P2P技术应用中的侵权责任认定问题研究
|
摘要
P2P技术的出现深刻改变了网络中的信息传递模式,基于P2P技术的文件共享已成为目前网络上信息共享的主要方式,使用P2P软件后,个人用户不需要通过服务器就可以实现与他人的资源共享,网络资源得以整合与累积。P2P技术的应用与发展,也不可避免的引发了许多法律问题,其中以文件共享软件导致的服务提供者与使用者侵犯版权的问题最为严重,版权法律制度面临着新的挑战。自2000年P2P技术在我国广泛应用之后,围绕版权保护与公共利益、科技进步之间的平衡,国内相关主体的矛盾也日益暴露,我国著作权制度受到了潜在的冲击。
P2P软件用户在未经版权人授权的情况下,通过P2P软件从事版权专有权利所控制的复制、发行、信息网络传播等行为,应当承担版权侵权责任。然而,追究P2P软件用户的侵权责任困难重重而且很难使版权人获得充分的救济。在这种情况下,版权人转向P2P软件提供者和P2P网络服务商,主张他们为软件用户的版权直接侵权行为承担侵权责任。在涉及P2P软件的侵权行为中,相关主体的作用以及他们的主观过错决定了追究他们的侵权责任是十分必要的而且他们也应当承担侵权责任。这种侵权责任的承担,与传统侵权法中的直接侵权、共同侵权理论既存在着联系又有着本质的区别,相关主体只能构成版权间接侵权。另外,由于P2P作为一种中立的技术,在追究它的侵权责任时又要考虑对技术发展造成的影响。所以,版权法在解决P2P间接侵权问题时,就要力求平衡版权保护和技术发展,这是我国引入P2P间接侵权制度时首先要考虑的因素。
我国著作权法中并没有涉及P2P侵权的概念更没有完整相关的侵权认定规则,只是在相关司法解释和规定中零星地提到了一些有关P2P侵权的规定,我国第一例涉及P2P侵权案“kuro案”的判决理由和法律依据正说明了我国版权法在P2P涉及的侵权立法方面的不足。美国和澳大利亚在长期的司法实践中已经形成了版权侵权的完整理论,它们在解决P2P侵权问题时所确立的法律规则很值得我国借鉴。本文通过借鉴国外对这一问题的处理方法,对我国制定和调整涉及P2P的著作权法律制度提出的具体的意见和建议。
The P2P technology appearance has profoundly changed the network information transmission pattern. Documents-sharing,on the basis of the P2P technology,has become the key mode of the network sharing-information now. Due to the use of the P2P software, not only resources-sharing can be realized among individual users without servers, but also the network resources will be accumulated and conformed. To the enterprises, the P2P technology means lots of opportunities and many kinds of commercial models have been developed and used. While its application and development has inevitably resulted in many legal matters,in which the question of the service providers and the users' infringement of the documents-sharing software copyright is especially outstanding,the copyright legal regime is facing some new challenges. The P2P technology began to appear in China in 2000.From then on the contradictions of Chinese correlative main bodies have also been day by day exposing with the balance of copyright protection, the public interests and, sci-technological progress, and our country's copyright system has been impacted latently.
The P2P software users must undertake the copyright infringement responsibility on condition that they,using the P2P technology, are not authorized by copyright persons to be engaged in duplication, release,and information network dissemination so on.However,it is very difficult to investigate the P2P software users' copyright infringement and for copyright persons to obtain the full relief. In this case,the copyright persons have to ask the P2P software and network service providers to undertake the right infringement responsibility for the software users 'direct copyright abuse. So it is extremely necessary to investigate the related main bodies' right infringement for their functions and subjective mistakes and they should undertake the responsibility. The so-called responsibility is both different from direct & joint right infringement in essence and related to it a little as far as the traditional right infringement law is concerned. Thus the related main bodies only can constitute the indirect copyright right infringement.Moreover,the P2P technology is a neutral one,so the influence on the technological development must be considered when right infringement responsibility investagated.Therefore,every effort must be made to balance copyright protection and the technological development when copyright law solves the P2P indirect right infringement problem, which is the first factor to consider as China introduces the P2P indirect right infringement system.
