Administrative Law Regulation of Network Copyright Governance in the Digital Age

Li Yue,Liu Xuetao(.Law School,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 0009,China;.Fengqiao Experience and Social Governance Institute,Northwest University of Political Science and Law, Shaanxi 70063,China)

Abstract:With the advent of the digital age,the development of China's Internet presents a new form with rapid changes, but generally speaking, the development of relevant legal rules lags behind that of the Internet. The rapid development of the Internet constantly impacts and adjusts the existing legal rules, but it fails to provide a legal normative basis to effectively solve the crucial problems.The promulgation of the Civil Code has further refined the"notification-deletion"rule.At this stage,this rule should not be abandoned because it is outdated,and a targeted response should be made at the level of law application. Copyright filtering technology may become a trend in the future, but we still need to comprehensively consider its matching with the development law of China's Internet nowadays. The rapid development of the digital age provides opportunities and challenges for the new administrative law.The administrative law regulation of network copyright governance requires a new legal norm system.In terms of responding to the administrative law system itself,it is vital to strengthen the awareness of copyright protection, abide by the principle of good faith in administrative law, and strictly define the responsibility of platforms.We should redefine the legal status of network platforms and set the copyright protection responsibility in line with the principle of equal rights and obligations.It is suggested to take the diversified governance of platform copyright as the goal orientation,and strengthen the coordination mechanism among multiple legal subjects.

Keywords: digital age; network copyright; the "notification-deletion" rule; copyright filtering; Administrative Law Regulation

In the digital age, the interests of copyright owners have been threatened unprecedentedly. Due to digital technology, piracy to copy and distribute copies of works is at almost no cost. Through computers and networks, anyone can copy digital works with low cost, high quality and unlimited times, transmit them to other users, or upload them to network sites for free download by the public. For consumers, if they can buy at a very low price, or even download almost original pirated copies for free from the Internet, they will no longer pay copyright owners to buy their works. However, it is difficult for copyright owners to effectively control the reproduction and dissemination of digital works through traditional means. Although relevant laws of numerous countries endow copyright owners with exclusive rights to some degree, such as "reproduction right", "distribution right" and "right to network dissemination of information", and also provide corresponding legal remedies to protect their legitimate interests, this method cannot effectively protect them in the digital age. The reason is that legal remedy is a kind of post relief, that is, the law can intervene only after the discovery of tort or damaging consequences. Once digital works are illegally copied and spread on the network, thousands of illegal copies will emerge and thus be utilized by people in a short time,which greatly influences the timeliness of legal remedies. At the same time, the infringers are often many individual users who lack the ability for economic compensation. It is unrealistic to find out these infringing users one by one and prosecute their legal liabilities. Therefore, in the digital age, it is infeasible to fully protect the interests of copyright owners only by relying on traditional legal protection methods[2]. It was put forward at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China that we should promote the modernization of China's system and capacity for governance. At the Central Work Conference on Advancing Law-based Governance, Xi Jinping's ruling-by-law thought stressed the vital supporting role of ruling-by-law. "The rule of law is an important measure to promote the modernization of China's system and capacity for governance."[3]This new era background gives new value and significance to digital society governance, including platform governance. The network platforms are the gathering place of not only information and services but also contradictions and forces,which will inevitably lead to various problems. In the meantime, new technologies are developing rapidly and are applied on a large scale in the Internet industry, bringing new changes and requirements to network copyright governance, so it is worthy of in-depth research. In the new century, China's digital economy is booming. This process is inseparable from the innovative development and orderly competition in the field of intellectual property rights.This paper aims to explore the problems in network copyright governance, probe into governance rules, and accelerate the healthy development of business forms, to finally find out a corresponding way to promote Internet governance.

1 The Rise of Network Copyright Governance

In recent years, with the fast growth of information network technology and the rapid change in the Internet industry, the network is no longer limited to auxiliary tools and places but becomes a spatial field that closely mirrors real society. The network society not only turns into another society equal to the objective reality but also significantly affects and partially replaces the latter. "With the rapid development of network information technology, the Internet has become a field with the most active innovation, the widest pervasion, and the most far-reaching influences."[4]The 13th Five Year Plan is a period of strategic opportunity for China to move forward from a large intellectual property country to a powerful intellectual property country. In this process, China's economic development has entered a new norm, and network copyright has become a significant link for the transformation of cultural production factors into real productivity. At the historical intersection of a new round of scientific and technological revolutions as well as the breakthrough of industrial reforms, China's Internet industry has achieved leapfrog development. The large-scale application of a new generation of information technology, along with the comprehensive integration of the digital economy and the real economy, has driven the transformation of content product form and communication mode, and also challenged the traditional copyright governance system. Network copyright governance is of great significance in promoting the modernization of the intellectual property system and capacity for governance, which is highly related to the innovation incentive of digital transformation in the cultural industry. Digital network technology has changed the interest structure among copyright content owners, disseminators and users,realized the transformation of the copyright system from "printing copyright", "electronic copyright" to "network copyright", and promoted the establishment of the network copyright system in China mainly marked byRegulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information[5].

