeasors" are jointly and severallyliable. In this section, the subjective elements of discourse but focus on the more subjective"should have known" of that is the most important. Text of the last part of the embarrassingsituation faced by the author based on the music search industry v. tired, from the legal levelto give some suggestions and countermeasures.