先說清楚:這頁是什麼、不是什麼
這頁是 17 U.S.C. §512 的逐款註釋:每款先給英文原文——照抄自康奈爾法學院法律資訊研究所(Cornell LII)收錄的美國法典現行文字,一個標點沒動——再給中文參考譯文和創作者視角的實務註解。
三件事先講明:①中文譯文是本站自制的參考譯文,不是官方譯本,與英文原文有出入時以原文為準;②本頁講條文,概念入門請從避風港原則詞條讀起,DMCA 全貌見 DMCA 是什麼;③本註釋庫是法律科普,不構成法律意見,個案請諮詢律師。
四類避風港分工速查
| 條款 | 罩什麼服務 | 典型主體 | 你的下架函 |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) 傳輸通道 | 純網路傳輸與接入 | 電信商、寬頻 ISP | 不發——它沒有通知下架義務 |
| (b) 系統快取 | 自動技術過程產生的快取 | CDN(如 Cloudflare 的快取層) | 可發但有 (b)(2)(E) 前提;更常用來揭出源站託管商 |
| (c) 使用者上傳儲存 | 使用者上傳內容的託管 | 影片站、論壇、網盤、社交平臺 | 主戰場:按 (c)(3) 六要素寄給指定代理人 |
| (d) 資訊定位工具 | 搜尋、目錄、連結 | Google、Bing、連結彙整站 | 發去索引請求,指認搜尋結果裡的具體連結 |
四款之上還有一道共用大門:§512(i)(累犯政策+標準技術措施),哪款都要先過它。
§512(a)傳輸通道:純管道
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) 暫時性數位網路通訊。——服務提供者因傳輸、路由材料,或為材料提供連線,使其透過服務提供者控制或運營(或為其運營)的系統或網路傳送,或因在此種傳輸、路由或提供連線過程中對該材料的中介性、暫時性儲存,而涉及的著作權侵權,不負金錢救濟責任;除第 (j) 款另有規定外,亦不負禁制令或其他衡平救濟責任。但須滿足下列條件:
(1) 材料的傳輸由服務提供者以外的人發起或依其指示進行;
(2) 傳輸、路由、連線的提供或儲存經由自動技術過程完成,服務提供者未對材料作任何挑選;
(3) 服務提供者不挑選材料的接收者,但作為對他人請求的自動響應除外;
(4) 服務提供者在中介性或暫時性儲存過程中製作的材料副本,不以預期接收者以外的任何人通常可存取的方式儲存在系統或網路上;且此種副本以預期接收者通常可存取的方式儲存的期間,不超過傳輸、路由或提供連線所合理必要的時間;
(5) 材料經系統或網路傳輸時,其內容未經修改。
這條罩的是純管道:電信商、寬頻接入商,只負責把資料從 A 搬到 B,不選內容、不選收件人、不留副本、不改內容。五個條件全部圍繞「你只是水管」這一件事。
對你最實用的一點是反著讀:(a) 的條件清單裡沒有「收到通知要下架」這一項——通道商拿避風港不以處理你的 DMCA 通知為前提。所以給盜版站的上游電信商發下架函,基本敲不出結果;真正能讓內容消失的收函方,是內容駐存的託管平臺((c))和讓人找到它的搜尋引擎((d))。找對收函方的完整排查路徑見濫用舉報聯絡方式怎麼找。
「盜版站用了哪家 ISP,我就給哪家發 DMCA,讓它掐斷線路。」——(a) 類通道商沒有通知下架義務,函發過去多半石沉大海。法條留給權利人的槓桿在別處:§512(i) 的累犯政策,以及 (j)(1)(B) 下法院對通道商可下的有限禁制令(終止特定訂戶帳號、封鎖特定境外站點)——那是訴訟層的事,不是一封函能啟動的。
§512(b)系統快取:CDN 層
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) 系統快取。——
(1) 責任限制。——在下列情形下,服務提供者因在其控制或運營(或為其運營)的系統或網路上對材料的中介性、臨時性儲存而涉及的著作權侵權,不負金錢救濟責任;除第 (j) 款另有規定外,亦不負禁制令或其他衡平救濟責任:
