前两年，比特币大火，吴某就在淘宝上买比特币交易平台的充值码，但后来央行政策封锁，导致他无法取现，于是他把平台和淘宝店都告了。
In the first two years of the Bitcoin fire, Wu bought the full value of the Bitcoin trading platform on a treasure hunt, but the central bank policy blockade prevented him from taking it, so he sued both the platform and the treasure shop.
今天
Today
杭州互联网法院公开开庭审理了
The Hangzhou Internet Court is open.
吴某诉上海某科技公司、淘宝公司
Wu Wu vs. Shanghai tech company, Treasures company.
网络侵权责任纠纷（财产权纠纷）一案
Case concerning Cyber tort Liability (Property Dispute)
本案系该院受理的首例涉“比特币”网络财产侵权纠纷案件。
This is the first case before the Court involving a dispute over Internet property in “bitcoin”.
吴某诉称
其通过被告淘宝公司经营的“淘宝”网络购物平台向“FXBTC”网站的运营者（即被告上海某科技公司）购买2.675个比特币，上述网站被关闭时，被告上海某科技公司未向原告进行任何提示，此不作为行为导致原告所购比特币无法找回，给原告带来巨大经济损失。
It purchased 2.675 bitcoins from the operators of the “FXBTC” website (i.e., from a technology company in Shanghai) through the “Sweeping of Treasures” Internet shopping platform operated by the defendant, which, when the above-mentioned website was closed, the defendant, a technology company in Shanghai, did not give any indication to the plaintiff, and this inaction prevented the plaintiff from recovering the bitcoin, causing substantial economic losses to the plaintiff.
另一方面，比特币、莱特币等互联网虚拟币以及相关商品为淘宝网禁发商品，被告淘宝公司没有履行审核义务，导致原告在其经营的网络购物平台上买到了禁止交易商品，受到损失。
On the other hand, Internet virtual coins such as Bitcoin and Lightcoin, as well as related goods, were banned from distribution on Treasurenet, and the defendant's company, which failed to comply with its audit obligations, caused the plaintiff to buy prohibited goods on the Internet shopping platforms in which it operated, and suffered losses.
原告认为两被告的共同侵权行为直接造成了原告的经济损失，故起诉要求两被告就原告的损失76314元（2.675个比特币起诉时的交易价格）承担连带赔偿责任并承担诉讼费以及其他因诉讼产生的必要费用。
In the plaintiff's view that the joint tort of the defendant directly caused the plaintiff's financial loss, the action required both defendants to bear joint and several liability for the plaintiff's loss of $76314 (the price of the transaction at the time of the prosecution of 2.675 bitcoin) and to bear the costs of the proceedings and other necessary costs arising from the proceedings.
被告的应对
被告上海某科技公司辩称：
1、答辩人系基于中国人民银行等部门机关联合发布的文件中关于禁止比特币交易的规定而关闭网站，对原告不构成侵权，且比特币属非法财产，在我国不受法律保护，交易行为涉嫌扰乱社会经济秩序，损害社会公共利益，故应驳回原告的起诉； 1. The respondent's closure of the website on the basis of the provisions of the documents issued jointly by the People's Bank of China and other sectoral bodies prohibiting Bitcoin transactions does not constitute a violation of the plaintiff's rights, and that Bitcoin is illegal property, is not protected by the law in our country and is suspected of disrupting the socio-economic order and undermining the public interest, so that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed; 2、答辩人未在淘宝网登记注册，未在淘宝网平台销售商品或提供服务，不是涉案购物合同的相对方，无证据证明答辩人、淘宝公司对原告存在侵权行为及共同侵权故意； 2. The respondent was not registered on the Treasurenet, did not sell goods or provide services on the Treasurenet platform, was not the counterpart to the purchase contract in question, and there was no evidence that the respondent, the Graves company, had intentionally violated the plaintiff and the common tort; 3、答辩人于2014年5月2日发布停运公告，督促广大用户尽快完成提现，并且各大媒体均对此予以报道，至此答辩人已尽通知义务； 3. The respondent has fulfilled its notification obligation by issuing a notice of suspension on 2 May 2014, urging a wide range of users to complete the announcement as soon as possible and to report it in all major media; 4、原告未提供比特币交易账户注册信息、账户余额、账户财产等信息，亦未提供任何证据证明其损失； The plaintiff did not provide information on the registration of the Bitcoin transaction account, account balances, account property, etc., nor did it provide any evidence of its loss; 5、即使原告存在经济损失且与答辩人有关联，原告于2013年11月30日买入充值码，答辩人于2014年5月2日发布网站停运公告并于同年5月10日关闭比特币交易网站，原告知道或应当知道涉案侵权行为已超过3年诉讼时效，故原告的诉讼请求应予驳回。 