|
Dispute Settlement 2023
“全民直播”背景下网络主播跳槽违约责任的承担
|
Abstract:
“全民直播”是互联网技术进步推动直播行业、直播经济发展的结果,在推动文化娱乐、电子商务市场繁荣的同时,其中也存在着许多问题。直播生态内容的违法违规自不待言,同时直播平台之间为争取流量而互挖墙脚、不当竞争也是其中的重要表现。由主播“跳槽”而引发的“天价违约金”也常常成为公众讨论的热点问题。本文以张宏发和腾讯公司的合同纠纷为切入点,分析主播跳槽后产生的违约责任问题,特别对其中的违约金问题进行梳理和研究,从而关注此类问题在实际案例当中如何应用,以期今后对同类案件的解读、研究提供经验。
“Live broadcasting for all” is the result of the advancement of Internet technology to promote the development of the live broadcasting industry and the live broadcasting economy. While promoting the prosperity of the cultural entertainment and e-commerce markets, there are also many problems in it. It goes without saying that live broadcast ecological content violates laws and regulations. At the same time, live broadcast platforms poach each other and improper competitions in order to gain traffic are also important manifestations. The “sky-high liquidated damages” caused by the anchor’s “job-hopping” has often become a hot topic of public discussion. This article takes the contract dispute between Zhang Hongfa and Tencent as the starting point, analyzes the liability for breach of contract after the anchor quits, and especially sorts out and studies the issue of liquidated damages, so as to pay attention to how such issues are applied in actual cases, with a view to provide experience for future analysis, interpretation and research of similar cases.
[1] | 艾媒咨询. 2022年中国直播行业发展现状及市场调研分析报告[EB/OL].
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/3lA56MEsPF2RqHQn9J-UlQ, 2022-04-18. |
[2] | 杨一凡. 论网络主播与MCN机构的法律关系界定[J]. 娱乐法内参, 2022(21): 2. |
[3] | 姚明斌.《合同法》第114条(约定违约金)评注[J]. 法学家, 2017(5): 154-174. |
[4] | 罗昆. 违约金的性质反思与类型重构——一种功能主义的视角[J]. 法商研究, 2015, 32(5): 100-110. |
[5] | 韩世远. 合同法总论[M]. 第四版. 北京: 法律出版社, 2018: 778-832. |
[6] | 王洪亮. 违约金酌减规则论[J]. 法学家, 2015(3): 138-151. |
[7] | 董兴佩, 李明倩. 网络直播用工劳动关系认定研究[J]. 山东科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 23(6): 38-45. |