(A) 材料由服務提供者以外的人線上上提供;
(B) 該材料依 (A) 目所述之人以外的另一人的指示,從 (A) 目所述之人經該系統或網路傳輸給該另一人;且
(C) 該儲存經由自動技術過程完成,目的是讓系統或網路的使用者在材料依 (B) 目所述方式傳輸之後、向 (A) 目所述之人請求存取時,能夠取得該材料,
並以滿足第 (2) 項所列條件為限。
(2) 條件。——第 (1) 項所指條件為:
(A) 第 (1) 項所述材料傳輸給第 (1) 項 (C) 目所述後續使用者時,其內容相較於自 (A) 目所述之人傳出時的樣態未經修改;
(B) 當線上提供材料之人依其提供材料所經系統或網路通行的、業界普遍接受的標準資料通訊協議,指定了關於材料重新整理、重新載入或其他更新方式的規則時,服務提供者遵守該規則;但本目僅在 (A) 目所述之人未利用此種規則阻止或不合理妨礙本款所適用的中介性儲存時方有適用;
(C) 服務提供者不干擾與材料相關聯的技術向 (A) 目所述之人回傳資訊的能力,該資訊以後續使用者直接向該人取得材料時該人本可獲得者為限;但本目僅在該技術滿足下列條件時方有適用:(i) 不顯著干擾服務提供者系統或網路的效能,亦不顯著干擾材料的中介性儲存;(ii) 符合業界普遍接受的標準通訊協議;且 (iii) 除後續使用者直接向該人取得材料時該人本可獲得的資訊外,不從服務提供者的系統或網路提取其他資訊;
(D) 如 (A) 目所述之人設有存取材料前須滿足的條件,例如付費、提供密碼或其他資訊,則服務提供者實質上僅允許其系統或網路上已滿足該條件的使用者、並僅依該條件存取所儲存的材料;且
(E) 如 (A) 目所述之人未經材料著作權人授權而線上上提供該材料,服務提供者在收到第 (c)(3) 款所述侵權通知後,迅速移除被指稱侵權的材料或停用對它的存取;但本目僅在下列情形方有適用:(i) 該材料先前已從來源站移除或已被停用存取,或法院已命令將該材料從來源站移除或停用來源站上對該材料的存取;且 (ii) 發出通知的一方在通知中載明宣告,確認該材料已從來源站移除或已被停用存取,或法院已作出上述命令。
這條罩的是自動快取層——最常見的現實對應物就是 CDN。盜版站套一層 Cloudflare,你看到的頁面很多時候是快取副本;快取服務商對這些副本主張的就是 (b)。
發函前把 (b)(2)(E) 看清楚:快取層的下架義務帶兩道前提——①材料已經從來源站移除(或法院已命令移除);②你的通知裡要寫明確認這一點的宣告。原站還活著、你也沒有法院命令時,對快取商發再標準的 (c) 式通知,它在 (b) 之下也沒有清快取的義務。這就是為什麼給 Cloudflare 發 DMCA,得到的常是「已轉發給託管商」而不是內容消失。
所以實務順位是:CDN 渠道先用來揭出背後的真實託管商,對託管商打 (c) 的戰場;CDN 層機制詳解見 CDN / Cloudflare 詞條。
「Cloudflare 是它的託管商,發通知讓 Cloudflare 刪。」——兩個錯:CDN 快取層通常不是託管商,它走 (b) 不走 (c);而 (b) 的下架義務以「原站已移除或法院已命令」為前提,還要求通知裡附確認宣告。把 CDN 當託管商發函,方向就偏了。
§512(c)(1)託管平臺的三道門
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) 依使用者指示駐存於系統或網路的資訊。——
(1) 總則。——對於依使用者指示儲存、駐存在服務提供者控制或運營(或為其運營)的系統或網路上的材料,服務提供者不因此涉及的著作權侵權負金錢救濟責任;除第 (j) 款另有規定外,亦不負禁制令或其他衡平救濟責任。但須服務提供者:
(A)(i) 對該材料或系統、網路上使用該材料的活動構成侵權,不具實際知悉;
(ii) 在不具實際知悉的情況下,亦未察覺能明顯推知侵權活動的事實或情況;或
