What are Safe Haven Laws?

The "safe haven" principle means that when a copyright infringement case occurs, when an ISP (network service provider) only provides space services and does not produce web content, if the ISP is informed of the infringement, it has the obligation to delete it, otherwise it will be considered infringing . If the infringing content is not stored on the ISP's server and it is not informed which content should be deleted, the ISP will not be liable for infringement. Later the safe harbor principle was also applied to search engines, network storage, online libraries, and so on.

Haven Principles

The "safe haven" principle means that when a copyright infringement case occurs, when an ISP (network service provider) only provides space services and does not produce web content, if the ISP is informed of the infringement, it has the obligation to delete it, otherwise it will be considered infringing . If the infringing content is not stored on the ISP's server and is not told which content should be deleted, the ISP does not bear

The safe haven clause was originally derived from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA Act) of 1998 in the United States. First applicable in the field of copyright,

On July 1, 2006,

At present, the development of China's network industry is constantly expanding, and new technologies are constantly developing, and new problems arising therefrom are also endless. In order to better protect the rights of online copyright holders, China's legal system needs to be continuously improved. Implemented on July 1, 2006

The "safe harbor rule" has become a "safe harbor" for searching and sharing websites, and has even evolved into a shield for some websites to assume liability for infringement-"first infringement, etc. notice; no notice, no responsibility; you notice, I delete I am exempt "

Internet literature faces piracy.

Where there is a network, there will be infringements. It seems impossible to prevent copyright infringements. The scale of the pirated market is as high as 5 billion yuan each year, while the size of the genuine market is more than 100 million yuan. Network infringement and piracy generally face problems such as insufficient supervision, difficulties in investigation and evidence collection, and high litigation costs. The author's own strength alone does not have the energy and ability to fight countless pirated websites.

Piracy makes content supervision more difficult.

The unique communication and openness of the Internet has increased the difficulty of copyright protection. Users search for novels through website searches, so search engines have become a major way of promoting pirated websites. The question is how to determine their infringement and liability for sharing and search sites.

"To determine the liability for infringement, two rules are currently followed-the 'safe harbor rule' and the 'Red Flag Standard' rule." Said Xu Chunming, a professor at Shanghai University Law School. The above is the application of the "Haven Rule" or "Red Flag Standard". In judicial practice, due to the one-sided understanding of the "safe harbor rules", individual courts use it as a 'responsibility principle' for online copyright infringement. It seems that any online copyright infringement case involves searching for a website or sharing a website. In accordance with the "safe harbor principle", that is, according to the "notification, removal, exemption" procedure. "

Limit abuse of the "safe haven rules".

For external infringement and piracy, only legal means can be used to intervene. However, because the cost of infringement is relatively low and the cost of cracking down on infringement is relatively high, the overall environment for the control of infringement and piracy is not very good. The lack of copyright awareness among readers, authors, and website managers is one of the main reasons for the frequent occurrence of infringement and piracy in online literature. In addition to strengthening copyright awareness, many experts believe that when dealing with infringement issues such as illegal reprinting, the site administrator's specific time limit for "immediate deletion" of the suspected infringing document should be clarified; when the "safe harbor rule" is applied, it should be clearly applicable The specific conditions of the rule limit the abuse of the "safe harbor rule". ^[1-2]

Kaifeng City, former member of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Committee and Minister of Organizations, Li Shulin because of bribery and dismissed him. Within half a year of his dismissal, the real reason for his dismissal was the rumors that he had an improper sexual relationship with 300 women and had special habit. The Henan Provincial Commission for Discipline Inspection clarified that this was an untrue rumor, but the article involved was posted on the Internet for three and a half years. Li Linlin will publish the rumored Sina Weibo to court for this.

In August 2016, the Haidian Court found that the articles involved in the infringement constituted a defamation of Li Linlin. However, since Sina received the indictment and evidential materials, it immediately deleted the speech involved in the complaint, and no joint liability was required.

During the trial, the defendant Sina Company did not agree with Li Linlin's claim.

Sina argued that the blog post in question was posted by a Sina user. From the blog of Sina user Yang Yi, the article was not written by Yang Yi, and the author at the end is Sichuan Online Wang Shouchen, so the article should be reproduced, and as for Li The clarification article mentioned by the forest was also reprinted by Yang Yi on his blog. The publication time was only 2 hours away from the time that the article was considered infringing, which has clarified the effect.

As a network service provider, Sina did not infringe the plaintiff's rights, and the company should apply the "notice-remove" safe-haven principle. But before the indictment, Li Linlin had not notified the company. After receiving the indictment, the company deleted the articles involved.

Sina said that the company only provided users with information storage space, and did not edit and delete the article. Therefore, it did not agree with its lawsuit request, and it did not have evidence to support its claim and did not recognize it. ^[3]

After hearing, the court of Haidian determined that the remarks involved were Yang Yi, Moon Depression and Cold Cold Island, and Tianya Guihong published publicly on his personal blog. Sina Company only provides blogging services, network storage space services, and Li Linlin There is no evidence to prove that Sina did not take necessary measures for the infringing articles involved, and Sina does not need to bear joint and several liability.

After receiving the indictment and evidence, Sina immediately deleted the complaint speech, and no joint and several liability was required for the expanded dissemination of infringing speech. The court accordingly rejected Li Lin's lawsuit.