In our country copyright law has not the concept of the P2P right infringement or complete recognizing rules, and some related right infringement stipulations only exist fragmentarily in the correlative judicial interpretations and stipulations. So it is far from a true theory. Our country's General Provisions of the Civil Law has the joint right infringement stipulations,but this can not solve the P2P indirect right infringement problems by far. The decisive reasons and legal bases of the first P2P right infringement case—the KuroCase just show copyright law has legislative insufficiencies involved with the P2Pright infringement. US and Australia have already formed a complete theory of indirect copyright right infringement in the long-term judicial practice,so the legal rules they established when the P2P right infringement problems solved are well worth refering. It is very essential for our country to formulate and adjust copyright legal regime when our country faces the same situation.
P2P软件用户在未经版权人授权的情况下,通过P2P软件从事版权专有权利所控制的复制、发行、信息网络传播等行为,应当承担版权侵权责任。然而,追究P2P软件用户的侵权责任困难重重而且很难使版权人获得充分的救济。在这种情况下,版权人转向P2P软件提供者和P2P网络服务商,主张他们为软件用户的版权直接侵权行为承担侵权责任。在涉及P2P软件的侵权行为中,相关主体的作用以及他们的主观过错决定了追究他们的侵权责任是十分必要的而且他们也应当承担侵权责任。这种侵权责任的承担,与传统侵权法中的直接侵权、共同侵权理论既存在着联系又有着本质的区别,相关主体只能构成版权间接侵权。另外,由于P2P作为一种中立的技术,在追究它的侵权责任时又要考虑对技术发展造成的影响。所以,版权法在解决P2P间接侵权问题时,就要力求平衡版权保护和技术发展,这是我国引入P2P间接侵权制度时首先要考虑的因素。
我国著作权法中并没有涉及P2P侵权的概念更没有完整相关的侵权认定规则,只是在相关司法解释和规定中零星地提到了一些有关P2P侵权的规定,我国第一例涉及P2P侵权案“kuro案”的判决理由和法律依据正说明了我国版权法在P2P涉及的侵权立法方面的不足。美国和澳大利亚在长期的司法实践中已经形成了版权侵权的完整理论,它们在解决P2P侵权问题时所确立的法律规则很值得我国借鉴。本文通过借鉴国外对这一问题的处理方法,对我国制定和调整涉及P2P的著作权法律制度提出的具体的意见和建议。
The P2P technology appearance has profoundly changed the network information transmission pattern. Documents-sharing,on the basis of the P2P technology,has become the key mode of the network sharing-information now. Due to the use of the P2P software, not only resources-sharing can be realized among individual users without servers, but also the network resources will be accumulated and conformed. To the enterprises, the P2P technology means lots of opportunities and many kinds of commercial models have been developed and used. While its application and development has inevitably resulted in many legal matters,in which the question of the service providers and the users' infringement of the documents-sharing software copyright is especially outstanding,the copyright legal regime is facing some new challenges. The P2P technology began to appear in China in 2000.From then on the contradictions of Chinese correlative main bodies have also been day by day exposing with the balance of copyright protection, the public interests and, sci-technological progress, and our country's copyright system has been impacted latently.
The P2P software users must undertake the copyright infringement responsibility on condition that they,using the P2P technology, are not authorized by copyright persons to be engaged in duplication, release,and information network dissemination so on.However,it is very difficult to investigate the P2P software users' copyright infringement and for copyright persons to obtain the full relief. In this case,the copyright persons have to ask the P2P software and network service providers to undertake the right infringement responsibility for the software users 'direct copyright abuse. So it is extremely necessary to investigate the related main bodies' right infringement for their functions and subjective mistakes and they should undertake the responsibility. The so-called responsibility is both different from direct & joint right infringement in essence and related to it a little as far as the traditional right infringement law is concerned. Thus the related main bodies only can constitute the indirect copyright right infringement.Moreover,the P2P technology is a neutral one,so the influence on the technological development must be considered when right infringement responsibility investagated.Therefore,every effort must be made to balance copyright protection and the technological development when copyright law solves the P2P indirect right infringement problem, which is the first factor to consider as China introduces the P2P indirect right infringement system.