"In the legal sense, copyright refers to the right of an organization or individual to publish and sell a work or achievement. If others copy or resell without their permission, it is an act of copyright infringement against the parties."[6]Network copyright refers to the general personal and property rights enjoyed by the copyright owners in the network environment. It is the extension of traditional copyright in the field of digital communication, covering all intellectual achievements existing or transmitting in digital form in the fields of literature, art, and science under the network context. Copyright compliance of network content is a significant field of network legalization. The United States, as a country that first entered the Internet era, issuedDigital Millennium Copyright Act(DMCA) in 1998,laying down a series of basic principles of governance in this field and inspiring relevant legislation in Europe and China. However, with the development of network technology, the balance of the old rules among network service providers, copyright owners, and network users has been gradually broken, and the relevant legislative reform came into being. In December 2016, the General Office of the State Council issuedthe Overall Plan for Pilot Reform of Intellectual Property Integrated Management, triggering the transformation of regulatory ideas from "intellectual property management" to "intellectual property governance". In terms of governance mechanism, through the adjustment and improvement of organizational structure, management functions, and regulatory resources, the regulatory authorities adapt to new needs of overall planning, strong professionalism and collaborative management of network copyright work, and promote the organic integration of copyright industry, science, technology, and culture. Under the new development pattern of "duel circulation" at home and abroad, from the inner perspective, the establishment and optimization of the network copyright governance system is not only an urgent response to the industry reality but also an important part of promoting the modernization of intellectual property system and capacity for governance; from the outside perspective, optimizing the network copyright governance system is a breakthrough in seeking to establish a more just and reasonable international order of intellectual property rights.

2 The Development of the "Notification-Deletion" Rule in the Field of Network Copyright

In December 1996, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) passedthe World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright TreatyandWIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, attempting to guide solving the copyright problems caused by the vigorous development of the Internet on an international scale. In order to incorporate the above two copyright treaties passed by WIPO in 1996 intothe Copyright Lawof the United States, the federal law DMCA, which was mainly applicable to network service providers of information storage and search link services, was signed by President Clinton and entered into force in 1998. With the rapid development of the Internet, the information involved is very huge, and the corresponding infringement information is also unavoidable. If network service providers are blindly required to bear indirect tort liability for the acts of network content providers without distinction, the burden of network service providers will be aggravated, and at the same time, the development of the Internet industry will be hindered. In this context, the "notification-deletion" rule came into being. China has introduced this rule.Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Informationdivides network service providers into automatic transmission, automatic access, automatic storage, information storage space,and search and link service providers. TheRegulationspecifies that in the field of right to network dissemination of information, information storage space, as well as search and link service providers obey the "notification-deletion"rule, while automatic transmission, automatic access, and automatic storage service providers do not①Articles 20-23 of Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information.. However, in practice, it has resulted in many disputes and conflicts. At present, both the United States and China are considering adjusting the rule.

2.1 The Norm Basis of the "Notification-Deletion" Rule

The "notification-deletion" rule means that when network users utilize the network offered by network service providers to carry out infringement if network service providers do not know the existence of an infringement, the network service providers are obliged to take necessary measures to avoid the expansion of damage only after the victim notifies them of the existence of an infringement and requires them to take necessary measures.

2.1.1 Legal Provisions of Comparative Law

When it comes to the "notification-deletion" rule, it is inevitable to trace its origin, that is, the DMCA. The"notification-deletion" rule is also known as the "safe haven principle". Its basic meaning refers that when there are infringing contents uploaded by users in the information storage space, or links point to infringing contents on other websites, the right holders can send a notice to the information storage space service providers or search and link service providers to inform the relevant infringing facts and provide preliminary evidence. After receiving the notice, if the service providers timely remove the alleged infringing content or disconnect the link, the network service providers will not bear the responsibility if other exemption conditions are met. They, therefore, enter the "safe haven". The original intention of this principle is to prevent innocent technical service platform providers from falling into charges due to their users' infringement, and this is the reason why it is called the "safe haven". This mutual cooperation mechanism of right holders' notification and network service providers' deletion struck a balance between promoting the development of the network industry and protecting the interests of right holders to a considerable extent, which was considered a reasonable mechanism at that time.

According to this principle, network service providers are not obligated to review the content uploaded by users. Some European Union countries believe that network service providers only undertake the obligation of "notification-deletion". For example, according to Clause 2 of Article 6 of the FrenchLaw on Trust in Digital Economy,network service providers do not undertake general review obligations. However, this law also stipulates that network service providers shall delete the infringing information immediately from the date when they know that relevant information is suspected of infringement. Accordingly, if network service providers are unaware of the infringement information, they shall not bear the relevant responsibility. Germany'sFederal Legislation Regulating the General Conditions of Information and Communication Servicesin 1997 amplifies that network service providers generally do not bear responsibility for the information of third parties unless they make intentional use of it. Article 12 ofE-Business Instructionissued by the European Union (EU) in 1998 stipulates that once network service providers receive the notice from right holders, they shall quickly delete the infringing information. If the information service providers only transmit without selecting specific sending objects or modifying the forwarded content, they will not be responsible for the forwarded information.

