论文部分内容阅读
不同于普通有形产品,文化产品致害的归责性判断,需要在文化创意自由、文化产业发展和消费安全之间进行多元价值权衡,经验层面可根据不同消费群体,对文化产品致害的归责体系进行二元划分。在制度层面,现行法上的“产品责任”虽然为文化产品致害案件提供了解决思路,但缺乏弹性的“产品缺陷”概念不足容纳文化产品背后的多元价值权衡,因而其适用范围有限;过错责任一般条款又因过于抽象而无法直接显示出权益保护与创意自由之间的裁量方向;不过,“保护他人之法律”的存在,为文化产品背后的多元价值权衡提供了裁量平台,解释论上可以将违反保护他人之法律的事实与过错责任构成要件相关联,借此将立法者预设在“保护他人之法律”中的价值判断纳入侵权法,同时发挥责任抗辩制度的平衡作用,防止权益保护过度压制创意自由的空间。
Different from ordinary tangible products, the accusation of inducing cultural products to be harmful requires multiple trade-offs between cultural and creative freedom, the development of cultural industries and consumer safety. The experience level can be judged according to different consumer groups and the damage to cultural products The system of responsibility is divided into two parts. At the institutional level, “product liability ” of the current law provides a solution to the case of cultural products causing harm, but the lack of flexibility “product defects ” concept is not sufficient to accommodate the multiple value trade-offs behind cultural products and therefore its scope of application The general terms of fault liability are too abstract to directly reveal the discretionary direction between the protection of rights and the freedom of creation. However, the existence of “law to protect others” provides a measure of the trade-off between the multiple values of cultural products The platform, interpretative theory, can link the fact of violation of the law protecting others with the constituent elements of liability for fault in order to incorporate the value judgments presupposed by legislators in the law on the protection of others into the law of infringement and at the same time, play a responsibility defense The balance of the role of the system to prevent excessive protection of rights and interests over the freedom of creative space.