rbor should be applied.53
Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China revised the
Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues of Applicable Law
to Copyright Disputes over the Internet (the Internet Copyright Interpretation).54
The Internet Copyright Interpretation provides for joint and several contributory
liability between direct infringers and ISPs who participate, abet or aid online
copyright infringement.55 It also provides the standard of negligence with regard to contributory liability, and states that the People’s Court determines whether the
providers are found liable under either abetting liability or contributory liability.56
When the court determines that ISPs knew or should have known that infringement
was occurring, they are held liable; however, courts may not find ISPs liable for
failing to preemptively investigate users’ conduct.57
In fact, judges tend to consider applying the copyright law safe harbor rule to
trademark secondary liability cases.58 However, in most cases judges only analyze
whether ISPs have promptly taken necessary measures—such as blocking or
removing links to infringing items—and in such cases it is unnecessary for the
courts to cite the specific copyright provisions. For example, in the E-land v.
Taobao series of cases, in making its determination as to whether the online
shopping Web site Taobao was liable, courts first looked to whether the site had
removed links to infringing items for sale after being notified of suspected
infringement
rbor should be applied.53Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China revised theInterpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues of Applicable Lawto Copyright Disputes over the Internet (the Internet Copyright Interpretation).54The Internet Copyright Interpretation provides for joint and several contributoryliability between direct infringers and ISPs who participate, abet or aid onlinecopyright infringement.55 It also provides the standard of negligence with regard to contributory liability, and states that the People’s Court determines whether theproviders are found liable under either abetting liability or contributory liability.56When the court determines that ISPs knew or should have known that infringementwas occurring, they are held liable; however, courts may not find ISPs liable forfailing to preemptively investigate users’ conduct.57In fact, judges tend to consider applying the copyright law safe harbor rule totrademark secondary liability cases.58 However, in most cases judges only analyzewhether ISPs have promptly taken necessary measures—such as blocking orremoving links to infringing items—and in such cases it is unnecessary for thecourts to cite the specific copyright provisions. For example, in the E-land v.Taobao series of cases, in making its determination as to whether the onlineshopping Web site Taobao was liable, courts first looked to whether the site hadremoved links to infringing items for sale after being notified of suspectedinfringement
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