2.1.2 Legal Provisions of Domestic Law

"The huge database built by modern information technology stores a large amount of information"[7], the right to network dissemination of information is the product of the development of network copyright protection to a certain stage. In 1996,World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty(WCT) determined the "right of public communication", which is the direct source of the right to network dissemination of information in China. In 2001, by revisingthe Copyright Law, China established the "right to network dissemination of information" for the first time. Articles 14 -17 ofRegulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Informationissued by China in 2006 stipulate the "notification-deletion" rule, and articles 20-23 specify the exemption clauses of four types of network service providers. This framework draws lessons from DMCA and establishes China's "safe haven" principle. Since then,the Tort Liability Lawof 2010, theE-Commerce Lawof 2018, andthe Civil Codeof 2020 have continuously improved this principle. By analyzing the evolution of legal provisions, it can be seen that the "notification-deletion" rule ofthe Civil Codeis in line with Articles 42 and 43 ofE-Commerce Law, and has greatly adjusted Article 36 ofTort Liability Lawand Articles 14-17 ofRegulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information. On the whole, the comprehensive reconstruction of the "notification-deletion" rule inthe Civil Codehas greatly improved the reasonable attention standard of network service providers for copyright infringement.

2.2 Intellectual Property Application of the "Notification-Deletion" Rule

The "notification-deletion" rule was first applied in the United States to deal with copyright infringement on the Internet, and the scope of its application and adjustment continued to expand, even beyond the field of copyright. Then China also introduced this rule according to its situation. Before the implementation ofthe E-Commerce Law, China had already applied the "notification-deletion" rule in the field of the Internet, especially in the field of Internet intellectual property protection. As early as 2005, China stipulated the "notification-deletion" rule in the form of regulations. According to Articles 5 and 7 ofAdministrative Protection of Copyright on the Internet Procedures, Internet information service providers shall immediately take measures to remove the relevant content after receiving the notice from the copyright owners and can recover the removed content after receiving the counter-notice from the Internet content providers. In this case, Internet information service providers do not need to bear administrative-legal responsibility. Articles 14-17 ofRegulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Informationpromulgated in 2006 stipulates the "notification-deletion" rule, in which Article 14 limits the range of applicable subjects, that is, the "notification-deletion" rule is not applicable to automatic access, automatic cache and automatic transmission service providers, but only to network providers that offer information storage space as well as search or link services. Article 36 ofTort Liability Lawextends the application scope of the"notification-deletion" rule to all torts via network services. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that China learned from the "notification-deletion" rule inRegulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, and continuously amended it inTort Liability LawandE-Commerce Law.At present, the scope of application of the rule has been extended from copyright to all intellectual property rights, and from e-commerce transactions to the whole network services.

"Deletion", as a general term for some blocking measures taken by network service providers, its meaning is changing: inRegulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, it clearly indicates two measures, namely, "deletion" and "disconnection"; in theTort Liability Law, it refers to "necessary measures such as deletion, shielding, and disconnection"; in theE-Commerce Law, it includes "necessary measures such as deletion, shielding, disconnection, termination of transactions and services". These two development features have been integrated in article 1195 ofthe Civil Code, which on the one hand lists "necessary measures such as deletion, shielding, and disconnection", while on the other hand emphasizing that service providers should "take necessary measures according to the preliminary evidence and service types constituting infringement". In fact, the "notification-necessary measures" rule based on different types of service providers has been established. In practice,the court's determination of whether the platforms "take necessary measures in time" depends on two elements: necessity and timeliness. "Necessity" means that the platforms shall take measures within the scope of the obligees'notification, and shall fully fulfill the obligation to prevent the further dissemination of information from expanding the loss. "Timeliness" means that the platforms shall not add obstacles and increase the obligees' burden to cause procrastination in the process of communication and interaction, and shall take measures within a reasonable period after receiving the qualified notification based on its own information processing ability, the urgency of infringement risk and other factors. It should be noted that Clause 2 of Article 1195 ofthe Civil Codeis more a suggestive and attentive standard for identifying the fault of the platforms than a statutory compulsory deletion obligation. After receiving the notification, the network platforms still have room for review, rather than just mechanically deleting the network information suspected of infringement in the notification. This provision effectively deals with the proliferation of malicious complaints and prevents users from treating the removal notification as a ban that can take effect directly without any review. As for the case of iQIYI prosecuting ByteDance in 2021, the court fully considered the types of services provided by ByteDance and pointed out that the "necessary" measures include both formal elements and practical effects. Therefore, a simple deletion action can no longer be the reason for the defense of responsibility②the civil judgment of Beijing Haidian District People's Court(2018)Jing 0108 Min-Chu No.49421.. Some scholars pointed out that only by further taking measures such as shielding content and filtering keywords, can network service providers meet the "necessary" requirements③"The first algorithm recommendation case in China:the judgement of iQIYI prosecuting Toutiao's infringement",https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/80f_SXuSPQkGlaWfrA3gDA..

