The Research Of The Tort Liability Of Internet Service Provider

The human flesh search first case occurred in China with the network infringement cases. In that case, the infringer of the network service provider Daqi, Tianya and bloggers Zhang Leyi taken to court, the court ruled banner network and Zhang Leyi constitute infringement, Tianya promptly remove infringing information without having to bear civil liability. The focus of the case, the problem is that the network service provider in the network whether the infringing activities bear tort liability. Network service providers including information publishing service provider, there may be a relationship between tort liability and breach of contract relationship between the search service providers, storage service providers, such as the main network services netizens, tort liability, and breach of contract may be the existence of competing. Network services tort obligations constitute subjective fault, tort, damage results and causal link elements imputation principles of fault liability principle. The provisions of the relevant foreign state tort liability of network service providers is more perfect, such as the United States that the formation of a network service providers a "safe haven rules. The main content of the "safe harbor rules" that the obligation to provide information search services to network services has deleted its exploration results, its mentioned in the notice of the rights holders to remove infringing content, it does not constitute infringement. In fact, in the United States, the "safe harbor rules" not only solve the problem of Internet copyright infringement liability rules, it can also be recognized by the general rules of network infringement in the responsibility of the network service provider. Before the enactment of China’s Tort Liability Act, "Information Network Transmission Right Protection Ordinance" regulations Preliminary Construction of the responsibility of the network services. I believe that the Tort Liability Act, the provisions of the obligations and responsibilities of the network services is relatively well, but it does not have provisions for different network service providers different review and obligations, and therefore not conducive to a good regulatory network tort. Our legislation should improve the responsibility of the network services, including:review obligations required by different network services, to clear infringement damages compensation standards, the network service provider clearly the compensation range of the network service provider, and a clear commitment of the spirit of liability for damage.