(iii) 在獲得此種知悉或察覺後,迅速採取行動移除該材料或停用對它的存取;
(B) 在服務提供者有權利和能力控制侵權活動的情形下,未獲得直接歸因於該侵權活動的經濟利益;且
(C) 在收到第 (3) 項所述侵權通知後,迅速移除被指稱侵權或作為侵權活動客體的材料,或停用對它的存取。
這是你維權的主戰場:影片站、論壇、網盤、社交平臺——一切「內容是使用者傳上來的」服務,靠的都是 (c)。它給平臺開了三道門,任何一道關上,避風港就沒了:
- 知悉門 (A):實際知悉,或「紅旗知悉」——察覺了能明顯推知侵權的事實還裝沒看見。注意判例把這兩種知悉都限定在針對具體侵權材料,不是「知道站上大概有盜版」的泛泛認知(詳見 Viacom v. YouTube 與 UMG v. Veoh);
- 利益門 (B):有控制權+從侵權直接抽成,兩個要件要同時成立;
- 通知門 (C):收到合規通知後迅速下架。
你發的每一封 DMCA 函,法律作用點就是 (C):平臺不迅速處理,等於親手把這道門關上,拿避風港去換被你起訴的風險——這就是「一封函能讓平臺動起來」的全部原理,機制入門見通知取下。
「平臺明知自己站上一堆盜版還不清理,避風港早該沒了。」——泛泛的「站上有盜版」認知,在主流判例下不構成 (A) 的知悉;知悉要落到具體材料上。反過來說,你的通知恰恰是製造「具體知悉」的工具:一旦指認到 URL,平臺就再也沒法說不知道。
§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。——本款設立的責任限制,僅在服務提供者已指定代理人接收第 (3) 項所述侵權通知時,方對其適用;指定方式為經由其服務(包括在其網站上可供公眾取用的位置)公佈下列資訊,並將其提供給著作權局,實質上包含:
(A) 代理人的姓名、地址、電話號碼及電子郵件地址;
(B) 著作權局局長認為適當的其他聯絡資訊。
著作權局局長應維護一份可供公眾查閱(包括經由網際網路查閱)的現行代理人名錄,並得要求服務提供者繳費以支應維護名錄的成本。
平臺想要 (c) 避風港,必須先登記一個指定代理人當收函口,而且要兩頭公示:自己網站上一處、美國著作權局的公開名錄裡一處。
對你的實用價值:發函前先查著作權局的 DMCA 代理人名錄,那是平臺自己登記的官方收函地址,比網站角落翻到的信箱可靠;名錄裡查無此平臺,說明它連 (c) 的門票都沒買——這類站點直接走託管商與上游渠道。代理人制度的細節與費用見 DMCA 代理人詞條,送達順序的完整打法見自己發 DMCA 指南。
§512(c)(3)通知要素(總覽)
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) 侵權通知須為提供給服務提供者指定代理人的書面通訊,並實質上包含下列內容,方在本款下有效:
(i) 獲授權代表被指稱受侵害的專屬權利之權利人行事之人的親筆或電子簽名。
(ii) 指明主張受侵害的著作;若一份通知涵蓋同一線上站點的多件著作,得提供該站點上此類著作的代表性清單。
(iii) 指明被指稱侵權或作為侵權活動客體、應予移除或停用存取的材料,並提供合理充分的資訊,使服務提供者能定位該材料。
(iv) 合理充分的資訊,使服務提供者能聯絡投訴方,例如地址、電話號碼,及(如有)可聯絡到投訴方的電子郵件地址。
(v) 一項宣告:投訴方善意確信,以所投訴的方式使用該材料,未經著作權人、其代理人或法律授權。
(vi) 一項宣告:通知中的資訊準確,且投訴方願受偽證罪處罰,宣告其獲授權代表被指稱受侵害的專屬權利之權利人行事。
(B)(i) 在符合第 (ii) 目規定的前提下,著作權人或其授權人發出的通知,若未實質符合 (A) 目各項規定,則在依第 (1) 段第 (A) 項判斷服務提供者是否具有實際知悉、或是否察覺能明顯推知侵權活動的事實或情況時,不予考慮。
(ii) 若送達服務提供者指定代理人的通知未實質符合 (A) 目的全部規定,但實質符合其中 (ii)(iii)(iv) 三目,則僅在服務提供者及時嘗試聯絡發出通知之人、或採取其他合理步驟協助取得實質符合 (A) 目全部規定的通知時,前述 (i) 目方有適用。