2.3 Development Dilemma of the "Notification-Deletion" Rule

The "notification-deletion" rule was first applied by the DMCA of the Unite d States. In the field of copyright,network service providers do not undertake the obligation of prior review of user content. If they receive a qualified infringement complaint notice from right holders and timely delete the infringing work or disconnect the link, they can enter the "safe haven" of exemption. Therefore, the original intention of the "notification-deletion" rule is to balance the interests of copyright owners and network service providers, protect the copyright of the former and avoid excessive criticism of the latter. The "notification-deletion" rule has formed a relatively complete normative process in China's legislative system and judicial practice. The effective notice of the intellectual property right holder will trigger the legal effect of "deletion in the screen and termination". However, the claims in the notice of the intellectual property rights holders should be reasonable with a factual and legal basis. They need to put forward different claims for different infringements in combination with the verified and mastered infringement clues.At the same time, it is unbefitting to apply the "notification-deletion" rule in the same clause to all types of intellectual property in judicial practice. Such irrationality is not that some intellectual property cannot be adjusted by the "notification-deletion" rule absolutely, but because different types of intellectual property are embodied with different characteristics: Copyright protects original works; Patent protects technical schemes with three characteristics; Trademark protects identifiable marks. During the conformation of infringement, standards and complexity for these three types of intellectual property rights are diverse. Given that the network environment is changeable, once the legitimate rights of intellectual property right holders are infringed without timely compensation, the damage consequences of infringement will expand rapidly. How to terminate possible infringement in time and effectively protect the counterparts' legitimate rights and interests constitutes the crux of the platform's protection of information involving intellectual property rights[8]. As an essential system for dealing with platform entity disputes, the "notification-deletion" rule should also be allowed to exert influence in the protection of intellectual property rights holders.

The "notification-deletion" rule is the product of the compromise between right holders and network service providers. Network service providers hope to avoid indirect tort liability. In return, they must provide technical protection such as deletion and disconnection of links to right holders to avoid infringement or even repeated infringement. By applying the "notification-deletion" rule, the regulatory obligation of network service providers is reduced,and right holders can protect their rights more economically and quickly, rather than choose litigation with higher costs. From the perspective of law and economics, the goal of the "notification-deletion" rule is to achieve the optimal efficiency of right holders, network service providers, and the public. In the field of copyright, network service providers do not undertake the obligation of prior review of user content. This rule balances the interests between the right holders and the network service providers, which protects the right holders' copyright, avoids excessive criticism of the network service providers, and promotes the development of the Internet industry. The "notificationdeletion" rule is only an organic part of today's platform governance rules. With the development of platform governance rules in public and private law, the principle of "safe haven" in the sense of private law is being weakened,but the platform obligations in the sense of public law are being strengthened, which makes platform operators tend to become tangled and confused when performing obligations of public and private law. In judicial practice, the rule of "notice plus necessary measures" stipulated inthe Civil Codeshould be applied as far as possible. Since the platforms have achieved prior identification and filtering of illegal content such as pornography, terrorism, and violence in order to meet the requirements of public law, they must also have the technical ability to realize copyright protection. At least for those popular copyright works that are broadcasted currently, it can achieve prior review and filtering. However, platforms often infringe copyright under the pretext of so-called technology impossibility or technology neutrality. At present, compared with the background under which the "notification-deletion" rule came into being, our technology, algorithm, and computing power have been greatly improved, and the platform's duty of care in copyright protection should also be enhanced accordingly.

3 Proposal and Application of Copyright Filtering Obligations

In fact, since the "notification-deletion" rule was born out of the DMCA in 1998, the technical premise of establishing the rule has certain limitations. Affected by technological progress, the infringement prevention costs of network service providers, copyright owners, and the public preset under the original technological premise have also changed relatively, which shakes the interest balance value of the "notification-deletion" rule. In recent years,with the rapid development of related technologies, whether and how to establish general copyright filtering obligations has aroused heated debate in practical and academic circles.

