資訊儲存服務提供者民事責任探析─以誹謗性言論流通為中心

Civil Liability of Hosting Service Provider:Focusing on Dissemination of Defamatory Speech

陳筱茵(Hsiao-Yin Chen)

指導教授 ： 陳忠五

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201703638

摘要

網際網路的蓬勃發展乃藉由無數個資訊傳播媒介─網路服務提供者所架構組織而成，此種新興的科技時代責任主體，在何種情況下應負擔何種作為義務，並於違反作為義務時負擔何種範圍內之損害賠償責任，皆為當代各國所面臨的重大議題。本文著眼於「因資訊流通」而直接造成他人「名譽權侵害」時，資訊儲存服務提供者應負擔之民事責任。

自美國1996年制定通訊適正法案(CDA法案)第230條規定起，外國法陸續出現針對網路服務提供者民事責任之免責事由規定，本文整理該等規範可區分為兩大體系，首先為美國CDA法案第230條文義解釋、日本提供者責任限制法第3條第1項以及英國2013年名譽侵害法案規範，在接獲權利人通知，而網路服務提供者主觀要件該當「明知或可得而知」時，負有作為義務，而該作為義務依後兩國的規範，原則上在第一時點為轉通知義務，至第二時點方負擔刪除資訊義務；另一體系為美國DMCA法案、歐盟電子商務指令及其修正草案、我國著作權法第六章之一之規範，此等規定的主觀要件為「實際知悉或推定知悉」，並依通知形式要件規範搭配通知取下制度，建立第一時點的「刪除資訊」作為義務。無論何種規範體系，在網路服務提供者不該當該免責事由規定時，皆須回歸既有的侵權行為法一般規定就責任成立要件為具體認定。

直接與使用者接觸且最常成為責任追究對象之資訊儲存服務提供者，因其為資訊發信者外唯一具有刪除資訊之事實上控制危險能力者，並基於特定營業/職業對於一定場所具有危險控制權，而應認為其負擔防範他人權利受到損害的作為義務。原則上，其並不負有檢視發布資訊內容的事前監督義務，然而在使用者發布誹謗性言論，而該資訊流通造成權利人名譽權受侵害後，權利人對網路服務提供者提出權利侵害事實發生的通知時，雖然接獲通知後刪除資訊乃最直接且有效的避免權利受侵害方式，然而，為兼顧發信者言論自由的法益權衡，且誹謗性言論是否侵害名譽權判斷要件，相較於著作權侵害更為複雜，應認為網路服務提供者在接獲權利人通知後，負有在第一時點轉通知發信者之作為義務，當發信者經過相當期間未回覆反對通知或該反對通知顯無理由時，方於第二時點負擔刪除資訊之作為義務。且如網路服務提供者違反作為義務時，自該時點起與發信者成立一般侵權行為的競合。又攸關發信者通訊隱私權甚鉅的發信者個人資料揭露，本文認為依民事訴訟法起訴前證據保全程序，即足以保障權利人的名譽權及訴訟權，並可經由法院初步審酌權衡雙方的權益，無須仿效日本法創設實體法請求權，亦不妨礙我國現行的起訴嚴格要件。

關於網路服務提供者之一般民事領域免責事由規定，參酌著作權法專章規範的不完善及可取代性、著作權法與傳統民法領域的差異性，以及外國法立法權限劃分的制定背景，本文認為，依我國既有侵權行為規定以及訴訟法規定已足夠因應網路服務提供者一般民事責任，並且更能符合個案具體情形，亦可避免特別法過多架空普通法及適用混亂的現象，無須仿效外國法制定網路服務提供者免責事由規定，亦無須在傳統民事責任領域援引我國著作權法第六章之一的相關規定。

關鍵字

網路服務提供者 ； 作為義務 ； 免責事由 ； 發信者個人資料揭露 ； 誹謗性言論

並列摘要

The expansion of the Internet is composed of numerous information dissemination intermediaries/ or so called Internet Service Provider(ISP), which is newly evolved liable entity in these technical times. Under what circumstances, does ISP bear duty of care? and when the breach of duty of care happens, in what range should ISP be liable for the damages? all these questions are faced around the world. This thesis focuses on what civil liability should the hosting service provider take when the published information directly caused defamation/libel.

