先说清楚:这页是什么、不是什么
这页是 17 U.S.C. §512 的逐款注释:每款先给英文原文——照抄自康奈尔法学院法律信息研究所(Cornell LII)收录的美国法典现行文本,一个标点没动——再给中文参考译文和创作者视角的实务注解。
三件事先讲明:①中文译文是本站自制的参考译文,不是官方译本,与英文原文有出入时以原文为准;②本页讲条文,概念入门请从避风港原则词条读起,DMCA 全貌见 DMCA 是什么;③本注释库是法律科普,不构成法律意见,个案请咨询律师。
四类避风港分工速查
| 条款 | 罩什么服务 | 典型主体 | 你的下架函 |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) 传输通道 | 纯网络传输与接入 | 电信商、宽带 ISP | 不发——它没有通知下架义务 |
| (b) 系统缓存 | 自动技术过程产生的缓存 | CDN(如 Cloudflare 的缓存层) | 可发但有 (b)(2)(E) 前提;更常用来揭出源站托管商 |
| (c) 用户上传存储 | 用户上传内容的托管 | 视频站、论坛、网盘、社交平台 | 主战场:按 (c)(3) 六要素寄给指定代理人 |
| (d) 信息定位工具 | 搜索、目录、链接 | Google、Bing、链接汇整站 | 发去索引请求,指认搜索结果里的具体链接 |
四款之上还有一道共用大门:§512(i)(累犯政策+标准技术措施),哪款都要先过它。
§512(a)传输通道:纯管道
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if—
(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
(a) 暂时性数位网络通信。——服务提供者因传输、路由材料,或为材料提供连线,使其通过服务提供者控制或运营(或为其运营)的系统或网络传送,或因在此种传输、路由或提供连线过程中对该材料的中介性、暂时性存储,而涉及的著作权侵权,不负金钱救济责任;除第 (j) 款另有规定外,亦不负禁制令或其他衡平救济责任。但须满足下列条件:
(1) 材料的传输由服务提供者以外的人发起或依其指示进行;
(2) 传输、路由、连线的提供或存储经由自动技术过程完成,服务提供者未对材料作任何挑选;
(3) 服务提供者不挑选材料的接收者,但作为对他人请求的自动响应除外;
(4) 服务提供者在中介性或暂时性存储过程中制作的材料副本,不以预期接收者以外的任何人通常可存取的方式保存在系统或网络上;且此种副本以预期接收者通常可存取的方式保存的期间,不超过传输、路由或提供连线所合理必要的时间;
(5) 材料经系统或网络传输时,其内容未经修改。
这条罩的是纯管道:电信商、宽带接入商,只负责把数据从 A 搬到 B,不选内容、不选收件人、不留副本、不改内容。五个条件全部围绕「你只是水管」这一件事。
对你最实用的一点是反着读:(a) 的条件清单里没有「收到通知要下架」这一项——通道商拿避风港不以处理你的 DMCA 通知为前提。所以给盗版站的上游电信商发下架函,基本敲不出结果;真正能让内容消失的收函方,是内容驻存的托管平台((c))和让人找到它的搜索引擎((d))。找对收函方的完整排查路径见滥用举报联系方式怎么找。
「盗版站用了哪家 ISP,我就给哪家发 DMCA,让它掐断线路。」——(a) 类通道商没有通知下架义务,函发过去多半石沉大海。法条留给权利人的杠杆在别处:§512(i) 的累犯政策,以及 (j)(1)(B) 下法院对通道商可下的有限禁制令(终止特定订户账号、封锁特定境外站点)——那是诉讼层的事,不是一封函能启动的。
§512(b)系统缓存:CDN 层
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(b) System Caching.—
(1) Limitation on liability.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider in a case in which—
(A) the material is made available online by a person other than the service provider;
(B) the material is transmitted from the person described in subparagraph (A) through the system or network to a person other than the person described in subparagraph (A) at the direction of that other person; and
(C) the storage is carried out through an automatic technical process for the purpose of making the material available to users of the system or network who, after the material is transmitted as described in subparagraph (B), request access to the material from the person described in subparagraph (A),
if the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) Conditions.—The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that—
(A) the material described in paragraph (1) is transmitted to the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) without modification to its content from the manner in which the material was transmitted from the person described in paragraph (1)(A);
(B) the service provider described in paragraph (1) complies with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the material when specified by the person making the material available online in accordance with a generally accepted industry standard data communications protocol for the system or network through which that person makes the material available, except that this subparagraph applies only if those rules are not used by the person described in paragraph (1)(A) to prevent or unreasonably impair the intermediate storage to which this subsection applies;
(C) the service provider does not interfere with the ability of technology associated with the material to return to the person described in paragraph (1)(A) the information that would have been available to that person if the material had been obtained by the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) directly from that person, except that this subparagraph applies only if that technology—
(i) does not significantly interfere with the performance of the provider’s system or network or with the intermediate storage of the material;
(ii) is consistent with generally accepted industry standard communications protocols; and
(iii) does not extract information from the provider’s system or network other than the information that would have been available to the person described in paragraph (1)(A) if the subsequent users had gained access to the material directly from that person;
(D) if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) has in effect a condition that a person must meet prior to having access to the material, such as a condition based on payment of a fee or provision of a password or other information, the service provider permits access to the stored material in significant part only to users of its system or network that have met those conditions and only in accordance with those conditions; and
(E) if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) makes that material available online without the authorization of the copyright owner of the material, the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), except that this subparagraph applies only if—
(i) the material has previously been removed from the originating site or access to it has been disabled, or a court has ordered that the material be removed from the originating site or that access to the material on the originating site be disabled; and
(ii) the party giving the notification includes in the notification a statement confirming that the material has been removed from the originating site or access to it has been disabled or that a court has ordered that the material be removed from the originating site or that access to the material on the originating site be disabled.
(b) 系统缓存。——
(1) 责任限制。——在下列情形下,服务提供者因在其控制或运营(或为其运营)的系统或网络上对材料的中介性、临时性存储而涉及的著作权侵权,不负金钱救济责任;除第 (j) 款另有规定外,亦不负禁制令或其他衡平救济责任:
(A) 材料由服务提供者以外的人在线上提供;
(B) 该材料依 (A) 目所述之人以外的另一人的指示,从 (A) 目所述之人经该系统或网络传输给该另一人;且
(C) 该存储经由自动技术过程完成,目的是让系统或网络的用户在材料依 (B) 目所述方式传输之后、向 (A) 目所述之人请求存取时,能够取得该材料,
并以满足第 (2) 项所列条件为限。
(2) 条件。——第 (1) 项所指条件为:
(A) 第 (1) 项所述材料传输给第 (1) 项 (C) 目所述后续用户时,其内容相较于自 (A) 目所述之人传出时的样态未经修改;
(B) 当线上提供材料之人依其提供材料所经系统或网络通行的、业界普遍接受的标准数据通信协议,指定了关于材料刷新、重新加载或其他更新方式的规则时,服务提供者遵守该规则;但本目仅在 (A) 目所述之人未利用此种规则阻止或不合理妨碍本款所适用的中介性存储时方有适用;
(C) 服务提供者不干扰与材料相关联的技术向 (A) 目所述之人回传信息的能力,该信息以后续用户直接向该人取得材料时该人本可获得者为限;但本目仅在该技术满足下列条件时方有适用:(i) 不显著干扰服务提供者系统或网络的性能,亦不显著干扰材料的中介性存储;(ii) 符合业界普遍接受的标准通信协议;且 (iii) 除后续用户直接向该人取得材料时该人本可获得的信息外,不从服务提供者的系统或网络提取其他信息;
(D) 如 (A) 目所述之人设有存取材料前须满足的条件,例如付费、提供密码或其他信息,则服务提供者实质上仅允许其系统或网络上已满足该条件的用户、并仅依该条件存取所存储的材料;且
(E) 如 (A) 目所述之人未经材料著作权人授权而在线上提供该材料,服务提供者在收到第 (c)(3) 款所述侵权通知后,迅速移除被指称侵权的材料或停用对它的存取;但本目仅在下列情形方有适用:(i) 该材料先前已从来源站移除或已被停用存取,或法院已命令将该材料从来源站移除或停用来源站上对该材料的存取;且 (ii) 发出通知的一方在通知中载明声明,确认该材料已从来源站移除或已被停用存取,或法院已作出上述命令。
这条罩的是自动缓存层——最常见的现实对应物就是 CDN。盗版站套一层 Cloudflare,你看到的页面很多时候是缓存副本;缓存服务商对这些副本主张的就是 (b)。
发函前把 (b)(2)(E) 看清楚:缓存层的下架义务带两道前提——①材料已经从来源站移除(或法院已命令移除);②你的通知里要写明确认这一点的声明。原站还活着、你也没有法院命令时,对缓存商发再标准的 (c) 式通知,它在 (b) 之下也没有清缓存的义务。这就是为什么给 Cloudflare 发 DMCA,得到的常是「已转发给托管商」而不是内容消失。
所以实务顺位是:CDN 渠道先用来揭出背后的真实托管商,对托管商打 (c) 的战场;CDN 层机制详解见 CDN / Cloudflare 词条。
「Cloudflare 是它的托管商,发通知让 Cloudflare 删。」——两个错:CDN 缓存层通常不是托管商,它走 (b) 不走 (c);而 (b) 的下架义务以「原站已移除或法院已命令」为前提,还要求通知里附确认声明。把 CDN 当托管商发函,方向就偏了。
§512(c)(1)托管平台的三道门
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.—
(1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
(c) 依用户指示驻存于系统或网络的信息。——
(1) 总则。——对于依用户指示存储、驻存在服务提供者控制或运营(或为其运营)的系统或网络上的材料,服务提供者不因此涉及的著作权侵权负金钱救济责任;除第 (j) 款另有规定外,亦不负禁制令或其他衡平救济责任。但须服务提供者:
(A)(i) 对该材料或系统、网络上使用该材料的活动构成侵权,不具实际知悉;
(ii) 在不具实际知悉的情况下,亦未察觉能明显推知侵权活动的事实或情况;或
(iii) 在获得此种知悉或察觉后,迅速采取行动移除该材料或停用对它的存取;
(B) 在服务提供者有权利和能力控制侵权活动的情形下,未获得直接归因于该侵权活动的经济利益;且
(C) 在收到第 (3) 项所述侵权通知后,迅速移除被指称侵权或作为侵权活动客体的材料,或停用对它的存取。
这是你维权的主战场:视频站、论坛、网盘、社交平台——一切「内容是用户传上来的」服务,靠的都是 (c)。它给平台开了三道门,任何一道关上,避风港就没了:
- 知悉门 (A):实际知悉,或「红旗知悉」——察觉了能明显推知侵权的事实还装没看见。注意判例把这两种知悉都限定在针对具体侵权材料,不是「知道站上大概有盗版」的泛泛认知(详见 Viacom v. YouTube 与 UMG v. Veoh);
- 利益门 (B):有控制权+从侵权直接抽成,两个要件要同时成立;
- 通知门 (C):收到合规通知后迅速下架。
你发的每一封 DMCA 函,法律作用点就是 (C):平台不迅速处理,等于亲手把这道门关上,拿避风港去换被你起诉的风险——这就是「一封函能让平台动起来」的全部原理,机制入门见通知取下。
「平台明知自己站上一堆盗版还不清理,避风港早该没了。」——泛泛的「站上有盗版」认知,在主流判例下不构成 (A) 的知悉;知悉要落到具体材料上。反过来说,你的通知恰恰是制造「具体知悉」的工具:一旦指认到 URL,平台就再也没法说不知道。
§512(c)(2)指定代理人
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(2) Designated agent.—The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.
The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.