3.1 Emergence of Copyright Filtering Obligation

In the early 1990s, the United States mainly responded to the emerging Internet economy according to the theory of direct infringement or alternative infringement in the traditionalCopyright Law. Therefore, the emerging network platforms are facing great copyright liability risks[9]. After the promulgation of theDMCAin 1998, the United States realized the balance of interests of all legal subjects to a certain extent. Based on the traditional copyright liability framework, Article 512④17 U.S.C.512,Limitations on liability relating to material online.of theDMCAclarifies unique liability exemption conditions for network service providers. First, they lack practical knowledge or cognition of the facts or circumstances in which there is an obvious infringement; Second, the platform enterprises cannot control the infringement and do not obtain benefits directly attributable to the infringement; Third, after receiving sufficient notification, the platforms quickly make responses to delete or disable the suspected infringing content. Among them, the first one is called the "red flag rule" by Congress, the second inherits the "control-interest" framework of copyright substitution liability, and the third is usually called the "notification-deletion" rule. These three constitute the core content of the so-called "safe haven" rule invoked in subsequent judicial cases. In 2000, the EU also established a safe haven rule similar toDMCAin theEBusiness Instruction⑤Directive on Electronic Commerce,OJ L 178,17.7.2000，Section 4:Liability of intermediary service providers..

The development of network information technology in the 21st century, especially the emergence of new formats such as UGC in the era of web2.0 has made similar problems increasingly prominent[10]. Expectations for the duty of care of the network platforms are increasing. However, due to the passivity of the safe haven system itself,the balance of interests between copyright owners and platform service providers that legislators intended to achieve has been broken, and thus the digitalCopyright Lawreform has been put on the agenda⑥Since 2015,the U.S.Copyright Office has launched a five-year research on the"safe haven system"at the request of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. The different responses of copyright owners and online service providers reveal that"progress original intended balance has been tilted askew",see https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/section-512-full-report.pdf.. Similar situations also occur in Europe, which is called "value difference"⑦SWD(2016)301 final,PART 1/3.by the EU. As a legislative response, theEU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Marketin 2019 provides a normative basis⑧Directive(EU)2019/790 of the European Parliament And of The Council of 17 April 2019 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market and Amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC(Text with EEA relevance).OJ L 130,17.5.2019.. In the draft of theEU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, the EU clearly proposed that network service providers should adopt appropriate and commensurate content recognition technology⑨COM(2016)593 final,Article(14):Those measures,such as the use of effective content recognition technologies,shall be appropriate and proportionate.. This proposal was followed by great controversy⑩The study believes that this provision is contrary to Article 15 of the E-Business Instruction, which explicitly prohibits general filtering obligations.. The finalEU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, like theE-Business Instruction, still explicitly prohibits the establishment of general filtering obligations. However, Clause 4 of Article 17 ofthe EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Marketputs forward three requirements for network service providers: first, to obtain authorization as much as possible; second, to improve the obligation of professional care with high industry standards; third, to fulfill the obligation of "notification-deletion" and make every effort to prevent the future upload of infringing content⑪Proposal for A Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market-Outcome of the European Parliament s Proceedings (Strasbourg 10-13 September 2018), ST 11520 2018 INIT, Article17(4)：The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.. These three rules essentially require internet service providers to actively take certain filtering measures[11].Therefore, this article is also known as the "filter clause"[12].

3.2 The Introduction of Copyright Filtering Obligation Should be Treated with Caution

It is undeniable that copyright filtering technology has made substantial progress in hot issues such as short video copyright infringement in recent years. The duty of care of the platforms should match the current technical situation. Since the algorithms and other technologies are improved and the delivery capability is enhanced, the duty of care in copyright infringement filtering should also be heightened accordingly. The establishment of a copyright filtering mechanism demands friendly cooperation between the right holders and the platform. In other words,the right holders need to provide the information of authorized editions, and the platforms establish the database of authorized editions, and then identify and filter them through technical scanning.

The premise of introducing copyright filtering obligation is that the technology has been mature and can be utilized on a large scale on the Internet. However, so far, there is not much sign showing that the copyright filtering technology has been mature, and the existing technology has not been able to well solve the problems such as the damage to rational use, the misjudgment caused by the combination of multiple services, and the impact of the filtering standards design on the network copyright governance. In recent years, China's Internet has developed rapidly, but the logic of Internet development has not changed substantially. With technology platforms and other services as the engine and content as the support, the Internet has developed significantly. Although at this stage, Internet enterprises that are based on technology platforms have seriously impacted the right holders (including contentbased Internet enterprises), the Internet development logic applicable to the "notification-deletion" rule has not changed. In addition, compared with some developed countries, China's Internet technology still has room for further improvement. Copyright filtering technology will bring about more review obligations of domestic Internet enterprises, increase the operating costs of enterprises, and thus hinder their development to a certain extent. At the same time, the development of new technologies has given birth to new forms of intellectual property infringement.The development of user-created content industry, the emergence of massive notifications, and the rise of automatic filtering mechanisms have brought about new challenges tothe Copyright Law[13]. Whether the filtering mechanism should be set as a "filtering obligation" still needs to be further discussed, and should be argued in combination with the "safe haven" rule. In this regard, EU, US and Chinese legislators hold numerous positions. At present, the automatic filtering mechanism under the application of artificial intelligence has greatly shaken the original "notification-deletion" infrastructure ofthe Copyright Law, but how to design algorithms to correctly distinguish between fair use and infringement abuse is still the challenge faced by the automatic filtering mechanism. In the revision ofthe Copyright Law, Chinese legislators may as well assign this part to the market as a voluntary arrangement. The Internet markets of the EU, China, and the United States are contradictory organisms, constantly choosing appropriate governance modes in the process of supervision and conflict. TheEU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Marketnot only changes the basic rules of online content sharing platforms but also stipulates a number of items such as collective management, reflecting the contradictory mentality of its local market development. At present, the governance model in China can be summarized as "supervision plus technical measures plus platform rules", which can effectively realize dynamic adjustment. In addition, besides technical filtering, copyright asset management will be one of the unavoidable problems to be solved by the future Internet platform.

