论技术中立行为的犯罪边界
|
摘要
快播公司所提供的是一种网络定位(链接)、传输服务,不属于网络内容服务提供者,因而对不法网站和快播用户所生成、上传的淫秽视频等不法信息,不负有预先审查、实时监控的义务,仅负有事后"通知-移除"的行政违法或帮助侵权的责任。处罚不纯正不作为犯,有违罪刑法定原则,传播淫秽物品牟利罪不能由不作为构成。快播技术能广泛用于合法用途,为了保护网络技术创新及未来中国互联网产业的发展与国家竞争力的提升,根据利益衡量原则,快播公司的行为应当享受"技术中立"的责任豁免,属于不可罚的中立帮助行为。"快播案"关键电子证据存在鉴真缺陷,法院未能查明涉案服务器内淫秽视频被用户实际浏览或下载的频次,没有满足作为实害犯的传播淫秽物品牟利罪成立犯罪的要求,根据"疑罪从无"原则,亦应宣告快播公司及各被告人无罪。
Qvod Company is not a provider of network content service, but provides network locations(links) and transmission service. Therefore, it does not have pre-censorship and real-time monitoring obligation of illegal information uploaded and generated by illegal websites and Qvod users, such as pornographic videos. It is only liable for "removal on notification" of administrative violations or aiding infringement afterwards. Punishing non-typical crimes of omission violates the principle of "nulla poena sine lege", and the crime of spreading obscene articles for profit cannot be constituted by omission. Qvod technology can be widely used for legitimate purposes. In order to protect network technology innovation, the future development of China's Internet industry and the improvement of national competitiveness, according to the principle of interest measurement, the act of Qvod company should enjoy the "technology neutrality" responsibility exemption, which belongs to unpunishable neutral helping behavior. The key electronic evidence of the "Qvod case" has defects in authenticity identification. The court has failed to find out the frequency of obscene video actually viewed or downloaded by users in the server involved in the case, and has not met the requirements of establishing a crime of spreading obscene articles for profit as an actual damage offense. According to the principle of "in dubio pro reo", Qvod company and defendants should also be acquitted.
Qvod Company is not a provider of network content service, but provides network locations(links) and transmission service. Therefore, it does not have pre-censorship and real-time monitoring obligation of illegal information uploaded and generated by illegal websites and Qvod users, such as pornographic videos. It is only liable for "removal on notification" of administrative violations or aiding infringement afterwards. Punishing non-typical crimes of omission violates the principle of "nulla poena sine lege", and the crime of spreading obscene articles for profit cannot be constituted by omission. Qvod technology can be widely used for legitimate purposes. In order to protect network technology innovation, the future development of China's Internet industry and the improvement of national competitiveness, according to the principle of interest measurement, the act of Qvod company should enjoy the "technology neutrality" responsibility exemption, which belongs to unpunishable neutral helping behavior. The key electronic evidence of the "Qvod case" has defects in authenticity identification. The court has failed to find out the frequency of obscene video actually viewed or downloaded by users in the server involved in the case, and has not met the requirements of establishing a crime of spreading obscene articles for profit as an actual damage offense. According to the principle of "in dubio pro reo", Qvod company and defendants should also be acquitted.
引文
[1]桑本谦.网络色情、技术中立与国家竞争力:快播案背后的政治经济学[J].法学,2017(1).
[2]刘艳红.无罪的快播与有罪的思维:“快播案”有罪论之反思与批判[J].政治与法律,2016(12).
[3]Sony Corp.of America,Inc.v.Universal City Studios,Inc.,464 U.S.(1984).
[4]黄旭巍.快播侵权案与技术无罪论[J].中国出版,2016(23).
[5]徐亚文,蔡葵.技术创新引起的法律难题及解决路径:对快播、网约车营运等案的思考[J].河北法学,2017(5).
[6]吴汉东.论网络服务提供者的著作权侵权责任[J].中国法学,2011(2).
[7]崔国斌.网络服务商共同侵权制度之重塑[J].法学研究,2013(4).
[8]See Corbis Corp.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,351 F.Supp.2d1090,1101(W.D.Wash.2004).
[9]徐伟.通知移除制度的重新定性及其体系效应[J].现代法学,2013(1).
[10]梁志文.网络服务提供者的版权法规制模式[J].法律科学,2017(2).
[11]陈洪兵.中立的帮助行为论[J].中外法学,2008(6).
[12]车浩.谁应为互联网时代的中立行为买单[J].中国法律评论,2015(3).
[13]马荣春.中立帮助行为及其过当[J].东方法学,2017(2).
[14]阎二鹏.法教义学视角下帮助行为正犯化的省思:以《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(九)》为视角[J].社会科学辑刊,2016(4).
[15]刘艳红.网络中立帮助行为可罚性的流变及批判:以德日的理论和实务为比较基准[J].法学评论,2016(5).
[16][日]山中敬一.中立的行为による帮助の可罰性[C]//関西大学法学論集第56卷第1号(2006年).
[17]张伟.中立帮助行为探微[J].中国刑事法杂志,2010(5).
[18]陈洪兵.中立行为的帮助[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
[19]张明楷.刑法学(上)(第五版)[M].北京:法律出版社,2016.
[20]黎宏.刑法学总论:第2版[M].北京:法律出版社,2016.
[21]林钰雄.新刑法总则[M].台北:台湾元照出版有限公司,2014.
[22]孙万怀,郑梦凌.中立的帮助行为[J].法学,2016(1).
[23]刘宪权.网络犯罪的刑法应对新理念[J].政治与法律,2016(9).
[24]Vgl.Roland Hefendehl,Missbrauchte Farbkopierer,JURA1992,S.376 f.
[25]罗静,熊丽娜.云服务供应商著作权侵权责任探讨[J]广州大学学报(社会科学版),2016(11).
[26]张明楷.论帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪[J].政治与法律,2016(2).
[27]毛玲玲.传播淫秽物品罪中“传播”行为的性质认定:“快播案”相关问题的刑事法理评析[J].东方法学,2016(2).
[28]陈兴良.在技术与法律之间:评快播案一审判决[N].人民法院报,2016-09-14.
[29]范君.快播案犯罪构成及相关审判问题:从技术判断行为的进路[J].中外法学,2017(1).
[30]周光权.犯罪支配还是义务违反:快播案定罪理由之探究[J].中外法学,2017(1).
[31]张明楷.不作为犯中的先前行为[J].法学研究,2011(6).
[32]高艳东.不纯正不作为犯的中国命运:从快播案说起[J]中外法学,2017(1).
[33]齐文远,杨柳.网络平台提供者的刑法规制[J].法律科学,2017(3).
[34]张明楷.快播案定罪量刑的简要分析[N].人民法院报,2016-09-14.
[35]刘黎明,宁成林.论非法提供网络服务罪:以快播案为例[J].山东警察学院学报,2016(6).
[36]刘品新.电子证据的鉴真问题:基于快播案的反思[J].中外法学,2017(1).
[2]刘艳红.无罪的快播与有罪的思维:“快播案”有罪论之反思与批判[J].政治与法律,2016(12).
[3]Sony Corp.of America,Inc.v.Universal City Studios,Inc.,464 U.S.(1984).
[4]黄旭巍.快播侵权案与技术无罪论[J].中国出版,2016(23).
[5]徐亚文,蔡葵.技术创新引起的法律难题及解决路径:对快播、网约车营运等案的思考[J].河北法学,2017(5).
[6]吴汉东.论网络服务提供者的著作权侵权责任[J].中国法学,2011(2).
[7]崔国斌.网络服务商共同侵权制度之重塑[J].法学研究,2013(4).
[8]See Corbis Corp.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,351 F.Supp.2d1090,1101(W.D.Wash.2004).
[9]徐伟.通知移除制度的重新定性及其体系效应[J].现代法学,2013(1).
[10]梁志文.网络服务提供者的版权法规制模式[J].法律科学,2017(2).
[11]陈洪兵.中立的帮助行为论[J].中外法学,2008(6).
[12]车浩.谁应为互联网时代的中立行为买单[J].中国法律评论,2015(3).
[13]马荣春.中立帮助行为及其过当[J].东方法学,2017(2).
[14]阎二鹏.法教义学视角下帮助行为正犯化的省思:以《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(九)》为视角[J].社会科学辑刊,2016(4).
[15]刘艳红.网络中立帮助行为可罚性的流变及批判:以德日的理论和实务为比较基准[J].法学评论,2016(5).
[16][日]山中敬一.中立的行为による帮助の可罰性[C]//関西大学法学論集第56卷第1号(2006年).
[17]张伟.中立帮助行为探微[J].中国刑事法杂志,2010(5).
[18]陈洪兵.中立行为的帮助[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
[19]张明楷.刑法学(上)(第五版)[M].北京:法律出版社,2016.
[20]黎宏.刑法学总论:第2版[M].北京:法律出版社,2016.
[21]林钰雄.新刑法总则[M].台北:台湾元照出版有限公司,2014.
[22]孙万怀,郑梦凌.中立的帮助行为[J].法学,2016(1).
[23]刘宪权.网络犯罪的刑法应对新理念[J].政治与法律,2016(9).
[24]Vgl.Roland Hefendehl,Missbrauchte Farbkopierer,JURA1992,S.376 f.
[25]罗静,熊丽娜.云服务供应商著作权侵权责任探讨[J]广州大学学报(社会科学版),2016(11).
[26]张明楷.论帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪[J].政治与法律,2016(2).
[27]毛玲玲.传播淫秽物品罪中“传播”行为的性质认定:“快播案”相关问题的刑事法理评析[J].东方法学,2016(2).
[28]陈兴良.在技术与法律之间:评快播案一审判决[N].人民法院报,2016-09-14.
[29]范君.快播案犯罪构成及相关审判问题:从技术判断行为的进路[J].中外法学,2017(1).
[30]周光权.犯罪支配还是义务违反:快播案定罪理由之探究[J].中外法学,2017(1).
[31]张明楷.不作为犯中的先前行为[J].法学研究,2011(6).
[32]高艳东.不纯正不作为犯的中国命运:从快播案说起[J]中外法学,2017(1).
[33]齐文远,杨柳.网络平台提供者的刑法规制[J].法律科学,2017(3).
[34]张明楷.快播案定罪量刑的简要分析[N].人民法院报,2016-09-14.
[35]刘黎明,宁成林.论非法提供网络服务罪:以快播案为例[J].山东警察学院学报,2016(6).
[36]刘品新.电子证据的鉴真问题:基于快播案的反思[J].中外法学,2017(1).
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |