摘要：
Qvod Company is not a provider of network content service, but provides network locations (links) and transmission service. Therefore, it does not have pre-censorship and real-time monitoring obligation of illegal information uploaded and generated by illegal websites and Qvod users, such as pornographic videos. It is only liable for "removal on notification" of administrative violations or aiding infringement afterwards. Punishing non-typical crimes of omission violates the principle of "nulla poena sine lege", and the crime of spreading obscene articles for profit cannot be constituted by omission. Qvod technology can be widely used for legitimate purposes. In order to protect network technology innovation, the future development of China's Internet industry and the improvement of national competitiveness, according to the principle of interest measurement, the act of Qvod company should enjoy the "technology neutrality" responsibility exemption, which belongs to unpunishable neutral helping behavior. The key electronic evidence of the "Qvod case" has defects in authenticity identification. The court has failed to find out the frequency of obscene video actually viewed or downloaded by users in the server involved in the case, and has not met the requirements of establishing a crime of spreading obscene articles for profit as an actual damage offense. According to the principle of "in dubio pro reo", Qvod company and defendants should also be acquitted.%快播公司所提供的是一种网络定位 (链接) 、传输服务, 不属于网络内容服务提供者, 因而对不法网站和快播用户所生成、上传的淫秽视频等不法信息, 不负有预先审查、实时监控的义务, 仅负有事后"通知-移除"的行政违法或帮助侵权的责任.处罚不纯正不作为犯, 有违罪刑法定原则, 传播淫秽物品牟利罪不能由不作为构成.快播技术能广泛用于合法用途, 为了保护网络技术创新及未来中国互联网产业的发展与国家竞争力的提升, 根据利益衡量原则, 快播公司的行为应当享受"技术中立"的责任豁免, 属于不可罚的中立帮助行为."快播案"关键电子证据存在鉴真缺陷, 法院未能查明涉案服务器内淫秽视频被用户实际浏览或下载的频次, 没有满足作为实害犯的传播淫秽物品牟利罪成立犯罪的要求, 根据"疑罪从无"原则, 亦应宣告快播公司及各被告人无罪.