(2) 指定代理人。——本款设立的责任限制,仅在服务提供者已指定代理人接收第 (3) 项所述侵权通知时,方对其适用;指定方式为经由其服务(包括在其网站上可供公众取用的位置)公布下列信息,并将其提供给著作权局,实质上包含:
(A) 代理人的姓名、地址、电话号码及电子邮件地址;
(B) 著作权局局长认为适当的其他联络信息。
著作权局局长应维护一份可供公众查阅(包括经由网际网路查阅)的现行代理人名录,并得要求服务提供者缴费以支应维护名录的成本。
平台想要 (c) 避风港,必须先登记一个指定代理人当收函口,而且要两头公示:自己网站上一处、美国著作权局的公开名录里一处。
对你的实用价值:发函前先查著作权局的 DMCA 代理人名录,那是平台自己登记的官方收函地址,比网站角落翻到的邮箱可靠;名录里查无此平台,说明它连 (c) 的门票都没买——这类站点直接走托管商与上游渠道。代理人制度的细节与费用见 DMCA 代理人词条,送达顺序的完整打法见自己发 DMCA 指南。
§512(c)(3)通知要素(总览)
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(3) Elements of notification.—
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.
(ii) In a case in which the notification that is provided to the service provider’s designated agent fails to comply substantially with all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A).
(3) 通知的要素。——
(A) 侵权通知须为提供给服务提供者指定代理人的书面通信,并实质上包含下列内容,方在本款下有效:
(i) 获授权代表被指称受侵害的专属权利之权利人行事之人的亲笔或电子签名。
(ii) 指明主张受侵害的著作;若一份通知涵盖同一线上站点的多件著作,得提供该站点上此类著作的代表性清单。
(iii) 指明被指称侵权或作为侵权活动客体、应予移除或停用存取的材料,并提供合理充分的信息,使服务提供者能定位该材料。
(iv) 合理充分的信息,使服务提供者能联络投诉方,例如地址、电话号码,及(如有)可联络到投诉方的电子邮件地址。
(v) 一项声明:投诉方善意确信,以所投诉的方式使用该材料,未经著作权人、其代理人或法律授权。
(vi) 一项声明:通知中的信息准确,且投诉方愿受伪证罪处罚,声明其获授权代表被指称受侵害的专属权利之权利人行事。
(B)(i) 在符合第 (ii) 目规定的前提下,著作权人或其授权人发出的通知,若未实质符合 (A) 目各项规定,则在依第 (1) 段第 (A) 项判断服务提供者是否具有实际知悉、或是否察觉能明显推知侵权活动的事实或情况时,不予考虑。
(ii) 若送达服务提供者指定代理人的通知未实质符合 (A) 目的全部规定,但实质符合其中 (ii)(iii)(iv) 三目,则仅在服务提供者及时尝试联络发出通知之人、或采取其他合理步骤协助取得实质符合 (A) 目全部规定的通知时,前述 (i) 目方有适用。
这就是「DMCA 六要素」的法源。逐要素怎么填、英文模板长什么样,操作层已经写透在自己发 DMCA 下架通知,这里只补三个条文层的点:
- 门槛是 substantially(实质符合),不是逐字打卡——写法瑕疵不当然致命;
- (B) 是补正机制:通知只要把「哪件著作、哪个 URL、怎么联系你」三样((ii)(iii)(iv))写实在了,平台就有义务主动联系你补齐其余要素,不能装聋;彻底不合格的通知才不计入平台的「知悉」;
- (v)(vi) 两个声明是有牙齿的:善意确信声明经 Lenz 案要求发函前把合理使用纳入考虑,失实陈述则直接对接 §512(f) 的赔偿责任。签名别乱签、权属别虚报,尤其代理发函的场景。
「通知缺了一个要素就整封作废,重写重发。」——(B)(ii) 说的恰恰相反:核心三要素((ii)(iii)(iv))实质在位时,补正的球在平台那边。反过来,别把宽松当纵容:六要素俱全的函处理速度远快于让平台来回追问的函。
§512(d)信息定位工具
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(d) Information Location Tools.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—
(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.
