《電子技術(shù)應(yīng)用》
您所在的位置：首頁 > 其他 > 设计应用 > 互联网公开数据爬取行为的反不正当竞争规制研究
互联网公开数据爬取行为的反不正当竞争规制研究
网络安全与数据治理
胡佳泺
中国人民公安大学
摘要： 关于公开数据爬取的规制路径学界没有达成共识，立法上也没有关于数据的权属规定，司法界亦只能依据《反不正当竞争法》来兜底裁判。但反不正当竞争法在立法与司法上都存在问题，具体而言，一般条款的不确定性导致其极易被滥用，互联网专条也无法适用到公开数据的爬取行为上，司法实践中缺乏统一的裁判标准，赔偿金额也缺乏量化标准。对此，可以从立法和司法两个层面进行完善，以期更好地适用《反不正当竞争法》对互联网公开数据爬取行为予以规制。具体而言，在立法上，增设公开数据不正当竞争的行为类型；在司法上，完善裁判思路和赔偿金额的计算标准。
中圖分類號(hào)：D922文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識(shí)碼：ADOI:10.19358/j.issn.2097-1788.2024.12.011
引用格式：胡佳濼. 互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公開數(shù)據(jù)爬取行為的反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)規(guī)制研究［J］.網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全與數(shù)據(jù)治理，2024，43（12）：74-79.
Research on anti-unfair competition regulation of Internet public data crawling behavior
Hu Jialuo
People′s Public Security University of China
Abstract： There is no consensus on the regulatory path of public data crawling in the academic community, and there is no legislation on the ownership of data. The judicial community can only base its judgment on the 'Anti-Unfair Competition Law'. However, the anti-unfair competition law has problems in both legislation and judicature. Specifically, the uncertainty of general provisions makes it easy to be abused, and Internet articles cannot be applied to the crawling behavior of public data. There is a lack of uniform judgment standards in judicial practice, and the amount of compensation also lacks quantitative standards. In this regard, it can be improved from the legislative and judicial levels in order to better apply the 'Anti-Unfair Competition Law' to regulate the crawling of Internet public data. Specifically, in terms of legislation, the types of acts of unfair competition in public data should be added ; in the judiciary, the referee′s thinking and the calculation standard of the amount of compensation should be improved.
Key words : open data ; data crawling ; anti-unfair competition

引言

數(shù)字經(jīng)濟(jì)的快速發(fā)展使得數(shù)據(jù)已經(jīng)成為了新時(shí)代的“石油”，數(shù)據(jù)相關(guān)的法律問題也引起國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者的廣泛關(guān)注。數(shù)據(jù)價(jià)值的實(shí)現(xiàn)和提升，只有在數(shù)據(jù)流通過程中才能完成，數(shù)據(jù)的生命在于流通。數(shù)據(jù)爬取是實(shí)現(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)流通的重要方式，通過數(shù)據(jù)爬取可以跳過相同的收集數(shù)據(jù)的勞動(dòng)，直接進(jìn)入后續(xù)的數(shù)據(jù)運(yùn)用環(huán)節(jié)，從而節(jié)省大量的時(shí)間、金錢和人力成本。實(shí)踐中公開數(shù)據(jù)爬取的糾紛屢見不鮮，不少經(jīng)營(yíng)者擅自使用技術(shù)手段或超過授權(quán)范圍爬取其他經(jīng)營(yíng)者的公開數(shù)據(jù)，并對(duì)其他經(jīng)營(yíng)者造成實(shí)質(zhì)性替代，極大地?fù)p害了原數(shù)據(jù)控制者的利益，對(duì)市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序也會(huì)產(chǎn)生一定的破壞。目前立法機(jī)關(guān)尚未對(duì)這種公開數(shù)據(jù)爬取行為的規(guī)制發(fā)布相關(guān)法律規(guī)范，司法實(shí)踐中也尚未出臺(tái)具體司法解釋，法院由于缺乏數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)屬的立法依據(jù)，往往傾向于以《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》進(jìn)行判案。究竟如何更好地運(yùn)用競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法規(guī)制公開數(shù)據(jù)爬取行為？既防止以“數(shù)據(jù)流通”為名的數(shù)據(jù)寄生，又防止以“數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù)”為幌子的數(shù)據(jù)封鎖，立法有待完善。司法斷案的需求與立法制度的缺憾這兩者之間存在的矛盾，正是研究這一課題的必要性所在。


本文詳細(xì)內(nèi)容請(qǐng)下載：

http://ihrv.cn/resource/share/2000006270


作者信息：

胡佳濼

(中國(guó)人民公安大學(xué)，北京100038)


Magazine.Subscription.jpg

此內(nèi)容為AET網(wǎng)站原創(chuàng)，未經(jīng)授權(quán)禁止轉(zhuǎn)載。