With the rapid development of networks and intelligent technology in recent years, the necessity of filtering infringing content and the feasibility of implementing automatic filtering have become a common concern of practical and academic circles, which also promoted the relevant legislative reform. TheEU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Marketin 2019 took the lead in substantively establishing the general filtering obligation. From the reports of the US Copyright Office and several congressional hearings, it is a general trend for the United States to appropriately adjust the provisions on relevant technical measures in DMCA. Although China'sCopyright Lawrevised in 2020 does not directly show relevant provisions, the "notification-necessary measures" rule actually established inthe Civil Codehas greatly improved the reasonable duty of care of network service providers. It needs careful research and practice to decide whether China learn from the provisions of Article 17 of theEU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Marketto set copyright filtering obligations and authorization seeking obligations for the platforms. We should examine the specific background and purpose of its legal amendment.

4 Optimization Path of Network Copyright Governance in the Future

Because digital content is easy to copy, and distribute and is characterized by mass storage and fast transmission on the network, common is the phenomenon of random dissemination of digital content and products that should have been protected by intellectual property rights. In recent years, digital copyright protection has become a hot and difficult issue discussed by the legal circles and publishing industry of various countries. The experience of various countries shows that copyright protection in the digital network environment needs both law and technology. Law is the foundation of copyright protection and technology is the means[14]. The "notification-deletion" rule in terms of the Internet is a crucial measure for Internet governance. The initial institutional value of this rule is to guarantee the innovation of Internet technology and the development of a business model. However, it has evolved into a convenient tool for intellectual property rights holders to protect their rights. With the help of this institutional value, right holders have stopped a large number of violations at low cost and high efficiency. Based on the above analysis, we can find that the value basis of the "notification-deletion" rule is not outdated, but there do exist problems in its application, and the copyright filtering technology needs further demonstration. In light of the above argument, this paper proposes a new intermediate idea: on the basis of adhering to the value of the "notification-deletion" rule, according to the characteristics of different network platforms, clarify and strengthen the connection process of the "notification-deletion" rule between the right holders and the network platforms, and gradually establish the reasonable boundary of the duty of care of different platforms in judicial practice[15]. The rapid development of the digital age provides opportunities and challenges for the new administrative law. The details are as follows.

4.1 Strengthen the Awareness of Copyright Protection and Abide by the Principle of Good Faith

In view of the inherent characteristics of network copyright infringement, such as the anonymity of infringers,the low cost of infringement, the universality and rapidity of the dissemination of infringing materials, together with the reality of rampant network copyright infringement, China should further strengthen the copyright protection obligations of network service providers who are at the core of Internet information dissemination[16]. The right holders shall notify in strict accordance with the copyright complaint channel set by the platforms, otherwise, it shall be deemed as invalid notice. In principle, the notice of the right holders should include the information of themselves or the authorizers, the information sufficient to locate the infringing works, and the preliminary infringement certificates. In case of live broadcast contents or periods of holidays, if the authorized person fails to provide the complete authorization of the right holders, the notice can still be deemed as valid as the case may be, and the platforms shall also deal with it.

Clarifying the standards of whether a notice is valid or not is also an effective step to improve the "notification-deletion" rule. Users should change their ideas, respect the labor creation of others, firmly establish the concept of "paying first and using then", and make full use of the online copyright trading market to obtain the use license of resources[17]. When there is a real need but no way to obtain authorization, one should maintain the greatest goodwill, abide by the principle of good faith, and deposit reasonable access fees to collective management organizations, notary offices, and other institutions in advance to avoid the risk of infringement. In case of an infringement dispute, one is supposed to actively respond to it and solve the dispute with the greatest sincerity. At the same time, the innovation and application of blockchain and other network technologies have significantly reduced the cost of copyright registration and transaction publicity, which is conducive to improving the copyright management mechanism. Copyright administrative authorities can take full advantage of new technologies, reform the work registration and transaction publicity system, establish a more centralized, convenient, transparent, and powerful copyright registration system, explore the application of blockchain technology to copyright registration, ownership publicity, transaction filing, license fee deposit and other parts, so as to form a complete and transparent publicity system. Thus, disputes can be reduced to a certain extent and litigation can be reduced from the root.

