Fast play: a "technology neutral" principle and its application limit-fast play, technology-neutral-IT information
In the current context, "technology neutral" principle has two meanings, one refers to "non-discrimination" principle, that is, in the development of rules or standards to address technology equal treatment, give a variety of technologies in a fair chance to compete, another meaning is used to refer to United States intellectual property law "substantial non-infringing uses" rules. In the current "fast play" case, the accused and counsel concerning the "technology neutrality", referring to the latter meaning. To learn more about "fast play" will the defendant in the case is based on "technology neutral" principle and argue that exemption, we first need to understand its meaning and application conditions.
The so-called "substantial non-infringing uses" rule is in fact a liability defense. In United States tort law, knew or should have known others to commit violations and help people to assume tort liability. If a class can be used only for legitimate purposes, can also be used for infringing purposes, then, simply because such items are likely to be used for infringing purposes by others and presumed provider "should have known" infringed and not being asked to help on the obligation or vicarious liability, this is the "substantial non-infringing uses" meaning of the rule . The rules, which are United States Federal Supreme Court home in 1984, "Sony" presented in the case, is the case with cases involving copyright infringement, but this rule was actually borrowed from patent law.
"Substantial non-infringing uses" aimed at limitation of liability for contributory infringement of the rules in a reasonable range, in the protection of intellectual property rights at the same time, will not hamper technological advances, however, this does not mean, as long as the provider can prove that the goods or technology or technologies have a legitimate use, you can claim exemption. Because, for almost any goods or technology, we can think of it has a legitimate purpose. If "substantial non-infringing uses" unrestricted application of the rules, then the contributory infringement liability rules were completely negative. In fact, the "substantial non-infringing uses" since the rules, after United States Federal Supreme Court a series of cases, the applicable conditions to qualify, thus more strict.
First of all,the "substantial non-infringing uses" rules are made to deny the "should have known" of others to commit the infringement inferred, so if there is evidence to prove that the accused for others to commit acts of infringement in fact is known, then there is no "substantial non-infringing uses" application of the rules of space .
Secondly, if the defendant is not simply providing something, instead of to another person induce, encourage, promote or suggest that it can be used for something illegal, infringing use, then, the defendants had no qualifications to provide goods there is a legitimate purpose for the claim of exemption.
Third, providers have the ability to detect and deter others to commit an infringement will be the grounds of the key. If a class items exists a species potential of illegal of, and infringement of uses, on others of interests damaged constitute threat, and, items of provides who has capacity take a species measures to stop infringement of occurred or will its against consequences reduced to social can tolerance of range within, but its and no take prevention measures, but allowed illegal event of occurred, so, its no qualification based on "substantive non-infringement uses" rules and exemption.
IV, item profit providers from the infringing acts of others is an important consideration will be the grounds of. If the provider goods made available for others to use it to engage in illegal abuses to make a profit, then it will be difficult to escape liability.
Need to note is that the "substantial non-infringing uses" meaning of the principle of technology neutrality was a rule of intellectual property law, which will apply in a criminal case, or whether you need to change the applicable conditions is a question. Because, technology neutral principles actually by reflected of is on related interests of weigh, it tries to in right people and behavior people free Zhijian seeks a balance, and this balance points is dynamic of, it with technology of update, and commercial mode of changes and social public value concept of changes and changes, so, technology neutral rules is not a stiff of rules, and has may in different times, and different national will has different of specific applies rules. Odd thing was, even though the principle of technology neutrality advocates claim that will contribute to the development of new technologies, however, with the rapid development of technology in recent years, the principle of technology neutrality is increasingly being challenged and questioned, judicial practice, showing scope applicable conditions increasingly strict, gradual shrinkage of the trend. Other than that. The principle of technology neutrality was born in intellectual property cases, accused of charges against other people's civil rights, and victims in criminal cases are victims of social order, such differences can affect balance, and effects technology neutral rules apply, which is why we read "fast play" you need to be aware of.
Even assuming that the principle of technology neutrality in the case of intellectual property rights could equally apply to criminal cases in the current "fast play" case, the defendant may not be based on the principle of exemption.
First, technology neutral principles is common infringement in the help infringement people of defence causes, in criminal case in the corresponds to of is help made, so, in "fast broadcast" case in the, if accused was allegations help others spread obscene video, technology neutral principles has applies of may, but, if accused was allegations of is directly engaged in obscene video of spread, that also on and technology neutral principles has nothing to do has.