(d) 信息定位工具。——服务提供者因使用信息定位工具(包括目录、索引、参照、指针或超链接)将用户引导或链接至含有侵权材料或侵权活动的线上位置,而涉及的著作权侵权,不负金钱救济责任;除第 (j) 款另有规定外,亦不负禁制令或其他衡平救济责任。但须服务提供者:
(1)(A) 对该材料或活动构成侵权不具实际知悉;
(B) 在不具实际知悉的情况下,亦未察觉能明显推知侵权活动的事实或情况;或
(C) 在获得此种知悉或察觉后,迅速移除该材料或停用对它的存取;
(2) 在服务提供者有权利和能力控制侵权活动的情形下,未获得直接归因于该侵权活动的经济利益;且
(3) 在收到第 (c)(3) 款所述侵权通知后,迅速移除被指称侵权或作为侵权活动客体的材料,或停用对它的存取;但就本项而言,第 (c)(3)(A)(iii) 目所述信息,应为指明应予移除或停用存取的、指向被指称侵权材料或活动的参照或链接,并提供合理充分的信息,使服务提供者能定位该参照或链接。
这条罩搜索引擎和一切「指路」服务:Google、Bing 的搜索结果,目录站、链接汇整站,都在这。
两个结构点值得盯着看:
- (d)(1) 与 (c)(1)(A) 用的是同一套知悉标准——实际知悉、红旗知悉、知后速删三段结构一致,其中红旗知悉与知后速删两目措辞逐字相同,仅首目对客体的表述略有出入((c) 写「材料或使用该材料的活动」,(d) 写「材料或活动」)。所以别把「红旗知悉」当 (c) 独有:以「收集盗版链接」为业的站点,同样会在 (d) 之下因红旗知悉出局(Columbia v. Fung 就是教科书案例);
- (d)(3) 把通知的指认对象改成了「链接」:给搜索引擎发函,要指认的是搜索结果里那条具体链接,不是笼统说「这个站盗我」。这直接决定了去索引请求该怎么填。
(d) 还有一处和 (c) 的沉默差异:它没有搭 (c)(2) 的指定代理人要件。实务操作走各家搜索引擎自己的举报入口就行,完整流程见去索引词条与 Google 移除实务。
「Google 受理了,内容就没了。」——去索引只让它从搜索结果里消失,盗版页面本身还在原站活着,知道网址的人照常访问。去索引是断流量的辅攻,主攻永远是对托管平台的 (c) 通知,两条腿的配合见管站下架与去索引实务。
§512(i)共用大门:累犯政策与技术措施
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—
(1) Accommodation of technology.—The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
(2) Definition.—As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and—
(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.
(i) 适格条件。——
(1) 对技术的配合。——本条设立的各项责任限制,仅在服务提供者满足下列条件时,方对其适用:
(A) 已采纳并合理执行一项政策,规定在适当情形下终止其系统或网络上屡次侵权(repeat infringers)的订户与账号持有人的资格,并已将该政策告知其系统或网络的订户与账号持有人;且
(B) 配合标准技术措施,且不加以干扰。
(2) 定义。——本款所称「标准技术措施」,指著作权人用以识别或保护著作的技术措施,且:
(A) 系经著作权人与服务提供者在公开、公平、自愿、跨行业的标准制定程序中形成广泛共识而制定;
(B) 任何人均可依合理且无差别的条件取得;且
(C) 不对服务提供者造成重大成本,亦不对其系统或网络造成重大负担。
(i) 是四条避风港共用的大门——「established by this section」意味着 (a)(b)(c)(d) 哪条都要先过这关。
(A) 累犯政策:原文只说在「appropriate circumstances(适当情形)」下终止「repeat infringers」的账号,没定义几次算累犯、没规定必须「三振出局」。但「合理执行」四个字是真约束:政策写在纸上却从不执行,整个 §512 的保护伞一起丢——BMG v. Cox 里 Cox 就是这样丢掉避风港的(第四巡回,2018);其后同一被告的 Sony v. Cox 案,陪审团曾开出 10 亿美元量级的判赔——该金额 2024 年经上诉法院撤销、发回重审,2026 年 3 月美国最高法院终局改判 Cox 不构成帮助侵权。但 BMG 案立下的教训不变:纸面上的累犯政策不执行,平台丢的是 §512 避风港本身。对你的意义:同一个搬运号反复上传,把历次通知的记录整理成一份「同一人、多次侵权」的材料发给平台,你敲的就是这条,打法详见累犯政策词条。
(B) 标准技术措施:定义卡得很严(跨行业共识+无差别开放+不增重大负担),完全符合这套定义、获得普遍承认的 STM 实务上一直罕见,这一目的实际杀伤力远小于 (A)。
