内容识别比对技术的发展催生了互联网领域版权保护方式的升级。应当设立平台版权过滤义务，回应这一时代变革。技术发展情况是制度设计的基石。本文引入查全率、查准率、实时性等技术评价维度，通过小型实验实践调研了目前第三方机构和互联网平台版权监测系统的过滤效果。结果显示查准率较理想，能识别多种编辑操作，但查全率较低，实时性良莠不齐。由在线内容分享服务提供商对该平台上传内容进行过滤，恰好能克服第三方机构需要对其他网站爬虫获取数据所造成的查全率低、实时性差等一系列问题。实验结果同时表明，在国内现行法律未明确平台过滤义务的背景下，依靠市场自愿交易效果较差，平台对原创作者实质性的过滤保护力度很弱。接下来对过滤义务立法必要性予以分析。以往研究侧重平台过滤对防范网络版权侵权的贡献。本文另辟角度，提出疏堵结合的多元过滤机制兼具系统性降低作品传播许可交易成本的功能，促进内容分享传播，更直接精细地平衡各主体利益。依靠市场化手段促成平台和版权人达成合作的实践效果不佳，需要法律介入。现有司法实践虽已有所回应，但局限较多，法律解释不确定性大，保护范围小、力度弱。因此，应当以立法形式明确平台具有版权过滤义务，正式建立平台版权过滤机制。在立法模式选择方面，对比了公法行政强制和私法侵权责任两种路径在知识差异、完全赔偿能力、逃避诉讼可能性和制度成本方面的优劣，并将平台版权过滤放在智能时代算法规制大背景下抽象讨论。建议采用公私并行的二元立法模式，分别规制过滤制度的程序性设定和实效性履行。公法上设定平台过滤义务作为强制性规定，保证基本过滤程序及配套申诉机制的建立，出台内容与技术过滤标准；私法上通过义务转介，允许受到损害的权利人以司法手段救济填平损失，同时利用司法的冗余性分散技术受限可能导致的行政误判所产生的系统性损害风险。过滤标准设定应遵循成本收益权衡原则和分级分类原则。为提高过滤系统效率，预防侵权且促进许可传播，构建多元处理框架。上传内容分类过滤，对版权作品过滤要求和内容比对识别结果分级。内容识别比对可根据相似度和使用量两个维度分为雷同、少量使用和二次使用，对应不同过滤处理措施。过滤系统技术实效的评价标准，建议从查全率和查准率两方面设定。各项标准具体数额需大数据分析支撑，有待立法过程中平台和第三方版权监测机构主动深度披露，以供立法参考。
The development of content recognition and comparison technology has given birth to the upgrading of copyright protection methods in the Internet field. A platform copyright filtering obligation should be established to respond to the changes of this era.Technological development is the cornerstone of system design. This paper introduces technical evaluation dimensions such as recall rate, precision rate, and real-time performance, and investigates the filtering effect of the current copyright monitoring system of third-party institutions and Internet platforms through small-scale experimental practices. The results show that the precision rate is relatively ideal, and it can recognize a variety of editing operations, but the recall rate is low, and the real-time performance is uneven. The online content sharing service provider's filtering of the content uploaded on the platform can just overcome a series of problems such as low recall and poor real-time performance caused by third-party organizations that need to obtain data from other website crawlers. The experiment also shows that, in the context of the lack of clear platform filtering obligations in the current domestic laws, the effect of relying on voluntary market transactions is poor, and the platform's substantial filtering and protection of original authors is very weak.Next, it analyzes the necessity of legislation for filtering obligations. Previous studies focused on the contribution of platform filtering to preventing online copyright infringement risks. From another perspective, this paper proposes that the multiple filtering mechanism combined with dredging and blocking has the function of systematically reducing the transaction cost of work dissemination license, thereby promoting content sharing and dissemination, and more directly and finely achieving the balance of interests among various subjects. However, relying on market-based means to promote voluntary cooperation between platforms and copyright owners is not very effective and requires legal intervention and regulation. Although the existing judicial practice has responded, there are many limitations, not only the uncertainty of legal interpretation is large, but the scope of protection is small and the strength is weak. Therefore, it is necessary to make it clear that platforms have copyright filtering obligations in the form of legislation, and formally establish platform copyright filtering mechanisms.In terms of the choice of legislative mode, it compares the advantages and disadvantages of public law administrative enforcement and private law infringement liability in terms of knowledge difference, complete compensation ability, possibility of evading litigation, and system cost, and puts platform copyright filtering on algorithm regulation in the intelligent era. Abstract discussion in the context of the future. It is recommended to adopt a dual legislative model of parallel public and private legislation to separately regulate the procedural setting and practical implementation of the filtering system. Public law sets platform filtering obligations as mandatory provisions to ensure the establishment of basic filtering procedures and supporting grievance mechanisms, and introduces content and technical filtering standards; private law through obligatory referrals allows injured right holders to use judicial means to remedy losses and fill in losses At the same time, the use of judicial redundancy and decentralization technology may lead to the risk of systemic damage caused by administrative misjudgment.The setting of filtering standards should follow the principle of cost-benefit balance and the principle of classification and classification. In order to improve the efficiency of the filtering system, prevent infringement and promote the spread of licenses, a multi-processing framework is constructed. Upload content classification filtering, classification of copyright works filtering requirements and content comparison recognition results. Content recognition and comparison can be divided into similarity, small amount of use and secondary use according to the two dimensions of similarity and usage, corresponding to different filtering measures. The evaluation criteria of the technical effectiveness of the filtration system are recommended to be set from the two dimensions of recall rate and precision rate. The specific amount of each standard needs the support of big data analysis, and the platform and third-party copyright monitoring agencies will actively and in-depth disclose during the legislative process for legislative reference.