Second, assumed Court finds accused is in help others spread obscene video and non-himself directly spread, so, we need further consider following related facts of finds, to decided accused whether can exemption: accused for others spread obscene video of behavior whether actually knows, its whether to public or user publicity or hinted its provides of fast broadcast software can play obscene video; accused except provides technology software outside, whether also engaged in has other help spread behavior, for example, storage, and search, service. If the answer is Yes, then the defendant could not be based on the principle of technology neutrality disclaimer.
Third, the fast spread of broadcast software can be used for both legal and health videos, and can also be used for dissemination of pornographic videos is prohibited by law, for which the defendant should be able to recognize, in this case, the defendant is under an obligation to take certain precautions to prevent the spread of pornographic videos. Law does not require the full block all of the harmful videos, however, must be done reasonable care responsibilities. "Fast play" Although the company said it develops and uses the "110" filtration system, however, the technical measures is to achieve a reasonable level, there is no further improvement possible, technical experts and the Court is needed to analyze the finds.
Finally, a prerequisite for advocating the principle of technology neutrality was, providers cannot use technology to provide technology to engage in criminal behavior and profit, at this point, seems difficult to meet conditions of broadcasting company. Broadcast companies provide software and cache Accelerator is free to the public, but, as other Internet companies, is its "wool in pigs" business model, which can attract users through the spread of pornographic video and increased click-through rate, and earn advertising fees and other income from a third party.
From the above analysis we can see that,"fast play" defendants in the case are to "technology neutrality" principle and argue that exemption, which faced many legal obstacles . "Fast play" case defendants were eventually found guilty or not guilty, as the Internet company should be alert: in the design of a product or service, should not only take into account the technical and economic feasibility, also taking into account its legal viability. "Technology neutral" principle is by no means universal weapon of evasion of liability .
