健全网络综合治理体系是党中央历次会议的重要关切。从网络平台的版权侵权责任角度切入网络综合治理，是自下而上的精细制度构建方案。网络平台依据过错为用户的侵权行为承担责任，有版权特别法和一般民事侵权法两种规范路径。版权特别法所称的“实际知道”和“应当知道”与一般民事侵权法中的“故意”和“过失”同义，可以纳入一般民事侵权法的框架下分析。网络平台的注意义务通过吸收平台获利和部门规章中的审查规定，升级为较高的注意义务，导致过错侵权责任不断扩张，突破了过错责任和无过错责任的界限。侵权法的历史考察显示，过错作为归责依据，在发展过程中不断客观化，客观过错责任和无过错责任之间的界限已经模糊。改良的方案是淡化归责原则，重视归责要素。归责要素是民事主体应当合理行为义务的表达。违反合理行为义务作为归责依据，可以统合现有的归责原则，并对归责原则之间的界限模糊提供新解释。由此，侵权法可以简化为“义务—责任”算法。网络平台的版权侵权责任可以在侵权法的“义务—责任”算法下得到推演：网络平台违反“不侵犯他人合法权益的不作为义务”，承担“故意侵权责任”；违反“知道—阻止”义务或“应知—预防”义务，承担“过失侵权责任”；违反“一般性的预防/审查义务”或“风险控制和受益义务”，承担“无过错责任”。网络平台担责的依据在合理行为义务轴上展开，构建起体系化的解释和适用方案。网络平台的合理行为义务体系可以结合网络综合治理进行拓展和完善。网络平台未尽到综合治理义务，承担主体责任，性质是类监管者责任；网络平台未尽到侵权法上合理行为的义务，承担侵权责任，性质是民事责任。网络平台尽到部门规章中的义务要求可以得出监管合规的结论，但监管合规不意味着可以免除平台的合理行为义务。平台合理行为义务的履行方式可以引入技术措施、声誉机制和市场价格等多元治理手段，形成以平台义务为主体、多元治理手段为辅助的开放式义务评价体系。平台义务的评价肯定综合治理手段的积极成效，可以激励行业不断优化治理措施的最佳实践水平。从判断方法上落实平台合理行为义务与治理相结合的制度设计，重点是综合考虑具体情境的特殊性。整体判断方法包括概括和量化两种，分别权衡涉案行为的利弊和参照汉德公式判断法经济学上的最佳预防点。网络平台的侵权阻止和侵权预防义务在实践中往往同时出现，应当遵循审慎、合理的标准进行综合判断，在平衡相关主体的利益的基础上实现综合治理的整体效益最大化。

Refining the comprehensive network governance system is an important concern of all previous meetings of the CPC Central Committee. It is a bottom-up interest balance and system construction scheme to cut into the comprehensive governance of the network from the perspective of copyright infringement liability of the network platform. Network platform bears tort liability for users‘ tort according to its fault, and there are two normative paths of fault: special copyright law and general civil tort law. The terms "actually know" and "should have known" in the special copyright law are synonymous with "intention" and "negligence" in the general civil tort law, therefore, the special copyright law can be analyzed under the framework of the general civil tort law. The duty of care of the network platform is upgraded to a higher duty of care by absorbing the profit of the platform and the review provisions in the departmental regulations, which leads to the continuous expansion of fault tort liability and breaks through the boundary between fault liability and no-fault liability. The historical investigation of tort law shows that fault, as the basis of imputation, has been objectified in the process of its development, and the boundary between objective fault liability and no-fault liability has been blurred. The optimization method is to dilute the imputation principle, and attach importance to the substantive imputation elements. The imputation elements equal to is the expression of the reasonable behavior duty of the civil subject. Deviation from the duty of reasonable behavior as the basis of imputation can integrate the existing imputation principles and provide a new explanation for the ambiguity of the boundaries between imputation principles. Thus, tort law can be simplified as a "duty-liability" algorithm. The copyright infringement liability of the network platform can be deduced under the "duty-liability " algorithm of the general civil tort law: the network platform which violates the "omission duty not to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others" should bear the "intentional tort liability"; which violates the duty of "known-stopping" or "should have known-preventing" should bear the "negligence tort liability"; which violates the "general prevention/review duty" or "one’s risk control and income duty" should bear "no-fault liability". The basis for the network platform to bear the liability for copyright infringement is established on the axis of reasonable behavior duty, and a systematic legal interpretation and application scheme is constructed.The reasonable behavior duty system of the network platform can be improved by combining the comprehensive governance of the network. The network platform is the shaper and executor of the soft rules of cyber-space, thus it should play an active role in the comprehensive governance of the network. The goal of reasonable behavior duty and comprehensive management of network platform is agreeable in increasing profits and reducing losses, which can be connected from point to surface. The comprehensive governance duties that the network platform should undertake include but not limited to tort law duty. When the network platform failed to fulfill its comprehensive governance duties, it should bear its entity responsibility; when the network platform failed to fulfill its reasonable behavior duty in tort law, it should bear tort liability. The specific governance duties of the network platform, such as reviewing the necessary identity information of the participants in the platform, can only be considered as a reasonable behavior duty of the network platform on the premise that it is fully related to infringement prevention. In other words, the platform can reach the conclusion of compliance by fulfilling the compulsory provisions on comprehensive governance in departmental regulations, but compliance does not mean that the platform is exempted from its reasonable behavior duty. The comprehensive governance of platform duty can start from the coordination of legal means and non-legal means, absorb diversified government means such as technical measures, reputation mechanism and market price, which are helpful to achieve the goal of infringement governance, and form an open duty evaluation system with platform reasonable behavior duty as the main body and multiple government means as the auxiliary. The evaluation of the platform‘s reasonable behavior duty should affirm the positive effect of comprehensive government means and encourage the industry to continuously optimize the best practice level of government means. Finally, the comprehensive governance design of the reasonable behavior duty of the network platform is implemented as the judgment standard, with the focus on comprehensively considering the particularity of specific situations. The overall judgment ideas include generalization and quantification, which respectively are to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the behavior involved and refer to the Hande formula to work out the best prevention point in law and economics. It is necessary to ensure that the judgment standard conforms to the best industry practices and is kept updated. In practice, infringement prevention and infringement prevention duties of network platforms often appear at the same time. We should follow prudent and reasonable standards to make comprehensive judgments and maximize the overall benefits of comprehensive governance on the basis of balancing the interests.