【线上云德】疫情期间律师说（一百四十）┃《民法典》对网络“侵权人”的网络用户提供自证清白的机会

《民法典》对网络侵权责任的细化体现在：一是权利人需承担侵权的初步举证责任，并要以实名方式举证，便于网络服务提供者确认权利主体；二是完善了网络服务提供者的转通知规则，网络服务提供者应当及时转送通知并采取措施；三是对权利人错误通知的侵权责任予以明确，以避免权利人恶意举报造成的损害。

The civil Code specifies the liability for Internet tort in the following aspects: first, the right holder shall bear the initial burden of proof for infringement, and shall provide the proof in the form of real name, so as to facilitate the Internet service provider to confirm the right subject; Second, the rules of forwarding notification for Internet service providers are improved. The Internet service providers should timely forward the notification and take measures. Thirdly, the tort liability of wrongful notification should be clarified to avoid the damage caused by malicious reporting.

增加网络侵权中的反通知规则，即网络用户接到转送的通知后，可以向网络服务提供者提交不存在侵权行为的声明。声明应当包括不存在侵权行为的初步证据及网络用户的真实身份信息。

Add the anti-notification rule in network infringement, that is, network users can submit a statement of no infringement to the NETWORK service provider after receiving the notification of forwarding. The statement shall include prima facie evidence of no infringement and the true identity of the network user.

网络服务提供者接到声明后，应当将该声明转送发出通知的权利人，并告知其可以向有关部门投诉或者向人民法院提起诉讼。网络服务提供者在转送声明到达权利人后的合理期限内，未收到权利人已经投诉或者提起诉讼通知的，应当及时终止所采取的措施。

Upon receipt of the statement, the Internet service provider shall forward the statement to the right holder who sent the notice, and inform him/her that he/she may file a complaint with the relevant department or file a lawsuit with the people's court. Within a reasonable time limit after the forwarding statement reaches the right holder, if the Internet service provider fails to receive the notice of the right holder's complaint or lawsuit, it shall terminate the measures taken in a timely manner.

反通知规则与通知规则都是源于美国法上的“避风港原则”，《民法典》将该原则的适用领域扩及所有的网络服务提供者。第一千一百九十六条的反通知规则，实际是为被称为“侵权人”的网络用户提供自证清白的机会，不只保护被侵权一方，同时保护“侵权的网络用户”的合法权益。例如，采取屏蔽措施时可能会屏蔽同名同姓的第三人，第三人应当有权通过反通知规则，主张救济受到侵害的合法权益。不过“合理期限”的规定未沿用《电子商务法》15天的规定，采取了弹性条款，由裁判者根据个案情况决定。

Both the counter-notification rule and the notification rule are derived from the "safe haven principle" in American law. The Civil Code extends the application of this principle to all Internet service providers. The counter-notification rule of Article 1,196, in effect, provides an opportunity for the Internet user, known as the "infringer," to prove his or her innocence and protect not only the infringed party, but also the legitimate rights and interests of the "infringing Internet user." For example, the adoption of shielding measures may shield the third party with the same name, and the third party should have the right to claim remedies for the infringed legitimate rights and interests through the counter-notification rule. However, the "reasonable period" provision does not follow the 15-day provision of the E-commerce Law. Instead, an elastic provision is adopted and the decision is made by the referee according to the case.