4.2 Strengthen the Awareness of Administrative Service and Strictly Define the Responsibility of the Platforms

In recent years, a large number of network torts have not been reasonably solved only by relying on civil actions. In this case, the copyright administrative departments took the initiative to take a step forward and effectively standardized the order of copyright dissemination through the active supervision of the white list and blacklist system. The active supervision measures of copyright administrative departments are important management means to efficiently stop large-scale infringement by relying on administrative forces. In practice, if the network service providers do not perform a great duty of care for the popular films and television works listed in the white list under active supervision by the copyright administration departments and do not take copyright filtering measures for key works, the copyright administration departments can determine that they constitute a subjective error that they know or should know. For network content service providers, copyright filtering measures must be taken to fulfill the requirements of active supervision by administrative departments. If there are no copyright filtering measures, active supervision cannot be realized. As a result, the active supervision measures of copyright administrative departments are crucial means of copyright protection at this stage, which is reasonable.

The basis of the self-regulation of the platforms is that the regulatory authorities provide a clear negative list with clear rights and responsibilities and can be identified by existing technologies. For the content beyond the scope of the platform review that needs to be measured by professional knowledge, the platforms only need to bear the obligation of blocking and deleting[18]. The platform responsibility theory is most obvious in the "pure channel"theory. The“pure channel”theory is only a technical channel for transmitting information, which is not significantly different from the existing telephone companies in nature. In 1998, the United States established the "safe haven rule" applicable to the field of copyright. In order to emphasize the participation of the network platforms in the formation of content, the German academic community requires the platforms to actively undertake the duty of care.Based on the impartiality and non-neutrality of the platform, the Chinese government has formulated the strategy of"network management by network". For the supervision of the platforms, clarify the division of responsibilities between two entities, namely, the government and the platforms, and achieve satisfying social effects through cooperative supervision in benign interaction[19]. The assignment of platform responsibility is essentially the government's regulation of private subjects. This kind of regulatory responsibility can be divided into behavior responsibility, result responsibility, institution responsibility, and principal responsibility[20]. Each of these four responsibilities has its own focus and applies to different stages. Principle responsibility belongs to the guiding ideology and is abstract.Behavior responsibility refers to the description of specific matters, such as the reporting obligation of the platforms, the registration obligation of the platforms, etc. The externalization of result responsibility is reflected in different performance standards. Institution responsibility is applicable to the internal management of the network platforms and provides standards for the implementation stage.

4.3 The Platforms Reposition Its Role and Assume the Responsibility of Copyright Protection

There are few disputes about the legal status of the platforms in the field of administrative law. The general view in academic circles is that the network platforms belong to a third party and should bear the obligations of the third party. The third- party's obligation in administrative law is based on the fault behavior of the third party[21].Third-party obligation means that in administrative activities, the administrative subjects force the private subjects to undertake some government functions, and can use the private subjects' own technical or business advantages to reduce the cost of law enforcement. From the perspective of the legislative framework and normative purpose, the third-party obligations of platforms in administrative law can be divided into two levels, namely general obligations and special obligations[22]. According to the policy ideas presented bythe Cybersecurity Lawat the legislative level,the basic structure of pre-review obligation, in-process review obligation, and post-review obligation can be applied to all types of platforms. The platform obligations are mainly in accordance with the setting of general obligations inthe Cybersecurity Lawand are supplemented by other special laws and the characteristics of various business platforms.

With the rapid development of the network society, many infringement acts occur on the network service platforms. The network service platforms should actively fulfill their social responsibility and provide platform users with copyright using permissions or convenient ways for access, which not only contributes to strengthening copyright protection, but also provides network users with better network services, and is more conducive to preventing the risk of platform infringement. At present, some network service platforms are actively taking effective measures to strengthen copyright protection. For example, some network service platforms cooperate with copyright owners to provide authorized content for users on the platforms. The platforms deduct a corresponding proportion from users'payments and give it to the right holders as the license fee. In addition, other network service platforms purchase content from the right holders so that users on the platforms can enjoy it for free. These two modes can meet the needs of platform users to a certain extent, and also help to promote the genuine utilization of copyright. Therefore,the active action of network service platforms plays an important role in resolving disputes. It is suggested that all platforms explore and establish new models of authorization mechanisms for users and rights holders according to the actual situation, so as to achieve the win-win goal.

4.4 Multi Governance of Platform Copyright and Mutual Cooperation of Multiple Subjects

In recent years, compared with the privatization of specific public sectors, public-private partnership for specific project construction or management, the public-private linkage led by the government has shown an unprecedented scale and seemingly borderless trend[23]. New public managerialism pursues efficiency and performance, making part of the administrative tasks traditionally undertaken by administrative departments transferred to private subjects through outsourcing or entrustment. Private subjects can thus participate in the process of administrative management and serve as managers, which forms the public-private cooperation model in American administrative law. The public-private partnership model is another development model in American administrative law after the interest representation model. This model emphasizes breaking through the original dividing line between public law and private law in administrative law, meaning that private subjects can be the leader of administrative tasks and that private law methods such as contract and negotiation can enter the field of public law.

Internet technology is typically featured by decentralization which is transferred to social governance with the development of a platform economy. During the 13th Five Year Plan period, non-governmental subjects assumed more and more copyright governance functions, gradually forming a diversified governance model of market mechanism and community participation, and playing an important role in copyright governance. Internet platform governance is all-around and requires the joint efforts of many parties. With the diversification of governance scenarios and governance subjects, the horizontal governance mechanism with multi-stakeholders parallel participation and mutual cooperation as the core has attracted more and more attention. In other words, network copyright governance cannot completely rely on legislators and network platform enterprises. Multiple subjects including government agencies, network platform enterprises, Internet industry associations, and network users should all play a role in it and cooperate with each other. With the development of the Internet, the research and discussion on the responsibility of network copyright governance have deepened, from the non-discretionary responsibility of the platforms to distinguishable responsibilities of platforms according to the nature of the platforms. For the responsibility of platform copyright governance, we need social co-governance and unite all subjects of the network. In the governance process of the cyberspace environment, various subjects involved have their own different compliance needs and interest demands[24]. Therefore, when formulating and implementing network copyright governance rules, multi-stakeholders should be given the opportunity to express their opinions. At the same time, emphasis needs to be laid on the coordination and guidance of the central system with the administrative departments as the core and the self-coordination of each network platform subsystem, so as to build an interactive framework between the two[25]. Through the above measures, the governance rules of network copyright can reflect the common interests of multiple stakeholders, and make all parties perform their respective duties and responsibilities in the process of rule implementation.

5 Conclusion:Network Copyright Protection Has Entered New Era

There are about three major changes in the civilization of human society, namely the agricultural revolution,the industrial revolution, and the current knowledge revolution. There is no doubt that network technology is the most prominent technology in the era of the knowledge revolution, not only for the convenient dissemination of information throughout the world but also for the transformation of the social industrial pattern. From the Internet 20 years ago to the later Internet+, and then to AI+ nowadays, a new form of economic development of the whole society has emerged, which forms a new engine of the new economy. As the core business format of China's network copyright industry tends to be stable, the new business format shows great potential, and the industrial structure is more diversified. The proportion of short videos, live broadcasts, and network news media has increased significantly. The dissemination of non-entertainment content such as information, knowledge, and culture has become a new trend. The rapid development of the Internet is often accompanied by increasingly prominent new problems of network copyright. Now, we urgently need to "strengthen the construction of digital society and digital government, and improve the digital and intelligent level of public services and social governance"[26]. Digitization and the Internet are changing the development model of the publishing industry with unprecedented strength and speed. The development of digital publishing applications has brought many new policy and technical issues to the copyright protection of the publishing industry. While fully enjoying the convenience brought by digitization and the Internet, people are also suffering from the disorder of market order caused by the intentional or unintentional illegal use of copyright.

Thanks to the information revolution and the progress of communication technology, as well as China's advanced and ubiquitous network infrastructure, Internet information technology is benefiting countless Internet users,and cyberspace has become the spiritual home of hundreds of millions of people. Especially in the field of network information content, new formats, new models, and new applications are emerging one after another; new ideas, new concepts, and new theories are constantly coming up; new creations, new cultures, and new products are continuously appearing; new problems, new thinking, and new platforms are multifarious. Diversified content production, rapid message delivery, instant information sharing, and intelligent information distribution have unprecedentedly empowered mankind. In the era where "everyone is an inventor and everyone is a disseminator", the copyright system needs to keep pace with the times. In conclusion，the administrative law regulation of network copyright governance requires a new legal norm system. In terms of responding from the administrative law system itself, it is vital to strengthen the awareness of copyright protection, abide by the principle of good faith in administrative law, and strictly define the responsibility of platforms. We should redefine the legal status of network platforms and set the copyright protection responsibility in line with the principle of equal rights and obligations. It is suggested to take the diversified governance of platform copyright as the goal orientation, and strengthen the coordination mechanism among multiple legal subjects. Through the in-depth analysis of the issues concerning network copyright governance, this paper hopes to promote all legal subjects' efforts in all sectors of society, take the problems as the guidance and win-win as the goal, accelerate the formation of a new pattern of copyright governance that respects rights, guarantees orderly transactions, safeguards rights in good faith and protects rights according to law, so as to jointly boost the prosperity of cultural creative industry. It is expected that all sectors of society will pay attention to emerging legal issues in Internet governance and contribute wisdom to creating a healthy and orderly network copyright environment. When it comes to the future, China also needs to improve its governance capacity in terms of the value transfer and transformation mechanism of network copyright, the design of rights and obligations along with benefit distribution among multiple subjects and the reshaping of the international copyright governance rule system, for the sake of building a network copyright governance system with Chinese characteristics.