Empirical Research Of Judicial Referee Of Video Ad-blocking Behavior

The Internet economy is also called the attention economy.Advertising is an important source of attention for people to gain interest in the era of attention economy.As online video becomes a part of people's lives,the advertising time before video playback has also multiplied.The long time,poor quality,and inability to close video ads have caused strong dissatisfaction among web users,and various ad blocking software has emerged.The ad blocking software enhances the user experience by blocking various types of advertisements to gain the attention of the network users.But it reduces the expected advertising revenue available to the video operators,and the video advertising operators have sued the courts for the ad blocking software to damage legal rights constitute unfair competition.There are different opinions on whether the video advertisement interception behavior constitutes unfair competition behavior,and there are different opinions in judicial practice.Based on this,this paper uses the empirical analysis method to study the judicial cognizance of video advertisement interception behavior,and analyzes the shortcomings of the court's video advertisement interception behavior with 46 judgments as the sample,and proposes perfect suggestions.In addition to the introduction,this article is divided into four parts.The first part,the question is raised.Through three typical cases,the article puts forward the research object of the article--the video advertisement interception behavior,then defines the concept of video advertisement interception behavior,and simply summarizes the academics' views on video advertisement interception behavior.The second part is the empirical investigation of the judicial precedent of video advertisement interception.Through careful study and analysis of 46 judgments,the authors summarized the factors that the judges identified in the video advertisement interception behavior and the different trial modes of the trial cases,collected data and statistically summarized.The third part is the shortcomings and analysis of the judicial cognizance of video advertisement interception.On the basis of the analysis and analysis of the second part of the data,the court found out the shortcomings in the video advertisement interception behavior,and found that there are judges in the judicial practice to protect the business model and interests of the video operators,the general infringement referee mode is used in the trial of cases,the lack of argumentation of subjective mentality,the lack of consideration of consumer interests,and the diversification of discretionary factors have also analyzed the causes.The fourth part is the perfect suggestions for judicial cognizance of video advertisement interception.In response to the shortcomings of the third part,the corresponding suggestions are put forward: Firstly,the business model and interests are moderately and modestly protected in terms of concept,and the business model of the operators of the two parties involved is treated equally.Secondly,the judging mode of legitimacy judgment is adopted in the trial mode,and the nature of the behavior is determined based on the behavior and the full consideration of the principles of honesty and credit,recognized business ethics,subjective state of mind,and damage results.Thirdly,in the qualitative process of behavior,pay attention to the subjective intention of the ad blocking software developers and the interests of Internet users,and pay attention to the protection of the interests of Internet users.Finally,in determining the civil liability,it is necessary to unify the consideration factors,pay attention to the specific analysis of discretionary factors and attach importance to the role of evidence in fixed compensation.Conclusion.In judicial practice,the definition of video advertisement interception behavior should be based on case facts from the perspective of behavioral legitimacy,and full consideration should be given to the interests of all parties.It is not appropriate to think that the behavior is legal or illegal.