快播案：“技术中立”原则及其适用限制 - 快播,技术中立 - IT资讯
在中国现行语境下，“技术中立”原则有两种含义，一种是指“非歧视”原则，即政府在制定各种规则或标准时，应对各种技术同等对待，给予各种技术以公平竞争的机会；另一种含义则是用来指代美国知识产权法中的“实质性非侵权用途”规则。在当前的“快播”案中，被告和辩护人所提出的“技术中立”原则，指的就是后一种含义。欲了解“快播”案的被告人可否基于“技术中立”原则而主张免责，我们首先需要了解其意义和适用条件。
所谓的“实质性非侵权用途”规则，其实是一项责任抗辩事由。在美国侵权法中，明知或应知他人实施侵权行为而给予帮助的人也要承担侵权责任。如果某类物品既可以被用于合法的用途，也可被用于侵权用途，那么，不能仅仅因为该类物品有可能被他人用于侵权用途而推定提供者“应当知道”他人侵权，更不能以此为由被要求承担帮助责任或替代责任，这就是“实质性非侵权用途”规则的含义。该项规则是美国联邦中国最高人民法院院在1984年的“索尼”案中提出来的，该案是一起涉及版权侵权的案件，但这项规则实际上是从专利法中借鉴而来的。
“实质性非侵权用途”规则的目的在于将帮助侵权的责任限制在一个合理的范围内，在保护知识产权人的利益的同时，不至于妨碍技术的进步，但是，这并不意味着，只要物品或技术的提供者能够证明该物品或技术存在一项合法用途，就可以主张免责。因为，几乎对于任何物品或技术而言，我们都可以想出它有一种合法用途。如果“实质性非侵权用途”规则可以无限制地适用，那么，帮助侵权的责任规则就会被彻底否定。实际上，“实质性非侵权用途”规则自产生以来，经过美国联邦中国最高人民法院院的一系列判例，其适用条件不断地受到限定，从而日趋严格。
首先，“实质性非侵权用途”规则是用来否定对“应当知道”他人实施侵权的推断的，因此，如果有证据能够证明被告对于他人实施的侵权行为事实上是知道的，那么，就不存在“实质性非侵权用途”规则的适用空间。
其次，如果被告并不是单纯地提供某种物品，而是主动向他人诱导、鼓励、宣传或暗示该物品可以被用于某种非法的、侵权的用途，那么，被告亦无资格以其提供的物品还存在某种合法用途为由而主张免责。
第三，物品的提供者有没有能力发现并阻止他人实施侵权行为是可否得到免责的关键。如果某类物品存在某种潜在的非法的、侵权的用途，对他人的利益受损构成威胁，并且，物品的提供者有能力采取某种措施来制止侵权的发生或将其危害后果降低到社会可容忍的范围内，但其并没有采取防范措施，而是听任违法事件的发生，那么，其无资格基于“实质性非侵权用途”规则而免责。
第四，物品的提供者是否从他人的侵权行为中获利是其可否得到免责的重要考虑因素。如果提供者因他人使用其提供的物品从事违法侵权行为而从中获利，那么，其将难以逃脱侵权责任。
需要说明的是，上述“实质性非侵权用途”意义的技术中立原则原本是知识产权法中的一项规则，其可否在刑事案件中适用，或者是否需要改变适用条件，是一个值得思考的问题。因为，技术中立原则实际上所体现的是对相关利益的权衡，它试图在权利人与行为人自由之间谋求一种平衡，而这种平衡点是动态的，它随着技术的更新、商业模式的变化和社会公众价值观念的变化而变化，因此，技术中立规则并不是一个僵硬的规则，而有可能在不同时代、不同国家会有不同的具体适用规则。比较诡异的是，虽然技术中立原则的拥护者声称其有助于新技术的发展，然而，随着近年来技术的迅猛发展，技术中立原则却日益受到挑战和质疑，在司法实践中，呈现出适用条件日渐严格、适用范围日渐收缩的趋势。另外。技术中立原则诞生于知识产权案件中，被告受到的指控是侵害他人的是民事权利，而在刑事案件中受侵害害的则是社会秩序，此种差异亦有可能影响对平衡点的把握，从而影响技术中立规则的适用，这也是我们在解读“快播”案时需要注意的。
即使我们假定知识产权案件中的技术中立原则也可以同样适用于刑事案件，在当前的“快播”案中，被告人亦未必可基于该原则而免责。
首先，技术中立原则是共同侵权中帮助侵权人的抗辩事由，在刑事案件中对应的是帮助犯，因此，在“快播”案中，如果被告人被指控帮助他人传播淫秽视频，技术中立原则有适用的可能，但是，如果被告人被指控的是直接从事淫秽视频的传播，那也就与技术中立原则无关了。
其次，假设法院认定被告人是在帮助他人传播淫秽视频而非自己直接传播，那么，我们需要进一步考虑以下相关事实的认定，以决定被告人是否可免责：被告人对于他人传播淫秽视频的行为是否事实上知悉，其是否向公众或用户宣传或暗示其提供的快播软件能够播放淫秽视频；被告人除了提供技术软件外，是否还从事了其他帮助传播行为，例如，存储、搜索等服务。如果上述答案是肯定的，那么，被告人无法基于技术中立原则而免责。
第三，快播软件既可以用于传播合法的、健康的视频，亦可被用来传播法律所禁止的淫秽视频，对此被告人应该能认识到的，在这种情况下，被告人就有义务采取一定的防范措施来阻止淫秽视频的传播。法律并不会要求其百分百的屏蔽所有的有害视频，但是，其必须要尽到合理的防范责任。“快播”公司虽然声称其开发并使用了“110”过滤系统，但是，此项技术防范措施是达到了合理的程度，有无进一步改进的可能，尚需技术专家和法院来分析认定。
第四，主张技术中立原则的一个前提是，技术的提供者不能从他人利用其提供的技术从事违法犯罪行为而从中牟利，在这一点上，快播公司似乎很难达到条件。虽然快播公司是向公众免费提供软件和缓存加速服务，但是，正如其他互联网公司一样，其采取的是“羊毛出在猪身上”的商业模式，其可以通过淫秽视频的传播而吸引用户，增加点击率，从而从第三方赚取广告费等收入。
从以上分析中我们可以看出，“快播”案的被告人若要想基于“技术中立”原则而主张免责，其面临着许多法律障碍。无论“快播”案的被告人最终被认定为有罪还是无罪，作为互联网企业都应警醒：在设计一项产品或服务时，不应当仅考虑其在技术上、经济上是否可行，还要考虑其在法律上是否可行。“技术中立”原则决不是逃避法律责任的万能武器。