Can anyone explain to me the position of network service providers in the cyber environment and thei

1. Network service providers directly use the network to infringe on the civil rights and interests of others.

2. Where network users use network services to carry out infringing acts, the infringed party notifies the network service provider to take necessary measures such as deleting, blocking, or disconnecting the link, but the network service provider fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner after receiving the notice.

3. Network service providers know that network users are using their network services to infringe on the civil rights and interests of others, but fail to take necessary measures.

Article 1194 of the Civil Code [Online Liability for Infringement] Where network users or network service providers use the network to infringe upon the rights and interests of other people's filial piety, they shall bear tort liability. Where the law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.

Article 1195.

Remedies and Liability for Infringement by Network Service Providers] Where network users use network services to commit infringing acts, the rights holder has the right to notify the network service provider to take necessary measures such as deleting, blocking, or disconnecting links. The notice shall include prima facie evidence of infringement and the true identity information of the right holder.

After network service providers receive notices, they shall promptly forward the notice to relevant network users, and employ necessary measures based on the preliminary evidence and type of service that constitutes infringement; If necessary measures are not taken in a timely manner, the network user shall be jointly and severally liable for the expanded part of the damage.

1. How to deal with web infringement.

2. Considering the concealment of the network, if it is difficult for the infringed party to determine the true identity of the infringer, it can directly sue the network service provider. After filing a lawsuit, the court will order the network service provider to provide the allegedly infringing personal information of the network user;

3. Pay attention to jurisdiction. Online copyright infringement disputes are under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled. The place of infringement includes the location of the network server, computer terminal and other equipment that carried out the alleged infringement.

Where it is difficult to determine the place of the infringement and the defendant's domicile, the location of the computer terminal and other equipment where the plaintiff discovered the infringing content may be deemed to be the place of the infringement.

In cases involving infringement disputes involving domain names, the Intermediate People's Court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction. Where it is difficult to determine the place of infringement and the defendant's domicile, the location where the plaintiff discovers the location of the computer terminal and other equipment of the domain name may be regarded as the place of infringement.

4. Pay attention to the statute of limitations.

Article 1194 of the Civil Code: Where network users or network service providers use the network to infringe upon the civil rights and interests of others, they shall bear liability for the infringement of the manuscript. Where the law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.

1) A warning is a pre-admonition and reprimand issued by an administrative organ to the offender, and is mainly applicable to the illegal act where the circumstances are relatively minor; (2) The effect of ordering the infringer to stop the production and distribution of infringing copies is that the infringer cannot continue to make profits by making and distributing infringing copies, but it does not touch the income obtained by the infringer from the production and distribution of infringing copies, so it is inappropriate to use this method alone when the infringer has already obtained benefits; Confiscation of illegal gains refers to the surrender of all the proceeds obtained by the infringer through the infringement to the state treasury, and this form of punishment is a supplement to the previous form of punishment, and the combination of the two can leave the infringer with nothing (4) confiscation of infringing copies: In order to prevent the infringer from distributing the infringing copies or not and continuing to cause damage to the victims, it is necessary to confiscate the infringing copies; (5) confiscation of the equipment used to make infringing copies, In order to fundamentally eliminate the possibility of continuing to make infringing copies, it is necessary to confiscate the equipment used to make infringing copies; (6) FinesArticle 51 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of China stipulates that anyone who plagiarizes the works of others shall be fined 100 yuan to 5,000 yuan; Those who counterfeit other people's works of art shall be fined 1,000 yuan to 50,000 yuan, and those who may be punished for other acts of copyright infringement that can be punished may be fined 10,000 yuan to 100,000 yuan or two to five times the total price price.

Article 1169 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: Those who instigate or assist others in committing tortious acts shall bear joint and several liability with the perpetrator. Those who instigate or assist persons with no or limited capacity for civil conduct to commit tortious acts shall bear tort liability; Where the guardian of a person with no or limited capacity for civil conduct fails to perform his guardianship duties, he shall bear corresponding responsibility. Article 1197 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China": Where network service providers know or should know that network users are using their network services to infringe on the civil rights and interests of others, but fail to take necessary measures, the state of hail and the network user bear joint and several liability.

Answer]: The tort liability of network service providers can be understood in a broad and narrow sense. Broadly speaking, the tort liability of network service providers refers to the liability for acts when using the network to infringe on the civil rights and interests of others, as well as the liability for omission due to the failure to fulfill the obligations prescribed by law for the infringement of network users on their networks.

In a narrow sense, the tort liability of a network service provider only refers to the tort liability for omission due to the failure to avoid the infringement committed by the network user using its network. Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law directly stipulates the liability of network service providers, and Article 36 stipulates that network users and network service providers shall bear tort liability if they use the network to infringe upon the civil rights and interests of others. Where the internet fools a user to use a network service to commit an infringing act, the infringed party has the right to notify the network service provider to take necessary measures such as deleting, blocking, or disconnecting the link.

Where network service providers fail to take necessary measures in a timely manner after receiving notice, they are jointly and severally liable with the network user for the expanded portion of the damage. Where network service providers know that network users are using their network services to infringe on the civil rights and interests of others, but fail to take necessary measures, they are jointly and severally liable with the network users. There are two aspects:

The first is the direct infringement of the network service provider using the network. The first paragraph of Article 36 provides in principle that network service providers shall bear tort liability if they use the network to infringe upon the civil rights and interests of others. The second is the two situations in which the network service provider and the network user are jointly and severally liable when the network user uses the network to commit infringement.

The first situation is the "notification clause" provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 36, that is, after the victim has issued a notice of infringement, the network service provider shall promptly take measures such as deleting, blocking, or disconnecting the link to prevent the further dissemination of the infringing information, otherwise it will be jointly and severally liable with the infringer for the enlarged part of the damage. This rule obviously borrows from the "notice-takedown" procedure in the U.S. DMCA, but only makes provisions in principle, and does not provide operational provisions on the content of infringement notices and the procedures for issuing notices. [2] The second circumstance is the "knowledge clause" provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 36, that is, if a network service provider knows that a network user is using its network services to infringe on the civil rights and interests of others, and fails to take necessary measures such as deleting, blocking, or disconnecting the link, it shall be jointly and severally liable with the network user.

This paragraph is a determination that the network service provider has aided the infringement, because from the moment when the network service provider and the network user "know" that the infringement has occurred but fail to take the necessary measures, there is a common fault between the network service provider and the network user, and the network service provider actually plays the role of aiding the infringement with pure reform. The specific form of this is "knowing", the core element is "fault", and the legal consequences are the joint and several liability of the network service provider and the network user.