這就是「DMCA 六要素」的法源。逐要素怎麼填、英文模板長什麼樣,操作層已經寫透在自己發 DMCA 下架通知,這裡只補三個條文層的點:
- 門檻是 substantially(實質符合),不是逐字打卡——寫法瑕疵不當然致命;
- (B) 是補正機制:通知只要把「哪件著作、哪個 URL、怎麼聯絡你」三樣((ii)(iii)(iv))寫實在了,平臺就有義務主動聯絡你補齊其餘要素,不能裝聾;徹底不合格的通知才不計入平臺的「知悉」;
- (v)(vi) 兩個宣告是有牙齒的:善意確信宣告經 Lenz 案要求發函前把合理使用納入考慮,失實陳述則直接對接 §512(f) 的賠償責任。簽名別亂籤、權屬別虛報,尤其代理發函的場景。
「通知缺了一個要素就整封作廢,重寫重發。」——(B)(ii) 說的恰恰相反:核心三要素((ii)(iii)(iv))實質在位時,補正的球在平臺那邊。反過來,別把寬鬆當縱容:六要素俱全的函處理速度遠快於讓平臺來回追問的函。
§512(d)資訊定位工具
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) 資訊定位工具。——服務提供者因使用資訊定位工具(包括目錄、索引、參照、指標或超連結)將使用者引導或連結至含有侵權材料或侵權活動的線上位置,而涉及的著作權侵權,不負金錢救濟責任;除第 (j) 款另有規定外,亦不負禁制令或其他衡平救濟責任。但須服務提供者:
(1)(A) 對該材料或活動構成侵權不具實際知悉;
(B) 在不具實際知悉的情況下,亦未察覺能明顯推知侵權活動的事實或情況;或
(C) 在獲得此種知悉或察覺後,迅速移除該材料或停用對它的存取;
(2) 在服務提供者有權利和能力控制侵權活動的情形下,未獲得直接歸因於該侵權活動的經濟利益;且
(3) 在收到第 (c)(3) 款所述侵權通知後,迅速移除被指稱侵權或作為侵權活動客體的材料,或停用對它的存取;但就本項而言,第 (c)(3)(A)(iii) 目所述資訊,應為指明應予移除或停用存取的、指向被指稱侵權材料或活動的參照或連結,並提供合理充分的資訊,使服務提供者能定位該參照或連結。
這條罩搜尋引擎和一切「指路」服務:Google、Bing 的搜尋結果,目錄站、連結彙整站,都在這。
兩個結構點值得盯著看:
- (d)(1) 與 (c)(1)(A) 用的是同一套知悉標準——實際知悉、紅旗知悉、知後速刪三段結構一致,其中紅旗知悉與知後速刪兩目措辭逐字相同,僅首目對客體的表述略有出入((c) 寫「材料或使用該材料的活動」,(d) 寫「材料或活動」)。所以別把「紅旗知悉」當 (c) 獨有:以「收集盜版連結」為業的站點,同樣會在 (d) 之下因紅旗知悉出局(Columbia v. Fung 就是教科書案例);
- (d)(3) 把通知的指認對象改成了「連結」:給搜尋引擎發函,要指認的是搜尋結果裡那條具體連結,不是籠統說「這個站盜我」。這直接決定了去索引請求該怎麼填。
(d) 還有一處和 (c) 的沉默差異:它沒有搭 (c)(2) 的指定代理人要件。實務操作走各家搜尋引擎自己的舉報入口就行,完整流程見去索引詞條與 Google 移除實務。
「Google 受理了,內容就沒了。」——去索引只讓它從搜尋結果裡消失,盜版頁面本身還在原站活著,知道網址的人照常訪問。去索引是斷流量的輔攻,主攻永遠是對託管平臺的 (c) 通知,兩條腿的配合見管站下架與去索引實務。
§512(i)共用大門:累犯政策與技術措施
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) 適格條件。——
(1) 對技術的配合。——本條設立的各項責任限制,僅在服務提供者滿足下列條件時,方對其適用:
