網路服務提供者間接侵權責任的移植與變異

網路服務提供者間接侵權責任的基礎為幫助侵權已成為通識。但是現行規則在主客觀要件方面均與幫助侵權原理存在齟齬。這表明我國網路服務提供者間接侵權責任在移植美國模式過程中出現了變異。這些變異主要是由於在移植過程中將責任排除條款轉換為責任構成條款並將“有理由知道”替換為“應當知道”造成的。在司法實踐中，我國法院更加強調注意義務和必要措施兩個要件，這種做法脫離了幫助侵權的基本框架，逐漸向不作為侵權模式靠攏。與說明侵權模式相比，這種模式具有較大的靈活性，淡化了避風港的責任限制效果，為適當加重網路服務提供者間接侵權責任提供了空間。需要警惕過分擴張網路服務提供者間接侵權責任的趨勢出現。

Nowadays it is common sense that the ISP’s secondary liability is based upon contributory infringement in China. However, there are some contradictions between ISP’s secondary liability and contributory infringement in terms of the mind state and conduct requirement. These contradictions remind us that there must be certain dissociations from the U. S mode in the process of legal transplantation of the ISP’s secondary liability. The transformations happened by changing the rule of liability limitation to the elements of liability, as well as replacing ''have reason to know'' with ''should have known''. As a result, the courts begin to focus on such issues as duty of care and necessary measures in the ISP’s secondary liability cases in China. These transformations have made the ISP’s secondary liability in China separating itself from the contributory infringement. This varied mode is more flexible than its U. S. origin, which dilutes the effect of liability limitation of Safe Harbor, and leaves more space for the courts to impose more responsibility to the ISPs. At the same time, the over-extension of the ISP’s secondary liability along this line of reasoning in the judicial practice should also be cautioned against.