数字时代技术措施的保护及其限制
|
摘要
在数字时代新媒体环境下,作品的利用方式已经由获得作品复制件转变为直接体验作品内容,技术措施事实上已成为权利人保护其作品及相关合法权益的事前性私力救济手段。从产权制度视角看,将接触控制技术措施作为一种独立的客体加以保护具有合理性和正当性。版权法应当赋予版权人保护接触控制技术措施的权利,同时设立相应的权利限制。版权法将接触控制技术措施本身作为独立的权利客体,不失为一种具有成本效益的产权制度设计,符合版权制度的设立初衷。由此,版权作品交易市场方能继续扩大,版权作品的创作与传播将得到进一步的促进。
In the new media context of a digital era, the use of works has changed from obtaining copies of works to directly experiencing the content of works. Technological measures have, in fact, become the private remedies for copyright owners to protect their works and related legitimate interests. From the perspective of property right, it is reasonable and justifiable for the copyright law to protect technological measures that control the access to the content of works. At the same time, technological measures that control access should be restricted by the traditional restriction of copyright system. It is cost-effective to treat the technological measure as an independent object of right protected by the copyright law. It conforms to the original intention of copyright system, which is to expand the work market and promote the creation and dissemination.
In the new media context of a digital era, the use of works has changed from obtaining copies of works to directly experiencing the content of works. Technological measures have, in fact, become the private remedies for copyright owners to protect their works and related legitimate interests. From the perspective of property right, it is reasonable and justifiable for the copyright law to protect technological measures that control the access to the content of works. At the same time, technological measures that control access should be restricted by the traditional restriction of copyright system. It is cost-effective to treat the technological measure as an independent object of right protected by the copyright law. It conforms to the original intention of copyright system, which is to expand the work market and promote the creation and dissemination.
引文
[1] 崔国斌.著作权法原理与案例[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2014.
[2] 刘颖.版权法上技术措施的范围[J].法学评论,2017 (3):96-106.
[3] 吴伟光.版权制度与新媒体技术之间的裂痕与弥补[J].现代法学,2011,33(3):55-72.
[4] HOHFELD W N.Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning [J].Yale law journal,1913,23(1):16-59.
[5] 威廉·W.费舍尔.说话算数:技术、法律以及娱乐的未来.[M].上海:上海三联出版社,2008.
[6] SAMUELSON P.The U.S.Digital agenda at WIPO[J].Virginia journal of international law,1996 (37):369-440.
[7] 王迁.对技术措施立法保护的比较研究[J].知识产权,2003,13(2):3-10.
[8] SAMUELSON P.Intellectual property and the digital economy:why the anti-circumvention regulations need to be revised [J].Berkeley technology law journal,1999,14(2):519-566.
[9] SMITH H E.The Oxford introductions to U.S.law.[M].New York:Oxford University Press,2010.
[10] SMITH H E.Self-help and the nature of property [J].Journal of law,economics and policy,2005 (1):69-107.
[11] NIMMER D.A riff on fair use in the digital millennium copyright act [J].University of Pennsylvania law review,2000,148(3):673-742.
[12] BLACKSTONE W.Blackstone's commentaries abridged (1899) [M].Montana:Kessinger Publishing.2010.
[13] HOFFMAN S J.Limitations on the right of publicity [J].Bulletin of the copyright society of the U.S.A.,1980,28(2):111-145.
[14] MERRILL T W,Smith H E.What happened to property in law and economics?[J].Yale law journal,2001,111(2):357-398.
[15] DEMSETZ H.Toward a theory of property rights [M].UK:Palgrave Macmillan,1974.
[16] HELLER M A.The tragedy of the anti-commons:property in the transition from marx to markets [J].William Davidson Institute working papers,1998,111(3):621-688.
[17] SMITH H E.Exclusion versus governance:two strategies for delineating property rights [J].Journal of legal studies,2002,31(2):453-487.
[18] 艾因霍恩,赵启杉.媒体、技术和版权:经济与法律的融合 [M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
[19] GINSBURG J C.From having copies to experiencing works:the development of an access right in U.S.copyright law [J].Social science electronic publishing,2000,50(1-4):113-131.
[20] 戈斯汀.著作权之道:从谷登堡到数字点播机 [M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[21] 里基森,金斯伯格.国际版权与邻接权——伯尔尼公约及公约以外的新发展 [M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2016.
[22] SMITH H E.Property and property rules [J].Social science electronic publishing,2004,79(5):1719-1798.
[23] 郑重.版权保护技术措施的危害及其规制[J].知识产权,2014 (11):9-17.
[24] CALABRESI G,MELAMED A D.Property rules,liability rules,and inalienability:one view of the cathedral [J].Harvard law review,1972,85(6):1089-1128.
[25] STERK S E.Property rules,liability rules,and uncertainty about property rights [J].Michigan law review,2008,106(7):1285-1335.