「平台收到三次通知就必须封号。」——法条没有任何次数门槛,「三振」是部分平台自己政策里的做法,不是 §512(i) 的要求。反过来的误读也有:「没有固定次数=平台可以永远不封」——合理执行是司法真会审的实质要件,已有大型服务商因政策形同虚设而整个丢掉避风港、招来天价索赔诉讼。
§512(k)(l)(m)定义、其他抗辩与隐私边界
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(k) Definitions.—
(1) Service provider.—
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term “service provider” means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term “service provider” means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Monetary relief.—As used in this section, the term “monetary relief” means damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other form of monetary payment.
(l) Other Defenses Not Affected.—The failure of a service provider’s conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider’s conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense.
(m) Protection of Privacy.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to condition the applicability of subsections (a) through (d) on—
(1) a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity, except to the extent consistent with a standard technical measure complying with the provisions of subsection (i); or
(2) a service provider gaining access to, removing, or disabling access to material in cases in which such conduct is prohibited by law.
(k) 定义。——
(1) 服务提供者。——
(A) 就第 (a) 款而言,所称「服务提供者」,指为数位线上通信提供传输、路由或连线的实体;该通信在用户指定的点与点之间进行,传送用户所选择的材料,且对材料内容如发送与接收时的原样不作修改。
(B) 就本条除第 (a) 款以外的规定而言,所称「服务提供者」,指线上服务或网络连线的提供者,或其设施的运营者,并包括 (A) 目所述实体。
(2) 金钱救济。——本条所称「金钱救济」,指损害赔偿、诉讼费用、律师费及任何其他形式的金钱给付。
(l) 不影响其他抗辩。——服务提供者的行为未能符合本条责任限制的适格条件,不得对下列抗辩的审酌产生不利影响:该服务提供者主张其行为依本编不构成侵权的抗辩,或任何其他抗辩。
(m) 隐私保护。——本条任何规定,均不得解释为使第 (a) 至 (d) 款的适用,以下列事项为条件:
(1) 服务提供者监控其服务,或主动查找显示侵权活动的事实;但在与符合第 (i) 款规定的标准技术措施相一致的范围内,不在此限;或
(2) 服务提供者在法律禁止此种行为的情形下,取得对材料的存取、移除材料或停用对材料的存取。
§512(n)四款各自独立判断
英文原文 · 17 U.S.C. §512
(n) Construction.—Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions for purposes of applying this section. Whether a service provider qualifies for the limitation on liability in any one of those subsections shall be based solely on the criteria in that subsection, and shall not affect a determination of whether that service provider qualifies for the limitations on liability under any other such subsection.