(A) 已採納併合理執行一項政策,規定在適當情形下終止其系統或網路上屢次侵權(repeat infringers)的訂戶與帳號持有人的資格,並已將該政策告知其系統或網路的訂戶與帳號持有人;且
(B) 配合標準技術措施,且不加以干擾。
(2) 定義。——本款所稱「標準技術措施」,指著作權人用以識別或保護著作的技術措施,且:
(A) 系經著作權人與服務提供者在公開、公平、自願、跨行業的標準制定程式中形成廣泛共識而制定;
(B) 任何人均可依合理且無差別的條件取得;且
(C) 不對服務提供者造成重大成本,亦不對其系統或網路造成重大負擔。
(i) 是四條避風港共用的大門——「established by this section」意味著 (a)(b)(c)(d) 哪條都要先過這關。
(A) 累犯政策:原文只說在「appropriate circumstances(適當情形)」下終止「repeat infringers」的帳號,沒定義幾次算累犯、沒規定必須「三振出局」。但「合理執行」四個字是真約束:政策寫在紙上卻從不執行,整個 §512 的保護傘一起丟——BMG v. Cox 裡 Cox 就是這樣丟掉避風港的(第四巡迴,2018);其後同一被告的 Sony v. Cox 案,陪審團曾開出 10 億美元量級的判賠——該金額 2024 年經上訴法院撤銷、發回重審,2026 年 3 月美國最高法院終局改判 Cox 不構成幫助侵權。但 BMG 案立下的教訓不變:紙面上的累犯政策不執行,平臺丟的是 §512 避風港本身。對你的意義:同一個搬運號反覆上傳,把歷次通知的記錄整理成一份「同一人、多次侵權」的材料發給平臺,你敲的就是這條,打法詳見累犯政策詞條。
(B) 標準技術措施:定義卡得很嚴(跨行業共識+無差別開放+不增重大負擔),完全符合這套定義、獲得普遍承認的 STM 實務上一直罕見,這一目的實際殺傷力遠小於 (A)。
「平臺收到三次通知就必須封號。」——法條沒有任何次數門檻,「三振」是部分平臺自己政策裡的做法,不是 §512(i) 的要求。反過來的誤讀也有:「沒有固定次數=平臺可以永遠不封」——合理執行是司法真會審的實質要件,已有大型服務商因政策形同虛設而整個丟掉避風港、招來天價索賠訴訟。
§512(k)(l)(m)定義、其他抗辯與隱私邊界
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) 定義。——
(1) 服務提供者。——
(A) 就第 (a) 款而言,所稱「服務提供者」,指為數位線上通訊提供傳輸、路由或連線的實體;該通訊在使用者指定的點與點之間進行,傳送使用者所選擇的材料,且對材料內容如傳送與接收時的原樣不作修改。
(B) 就本條除第 (a) 款以外的規定而言,所稱「服務提供者」,指線上服務或網路連線的提供者,或其設施的運營者,幷包括 (A) 目所述實體。
(2) 金錢救濟。——本條所稱「金錢救濟」,指損害賠償、訴訟費用、律師費及任何其他形式的金錢給付。
(l) 不影響其他抗辯。——服務提供者的行為未能符合本條責任限制的適格條件,不得對下列抗辯的審酌產生不利影響:該服務提供者主張其行為依本編不構成侵權的抗辯,或任何其他抗辯。
(m) 隱私保護。——本條任何規定,均不得解釋為使第 (a) 至 (d) 款的適用,以下列事項為條件:
(1) 服務提供者監控其服務,或主動查詢顯示侵權活動的事實;但在與符合第 (i) 款規定的標準技術措施相一致的範圍內,不在此限;或
(2) 服務提供者在法律禁止此種行為的情形下,取得對材料的存取、移除材料或停用對材料的存取。
§512(n)四款各自獨立判斷
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) 解釋規則。——就本條的適用而言,第 (a)(b)(c)(d) 四款描述的是彼此分離、互不相同的功能。服務提供者是否符合其中任何一款的責任限制,應僅依該款所定標準判斷,且不影響其是否符合其他任何一款責任限制的認定。