[26] 詹克明.一个科学工作者的忧虑[J].随笔.2001 (5):36.
[27] GORDON W J.Fair use as market failure:a structural and economic analysis of the betamax case and its predecessors [J].Columbia law review.1982 (82):1600-1657.
① 参见《中华人民共和国著作权法》(2010)第48条第(6)项规定,《信息网络传播权保护条例》第26条规定。
② 参见《世界知识产权组织版权条约》(WCT)第11条和《世界知识产权组织表演和录音制品条约》(WPPT)第8条的规定。
③ 参见《千禧年数字版权法》(1998)第1201条。
(1)参见《信息网络传播权保护条例》第26条规定。
(2)参见《中华人民共和国著作权法》第10条、第22条规定,《信息网络传播权保护条例》第12条规定。
(3)参见《千禧年数字版权法》第 1201条 (d)、(e)、(f)、(g)、(j)的规定。
[2] 刘颖.版权法上技术措施的范围[J].法学评论,2017 (3):96-106.
[3] 吴伟光.版权制度与新媒体技术之间的裂痕与弥补[J].现代法学,2011,33(3):55-72.
[4] HOHFELD W N.Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning [J].Yale law journal,1913,23(1):16-59.
[5] 威廉·W.费舍尔.说话算数:技术、法律以及娱乐的未来.[M].上海:上海三联出版社,2008.
[6] SAMUELSON P.The U.S.Digital agenda at WIPO[J].Virginia journal of international law,1996 (37):369-440.
[7] 王迁.对技术措施立法保护的比较研究[J].知识产权,2003,13(2):3-10.
[8] SAMUELSON P.Intellectual property and the digital economy:why the anti-circumvention regulations need to be revised [J].Berkeley technology law journal,1999,14(2):519-566.
[9] SMITH H E.The Oxford introductions to U.S.law.[M].New York:Oxford University Press,2010.
[10] SMITH H E.Self-help and the nature of property [J].Journal of law,economics and policy,2005 (1):69-107.
[11] NIMMER D.A riff on fair use in the digital millennium copyright act [J].University of Pennsylvania law review,2000,148(3):673-742.
[12] BLACKSTONE W.Blackstone's commentaries abridged (1899) [M].Montana:Kessinger Publishing.2010.
[13] HOFFMAN S J.Limitations on the right of publicity [J].Bulletin of the copyright society of the U.S.A.,1980,28(2):111-145.
[14] MERRILL T W,Smith H E.What happened to property in law and economics?[J].Yale law journal,2001,111(2):357-398.
[15] DEMSETZ H.Toward a theory of property rights [M].UK:Palgrave Macmillan,1974.
[16] HELLER M A.The tragedy of the anti-commons:property in the transition from marx to markets [J].William Davidson Institute working papers,1998,111(3):621-688.
[17] SMITH H E.Exclusion versus governance:two strategies for delineating property rights [J].Journal of legal studies,2002,31(2):453-487.
[18] 艾因霍恩,赵启杉.媒体、技术和版权:经济与法律的融合 [M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
[19] GINSBURG J C.From having copies to experiencing works:the development of an access right in U.S.copyright law [J].Social science electronic publishing,2000,50(1-4):113-131.
[20] 戈斯汀.著作权之道:从谷登堡到数字点播机 [M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[21] 里基森,金斯伯格.国际版权与邻接权——伯尔尼公约及公约以外的新发展 [M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2016.
[22] SMITH H E.Property and property rules [J].Social science electronic publishing,2004,79(5):1719-1798.
[23] 郑重.版权保护技术措施的危害及其规制[J].知识产权,2014 (11):9-17.
[24] CALABRESI G,MELAMED A D.Property rules,liability rules,and inalienability:one view of the cathedral [J].Harvard law review,1972,85(6):1089-1128.
[25] STERK S E.Property rules,liability rules,and uncertainty about property rights [J].Michigan law review,2008,106(7):1285-1335.
[26] 詹克明.一个科学工作者的忧虑[J].随笔.2001 (5):36.
[27] GORDON W J.Fair use as market failure:a structural and economic analysis of the betamax case and its predecessors [J].Columbia law review.1982 (82):1600-1657.
① 参见《中华人民共和国著作权法》(2010)第48条第(6)项规定,《信息网络传播权保护条例》第26条规定。
② 参见《世界知识产权组织版权条约》(WCT)第11条和《世界知识产权组织表演和录音制品条约》(WPPT)第8条的规定。
③ 参见《千禧年数字版权法》(1998)第1201条。
(1)参见《信息网络传播权保护条例》第26条规定。
(2)参见《中华人民共和国著作权法》第10条、第22条规定,《信息网络传播权保护条例》第12条规定。
(3)参见《千禧年数字版权法》第 1201条 (d)、(e)、(f)、(g)、(j)的规定。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |