创⽴于上世纪末的⽹络服务提供者间接侵权规则塑造了如今的⽹络传播样态。⼆⼗多 年来，互联⽹产业的发展、⾃媒体⾏业的繁荣⽆不归功于避风港规则对⼀般监控义务的豁 免。时过境迁，避风港规则已⽆法完全适应数字时代的作品保护要求，于是欧盟与美国先 后开展了修法⼯作。我国的“避风港规则”在条款性质、适⽤范围、过错认定与责任形式等 ⽅⾯具有鲜明的特⾊，长期运⾏后也产⽣了平台监管粗放、法律规定滞后、判断标准混乱、 责任分配不明等诸多问题，亟需修改完善。⽹络服务提供者版权审查义务的设定关系到版 权⽅、⽹络服务提供者、⽹络⽤户三⽅主体之间互有张⼒甚⾄冲突的利益诉求——版权⽅ 希望在作品⼴泛传播的同时得到充分的保护，⽹络服务提供者需要明确的规则指引以降低 间接侵权风险，⽹络⽤户则想要以较低成本获得作品。三种诉求不可偏废。本⽂从规则⽂ 本出发，探究我国避风港规则之积弊，先后经过技术原理分析、审查主体反思与审查客体 诠释，再回到制度构建，构思适应数字版权业态、平衡三⽅主体权益的审查规则。除绪论 与结语外，本⽂共分为五章，各章内容提要如下： 第⼀章运⽤教义分析与实证⽅法，得出了“我国虽引⼊避风港规则，但⽹络服务提供者 的主动审查义务却⾃始存在”的结论。法教义学⽅⾯，通过对避风港规则历史演变的查考， 描绘审查义务在数次⽴法中迭起之过程。实证研究⽅⾯，以援引应知规则的司法判决为样 本，考察⽹络服务提供者的抗辩成功率，印证避风港规则的失效与审查义务的复萌。本章 还提出“义务的权⼒性”之概念，将反对⼀般监控义务的理由深⼊到“基本法律概念”层⾯。 ⽹络服务提供者在承担审查“义务”的同时，也拥有审查“权⼒”，所以应当明确审查义务的 内容与限度，进⽽制约其权⼒。经由法律⽐较发现，我国既缺乏欧盟审查义务的分级分类 措施，又⽆法实现完善的著作权集体管理，不宜盲⽬模仿其改⾰⽅案。 第⼆章考察了版权审查义务的基础技术因素，为限制主动审查义务提供法律体系外的 论据：⾸先，内容过滤技术不仅存在“数据库悖论”等效⽤局限，还将压缩合理使⽤的空间。 在现有规则框架下，内容过滤技术也难以促成版权⽅与⽹络服务提供者的商谈与合作。其 次，算法推荐技术不必然提⾼⽹络服务提供者的注意义务程度。该技术⽆法识别侵权内容， 其推荐结果由⽤户兴趣⽽⾮平台⽴场决定。个性化算法服务提供者不应因履⾏公法的审查 义务实际接触⽤户上传内容⽽承担侵权责任。最后，区块链技术将为版权侵权治理提供新 路径。运⽤哈希算法可以便捷地识别侵权内容。将智能合约与复制市场、知识共享等理念 相结合，可以制定出兼具法定许可与集体管理优势的作品授权⽅案。 II 第三章在重构⽹络服务提供者类型的同时，探索存储服务提供者的义务内容。⽹络服 务提供者传统四分法难以满⾜司法实践的需求。为适应⽹络服务的形态演变，需要将其类 型化的技术标准改造为法律标准，即以法律⾏为与权利义务关系为纲，细分存储服务提供 者的不同类别，先后根据其控制能⼒、权利内容、存储⽅式，实现⽹络服务提供者的层理 构造。其中，除了在线内容分享服务提供者之外，有三种典型存储服务提供者：云计算服 务提供者、电⼦商务平台经营者与社交媒体服务提供者。整体⽽⾔，它们不应承担版权侵 权的主动审查义务。⽽在线内容分享服务提供者应当根据不同客体，分别履⾏“主动屏蔽” “通知屏蔽”“通知删除”的版权审查义务。 第四章分析了三种典型的版权审查客体：其⼀是热播影视作品的版权审查问题。热播 影视作品的收益时效性强，通知删除规则难以为其提供充分保护，应规定⽹络服务提供者 对其承担主动审查义务。关于热播影视作品的范围，应以收益期限衡量热播期，并将影视 作品扩张解释为视听作品。其⼆是⼆次创作的版权侵权争议。版权审查不能使⼆次创作陷 ⼊动辄得咎之泥淖，应在区分⼆创作品不同类型的前提下，以转化性使⽤作为⼆次创作与 侵权⾏为的边界。其三是数字藏品交易过程的版权审查纠纷。数字藏品是以作品为基础的 ⾮同质化通证，其交易需以 NFT 交易平台为中介。通过权利性质、技术特征、产业政策三 ⽅⾯的论证，⾜以否定 NFT 交易平台的主动审查义务。 第五章⽴⾜于避风港规则的基本⽴场，设计⾯向数字时代的版权侵权治理改进⽅案： 第⼀，本章提出并证成了⽹络版权侵权的有限审查原则——“有限主体”以“必要措施”履⾏ 对“特定客体”的审查义务。第⼆，本章归纳了⽹络服务提供者版权侵权审查义务的三分构 造。该构造以有限审查原则为基础，以不同审查客体确定其必要措施与责任形式，实现版 权侵权的精细化治理。在⽹络版权侵权中追究⽹络⽤户的直接侵权责任具有正当性、合法 性与可⾏性，改造后的多重责任形式可为⽹络⽤户的责任承担创造条件，进⽽从根源上遏 制版权侵权现象的发⽣。第三，本章尝试通过协商型过滤标准、⾮平台审查措施、约束性 ⽹络仲裁等配套机制，促进侵权治理的多元参与，协调三⽅主体差异化的利益诉求。

Established in the late 20th century, the indirect infringement rules of internet service providers (ISPs) have shaped the current landscape of online communication. The development of the internet industry and the prosperity of the self-media sector over the past two decades can be attributed to the exemption of proactive the general monitoring obligations through the safe harbor provisions. With the passage of time, the safe harbor provisions have proved inadequate in meeting the demands of copyright protection in the digital age. Consequently, both the European Union and the United States have embarked on legislative amendments. In China, the “safe harbor provisions” for ISPs possess distinct Chinese characteristics in terms of clause nature, applicability, fault determination, and liability form. After long-term operation, they have given rise to numerous issues such as lax platform supervision, lagging legal provisions, confusing judgment standards, and unclear allocation of responsibilities, necessitating urgent refinement. The setting of the obligations of ISPs in copyright monitoring relates to the value demands with tensions and even conflicts among copyright owners, ISPs, and internet users. Copyright owners seek comprehensive protection while facilitating widespread dissemination of their works. ISPs require clear guidelines to mitigate the risks of indirect infringement. Internet users, on the other hand, aspire to access works at a lower cost. All three must be impartial. By total structure, this paper starts from the current law, analyzing disadvantages of Chinese safe harbor provisions, researches the technical theory, monitoring subjects and objects, and builds a system which could meet the big data era and balance the interests of three parties. Excluding the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into five chapters, A brief overview of the content of each chapter is as follows: Chapter I uses the doctrinal methodology and empirical method to draw a conclusion that although China has introduced the safe harbor provisions, the active monitoring obligations does exist. The doctrinal methodology describes the process of the emergence of the monitoring obligation in several legislations through the history of the safe harbor provisions. The empirical research taking judicial rulings that reference the “should know provisions” as samples, examines the success rate of the defense of the ISPs, and confirms the abandon of safe harbor provisions IV and emergence of the monitoring obligations. This chapter also proposes a concept named “the power attribute of obligation”, against the general monitoring obligation from the “fundamental legal concepts”. While undertaking the monitoring obligations, ISPs also possess the monitoring power, so it should be restricted. Through legal comparisons, it is found that our country not only lacks the tiered classification measures with EU monitoring obligations but also cannot achieve a comprehensive system of collective copyright management. Therefore, it is not advisable to blindly emulate their reform proposals. Chapter II examines the basic technical factors of the copyright monitoring obligation, provides arguments outside the legal system to limit this obligation. Firstly, content filtering has limitations of “database paradox”, and place a burden on fair use. With the monitoring obligation, it is difficult to facilitate the negotiation and cooperation between copyright owners and ISPs. Secondly, personalized recommendation does not necessarily strict ISPs’ duty of care. This technology cannot identify the infringing content, and its recommendation result is determined by the users’ interest, not the platforms. Personalized recommendation service providers shall not bear the tort liability for actually contacting users’ uploaded content due to the perform of the obligation of public law. Finally, blockchain technology will provide a new approach to copyright infringement governance. The use of hash algorithms can easily identify infringing content. By combining smart contracts with concepts such as Copymart and Creative Commons, it’s possible to formulate authorized content distribution schemes that leverage both legal permissions and collective management advantages. Chapter III explores the content of the obligations of storage service providers while reconstructing the types of ISPs. The traditional quadrant classification of ISPs cannot meet the demands of judicial practices. To adapt to the form evolution of internet services, it is necessary to transform the technical standards of ISPs into legal standards. Taking legal act, rights and obligations as the clue, this chapter subdivides different categories of storage service providers, and realizes the sedimentary structures of ISPs according to the control capability, content of right and storage mode. Excluding online content-sharing service providers, there are three typical storage service providers: cloud computing service providers, e-commerce platform operators and social media service providers. As a whole, they should not undertake the active monitoring obligation for copyright tort. Online content-sharing service providers should perform copyright monitoring obligations such as “active blocking” “notice-staydown” and “notice-takedown” according to different objects. V Chapter IV discusses three typical objects of tort monitoring. The first is the copyright monitoring issue of popular film and television works. They have strong timeliness of income, and notice-takedown procedures can hardly provide sufficient protection for them. The monitoring obligation of ISPs should be clarified. The hot broadcast period should be measured by the income period, and film and television works should be expanded to interpret audiovisual works. The second is the copyright infringement dispute of the derivative works. Copyright monitoring should not impede derivative creation. ISPs shall be based on the different types of the derivative works, and take transformative use as the boundary of the re-creation and infringement. The third is about NFT transactions. Digital collections are non-fungible tokens based on works, and their transactions are intermediated by NFT transaction platforms. Due to the nature of rights, technical characteristics and industrial policies, the platforms should not bear copyright infringement liability for failing to fulfill the active monitoring obligation. Chapter V puts forward an improvement plan for copyright governance in the digital age on the basic position of the safe harbor provisions. Firstly, this chapter proposes and demonstrates the limited monitoring principle of internet copyright infringement, whereby “limited subject” shall perform its active monitoring obligations to the “specific object” with “necessary measures”. Secondly, this chapter induce a three-tiered structure of the obligation of online content-sharing service providers to monitoring copyright infringement. This structure is based on the limited monitoring principle, and determines its necessary measures and liability forms with different objects, achieving refined governance of copyright infringement. Holding internet users directly infringement liability in online copyright infringement cases carries legitimacy, legality, and feasibility. The transformed multiple forms of liability can create conditions for users’ responsibility, thereby fundamentally curbing occurrences of copyright infringement. Thirdly, this chapter attempts to promote diverse participation in tort governance and coordinate the differentiated interest demands of the three parties through complementary mechanisms such as negotiating filtering standards, non-platform monitoring measures and binding arbitration online.