5. Even if the plaintiff suffered economic loss and was associated with the respondent, the plaintiff purchased the full value code on 30 November 2013, the respondent issued a notice of suspension of the website on 2 May 2014 and closed the Bitcoin trading site on 10 May of the same year. The plaintiff knew or should have known that the violation in question had exceeded the three-year statute of limitations and the plaintiff's claim should therefore be dismissed. 被告淘宝公司辩称： 1、淘宝公司仅是提供信息发布平台的服务提供商，不是涉诉商品的生产者、销售者，对涉案商品信息未参与制作、编辑或推荐，平台上所有商品信息均由用户自行发布，淘宝公司不能控制交易所涉物品的质量与安全合法性、信息的真实准确性及交易各方履行其交易协议项下义务的能力，用户发布信息或交易产生的法律后果完全由用户自行承担； 1. The company is merely a service provider of the information distribution platform, not a producer, seller of the goods involved, and does not participate in the production, editing or recommendation of the commodity information in question, all commodity information on the platform is published by the user itself, the company does not have control over the quality and security of the goods involved in the transaction, the true accuracy of the information and the ability of the parties to the transaction to fulfil their obligations under the transaction agreement, and the legal consequences of the user's release of the information or transaction are entirely on the user's own hands; 2、根据原告的申请，淘宝公司已及时向原告披露了卖家的真实姓名、地址和有效联系方式，尽到了相应的义务，不应承担赔偿责任； According to the plaintiff's application, the company had promptly disclosed to the plaintiff the true name, address and effective contact of the seller and had fulfilled its corresponding obligations and was not liable; 3、本案诉前原告未通过平台创设的维权通道申请退货退款，淘宝公司作为网络交易平台已尽平台义务，不应承担连带责任。综上，请求法院依法驳回原告全部诉请。 3. Before the case, the plaintiff did not apply for a refund through the platform’s protection of rights corridor, and the company has fulfilled its obligations as a platform for cyber-trading and should not be jointly and severally liable. 综合双方的诉辩意见，法院将本案争议焦点归纳为： Combining the arguments of the parties, the Court summarized the dispute in the present case as follows: 1、比特币是否具备价值性、稀缺性、可支配性，是否属于虚拟财产并受法律保护; 1. Whether Bitcoins are valuable, scarce, disposable, virtual and legally protected; 2、案外人黄某的店铺及其支付宝账号的实际所有者是否与fxbtc网站的经营主体具有同一性，被告上海某科技公司是否系本案被控侵权行为实际实施主体； 2. Whether the actual owner of the shop and the payment account number of the outsider was of the same nature as the owner of the fxbtc website and whether the defendant, a technology company in Shanghai, was actually the subject of the alleged violation in the present case; 3、若被告上海某科技公司构成侵权，原告按2.675个比特币起诉时的交易价格主张侵权赔偿责任是否合理; 3. If the defendant, a technology company in Shanghai, constituted an infringement, the plaintiff asserted the reasonableness of the tort liability at the price of the transaction at which 2.675 bitcoins were sued; 4、被告淘宝公司是否应当对涉案商品链接进行主动审查，是否应承担共同侵权责任； 4. Whether the defendant's Graves should actively examine the commodity links involved, and whether they should be jointly liable for torts; 5、原告起诉是否已超过诉讼时效，本案是否存在导致诉讼时效发生中止或中断的事由。 5. Whether the plaintiff's action exceeded the statute of limitations and whether there was a cause of suspension or interruption of the statute of limitations in the present case. 该案将择期进行宣判。 Judgement in the case will be delivered at a later date. 文丨互法宣 The Mandarin Interlaw Declaration. 浙江天平 原创发布 Zhejiang Tianping.
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论