(n) 解释规则。——就本条的适用而言,第 (a)(b)(c)(d) 四款描述的是彼此分离、互不相同的功能。服务提供者是否符合其中任何一款的责任限制,应仅依该款所定标准判断,且不影响其是否符合其他任何一款责任限制的认定。
收尾这条把总览的骨架钉死:四条避风港按功能切,不按公司切。同一家公司可以身兼多款——搜索业务走 (d)、视频托管走 (c)、网络接入走 (a),每一款独立判断,一款失格不连坐其他款。
对你的操作含义:发函前先问「对方此刻对这份盗版内容扮演什么功能」,再决定函的形态——是指认 URL 的托管通知,还是指认链接的去索引请求,还是带原站已移除声明的缓存通知。对象搞对了,后面的时间线与结果才谈得上。
(e)(f)(g)(h)(j):本页没逐款展开的条款去哪了
- (e) 非营利教育机构特则:公立与非营利高校对教师、研究生侵权行为的知悉归属特例,与创作者维权的日常关系很小,知道存在即可;
- (f) 不实陈述:发函人最该逐字读的一条——明知而重大失实地指称侵权,要赔对方的损失和律师费。单独深读页:§512(f) 不实陈述;
- (g) 下架后的机制:平台下架后通知上传者、上传者反通知、10–14 个工作日回填的整套流程。收到反通知怎么办见反通知应对;
- (h) 身份传票:凭一份 (c)(3)(A) 通知副本加宣誓声明,可请美国联邦地区法院书记官签发传票,要求服务提供者交出侵权者的身份信息——匿名维权与揭人两个方向都用得上;
- (j) 禁制令:对拿到避风港的服务提供者,法院仍可下的禁制令类型与考量因素,诉讼层才会用到。
常见问题
看内容驻存在哪类服务:内容传在托管平台上,按 (c)(3) 六要素寄给平台的指定代理人,这是主战场;搜索结果里还搜得到,给搜索引擎发 (d) 的去索引请求,指认具体链接;套了 CDN 的站,先经 CDN 渠道揭出源站托管商再打 (c);纯传输通道((a) 类电信商)没有通知下架义务,不用发。
有用,但别期待它直接删内容。Cloudflare 对缓存副本适用 (b),而 (b)(2)(E) 的下架义务以「原站已移除或法院已命令移除」为前提,还要求通知里附确认声明,所以常见结果是转发给源站托管商。实务上它的最大价值是帮你定位藏在 CDN 后面的真实托管商,再对托管商发 (c) 通知。
合法。§512(m) 明文规定,四类避风港的适用不以「平台监控自己的服务、主动查找侵权事实」为条件。平台的下架义务通常从你的合规通知送达那一刻启动((c)(1)(C));它另行获得实际知悉或红旗知悉时同样要动((c)(1)(A)),但没有主动巡查的义务。这也意味着监测发现是权利人自己的功课——等平台自己发现,制度设计上就等不到。
法条没写次数。§512(i)(1)(A) 只要求平台采纳并「合理执行」一项在适当情形下终止 repeat infringers 账号的政策,几次算累犯由平台政策和个案判断。你能做的是把「同一人、多次通知」的记录整理成材料发给平台——政策形同虚设的平台会整个丢掉 §512 保护——BMG v. Cox 已经立下判例,其后续同一被告案件的陪审团判赔一度开到十亿美元量级(该金额经上诉撤销,2026 年 3 月最高法院终局判 Cox 不构成帮助侵权;BMG 案确立的避风港教训不受影响)。
避风港只给满足条件的服务商,不是无条件豁免:红旗知悉((c)(1)(A)/(d)(1))、有控制权还从侵权直接获利((c)(1)(B)/(d)(2))、不执行累犯政策((i)),任何一条不满足就出局。以收集盗版链接为业的 isoHunt 在 Columbia v. Fung 案里就是因此无法主张避风港。真正的盗版站通常根本不在乎避风港,对付它们走托管商、支付与广告链路等站外杠杆。
参考来源
本文引用的官方、法规与专业来源,最后核查于 2026-07-25:
读完做法,不如先看看现状——输入艺名免费扫一次,不用注册,身份全程隐藏。
被盗情报,不用天天自己盯
新指南与值得知道的平台规则变化,会整理成不定期的维权快讯。留下 email(化名邮箱也可以),开通时第一批通知你。不卖名单、不发垃圾信;随时可删——写信到 support@veilharbor.com 即可。
VeilHarbor——华语创作者内容保护平台:24 小时扫描盗版、DMCA 下架、追踪复发。