收尾這條把總覽的骨架釘死:四條避風港按功能切,不按公司切。同一家公司可以身兼多款——搜尋業務走 (d)、影片託管走 (c)、網路接入走 (a),每一款獨立判斷,一款失格不連坐其他款。
對你的操作含義:發函前先問「對方此刻對這份盜版內容扮演什麼功能」,再決定函的形態——是指認 URL 的託管通知,還是指認連結的去索引請求,還是帶原站已移除宣告的快取通知。對象搞對了,後面的時間線與結果才談得上。
(e)(f)(g)(h)(j):本頁沒逐款展開的條款去哪了
- (e) 非營利教育機構特則:公立與非營利高校對教師、研究生侵權行為的知悉歸屬特例,與創作者維權的日常關係很小,知道存在即可;
- (f) 不實陳述:發函人最該逐字讀的一條——明知而重大失實地指稱侵權,要賠對方的損失和律師費。單獨深讀頁:§512(f) 不實陳述;
- (g) 下架後的機制:平臺下架後通知上傳者、上傳者反通知、10–14 個工作日回填的整套流程。收到反通知怎麼辦見反通知應對;
- (h) 身分傳票:憑一份 (c)(3)(A) 通知副本加宣誓宣告,可請美國聯邦地區法院書記官簽發傳票,要求服務提供者交出侵權者的身分資訊——匿名維權與揭人兩個方向都用得上;
- (j) 禁制令:對拿到避風港的服務提供者,法院仍可下的禁制令類型與考量因素,訴訟層才會用到。
常見問題
看內容駐存在哪類服務:內容傳在託管平臺上,按 (c)(3) 六要素寄給平臺的指定代理人,這是主戰場;搜尋結果裡還搜得到,給搜尋引擎發 (d) 的去索引請求,指認具體連結;套了 CDN 的站,先經 CDN 渠道揭出源站託管商再打 (c);純傳輸通道((a) 類電信商)沒有通知下架義務,不用發。
有用,但別期待它直接刪內容。Cloudflare 對快取副本適用 (b),而 (b)(2)(E) 的下架義務以「原站已移除或法院已命令移除」為前提,還要求通知裡附確認宣告,所以常見結果是轉發給源站託管商。實務上它的最大價值是幫你定位藏在 CDN 後面的真實託管商,再對託管商發 (c) 通知。
合法。§512(m) 明文規定,四類避風港的適用不以「平臺監控自己的服務、主動查詢侵權事實」為條件。平臺的下架義務通常從你的合規通知送達那一刻啟動((c)(1)(C));它另行獲得實際知悉或紅旗知悉時同樣要動((c)(1)(A)),但沒有主動巡查的義務。這也意味著監測發現是權利人自己的功課——等平臺自己發現,制度設計上就等不到。
法條沒寫次數。§512(i)(1)(A) 只要求平臺採納並「合理執行」一項在適當情形下終止 repeat infringers 帳號的政策,幾次算累犯由平臺政策和個案判斷。你能做的是把「同一人、多次通知」的記錄整理成材料發給平臺——政策形同虛設的平臺會整個丟掉 §512 保護——BMG v. Cox 已經立下判例,其後續同一被告案件的陪審團判賠一度開到十億美元量級(該金額經上訴撤銷,2026 年 3 月最高法院終局判 Cox 不構成幫助侵權;BMG 案確立的避風港教訓不受影響)。
避風港只給滿足條件的服務商,不是無條件豁免:紅旗知悉((c)(1)(A)/(d)(1))、有控制權還從侵權直接獲利((c)(1)(B)/(d)(2))、不執行累犯政策((i)),任何一條不滿足就出局。以收集盜版連結為業的 isoHunt 在 Columbia v. Fung 案裡就是因此無法主張避風港。真正的盜版站通常根本不在乎避風港,對付它們走託管商、支付與廣告鏈路等站外槓桿。
參考來源
本文引用的官方、法規與專業來源,最後核查於 2026-07-25:
讀完做法,不如先看看現狀——輸入藝名免費掃一次,不用註冊,身分全程隱藏。
被盜情報,不用天天自己盯
新指南與值得知道的平臺規則變化,會整理成不定期的維權快訊。留下 email(化名信箱也可以),開通時第一批通知你。不賣名單、不發垃圾信;隨時可刪——寫信到 support@veilharbor.com 即可。
VeilHarbor——華語創作者內容保護平台:24 小時掃描盜版、DMCA 下架、追蹤復發。