Since the enactment of America’s Communications Decency Act §230 in 1996, many other countries started to enact their own safe harbor statutes for ISP. In this thesis, we can find out that there are two legal systems of these statutes. First, in America’s Communications Decency Act §230, Japan’s Providers’ Limitations in Liability Law §3 and the United Kingdom’s 2013 Defamation Act, duty of care is imposed on ISP only when, after receiving the notification, ISP know or have reason to know the torts; In Japan’s and United Kingdom’s statutes, at the first point of time, the duty of care is to inform the subscriber, as if the subscriber doesn’t provide counter notification in time or the counter notification is obviously out of reason, at the second point of time, the duty of care is to remove the disputed information. In the contrast, in America’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act, European Union’s Directive on electronic commerce and its initiative and Taiwan’s Copyright Law Chapter 6-1, duty of care is imposed on ISP only when after receiving the notification ISP has actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of the torts, and accompanied with the legal elements of the notification, ISP needs to remove the disputed information immediately at the first point of time. No matter which legal system it is, when the ISP fails to fulfill the safe harbor statute, it returns to the traditional civil tort law to decide whether and how the ISP takes responsibility.

The hosting service provider is directly accessible to the subscriber and the information, so that it is often considered to be liable for the damages. The ISP is the only one who has the actual control ability over the information published other than the information content provider, and the ISP is in the specific situation that has the control power in this space, so that ISP needs to prevent the users in the platform from damages. However, it is not obliged to generally monitor content of the information, only when the right owner provides notification does ISP need to take actions. Though removing the information after receiving the notification is the fastest and the most effective way, this thesis maintains that, at the first point of time, informing the subscriber is the more precise duty of care, considering the balance between information content provider’s freedom of speech and the legal elements of defamatory speech/libel, which is more complex than the infringement of copyright. After that, as statutes in Japan and United Kingdom, removing the information is the duty of care at the second point of time. Whenever the ISP breaches the duty of care, it bears torts liability from that point of time along with the information content provider. As for the personal data about the information content provider, since the disclosure of the data interferes with people’s privacy in a large extent, this thesis maintains that perpetuation of evidence before litigation in Taiwan’s Civil Procedure Law is enough to protect the right owner’s reputation and right of action. The court can temporarily make a balance between two sides, and there is no need for Taiwan to imitate Japan to enact the statute to form the claim for the right owners, nor do we need to change the strict elements in Civil Procedure Law for filing a suit.

With regard to the safe harbor statute in general civil liability, considering the imperfect statute of the Copyright Law Chapter 6-1 could be replaced by civil tort law, also the difference between copyright and general civil rights, as well as the foreign safe harbor statutes are enacted due to the division of legislative powers, this thesis maintains that civil tort law and civil procedure law in our country nowadays can completely cover ISP civil liability. There is no need for Taiwan to imitate the safe harbor statutes or to extend the application of the Copyright Law Chapter 6-1 in general civil liability, so that we can decide the liability more concretely in different cases and avoid too many special statutes hollowing out general statute.

並列關鍵字

Internet Service Provider ； duty of care ； safe harbor ； disclosure of the personal data ； defamatory speech

參考文獻

王千維(2002)。〈論可分債務、連帶債務與不真正連帶債務(下)〉，《中正大學法學集刊》，8期，頁3-66。

王怡惠(2008)。〈德國電信服務法下訊息儲存服務提供者之法律責任〉，《科技法律透析》，20卷7期，頁15-20。

王怡蘋(2010)。〈論侵權行為法之作為義務〉，《政大法學評論》，116期，頁47-102。

林美惠(1998)。〈論我國法上交易安全義務理論之建立〉，《臺大法學論叢》，28卷第1期，頁297-326。

張乃文(2008)。〈談美國對於網站平台提供者揭露用戶資料規範及程序〉，《科技法律透析》，20卷11期，頁19-23。