In our country copyright law has not the concept of the P2P right infringement or complete recognizing rules, and some related right infringement stipulations only exist fragmentarily in the correlative judicial interpretations and stipulations. So it is far from a true theory. Our country's General Provisions of the Civil Law has the joint right infringement stipulations,but this can not solve the P2P indirect right infringement problems by far. The decisive reasons and legal bases of the first P2P right infringement case—the KuroCase just show copyright law has legislative insufficiencies involved with the P2Pright infringement. US and Australia have already formed a complete theory of indirect copyright right infringement in the long-term judicial practice,so the legal rules they established when the P2P right infringement problems solved are well worth refering. It is very essential for our country to formulate and adjust copyright legal regime when our country faces the same situation.
引文
[1]李先波,龚帆,杨蕙.P2P技术之法律保护[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报,2006(3):79.
[1]P2P天空.什么叫P2P.[EB/OL].http://www.p2psky.com/Article/2005-09-13/8561126623140.html,2007-10-04.
[1]陈洪,刘双与,杨王华.《P2P技术发展与应用》[J].计算机工程,2003(11):19.
[1]王迁.P2P软件最终用户版权侵权问题研究[J].知识产权,2004(5):9.
[1]田享华.《首例P2P侵权案宣判两被告要赔20万元)[N].第一财经日报,2006-12-20.
[2]网易科技.宽带运营商高呼P2P冲击电信新业务[EB/OL].http://article.pchome.net/content-464716-4.html,2007-12-10.
[1]A&M Records,Inc.v.Napster,Inc.239 F.3d 1004(9th Cir.2001).
[1]翁鸣江,武累.Napster诉讼案及其对美国版权法的影响[J].法制与社会发展,2002(2)143.
[1]刘家瑞.NAPSTER案与文件共享技术的版权责任[J].SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND LAW,20004(4):42.
[1]马宁,杨辉.“积极诱导规则”——从Grosker案看P2P侵权的新标准[EB/OL].http://www.law-lib.com/lw/lw_view.asp?no=6040,法律图书馆.2007-10-1.
[1]谭筱清.如何科学界定P2P技术涉及的侵权问题——Napster案和Grokster StreamCast版权侵权纠纷评析[EB/OL].http://www.myipr.com/suma/2005-05/1612.html,2007-10-10.
[1]马宁,杨辉.“积极诱导规则”——从Grosker案看P2P侵权的新标准[EB/OL].http://www.law-lib.com/lw/lw_view.asp?no=6040,2007-10-3.
[1]Universal Music Australia Pry Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd,[2005]FCA 1242.
[2]See(Australia)Copyright Act 1968,s 31(1),s 36(1),s 101(1).
[1]晴正.BT侵权案件在香港正式开审[EB/OL].http://www.sinolaw.net.cn/News/tuijian/20051013102343.htm,2007-04-10.
[1]田享华.首例P2P侵权案宣判两被告要赔20万元[N].第一财经日报,2006-2-10.
[1]王迁.P2P软件最终用户版权侵权问题研究[J].知识产权,2004(5):12.
[1]陈菲.P2P网络服务提供商侵权责任的建立——Grokster案与Aimster案之对比及对中国的启示[D].西安:西北大学,2005:48.
[1]李琳,温浩宇.P2P技术下版权侵权问题及解决途径的研究[J].现代情报,2007(9):48.
[1]郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:63-77.
[2]郑成思.中国知识产权保护现状与定位问题[J].今日中国论坛,2005(2-3):118-121.
[3]王迁.P2P软件最终用户版权侵权问题研究[J].知识产权。2004(5):9-13.
[4]李先波,龚帆,杨蕙.P2P技术之法律保护[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报.2006(3):78-82.
[5]乔生.网络中的知识产权保护[J].现代法学,2001(10):66-72.
[6]郑海味.论著作权法对网络中作品的版权保护[J].编辑之友,2005(2):78-80.
[7]邱润根.网络版权侵权的法律适用[J].南昌大学学报,2006(1):53-56.
[8]赵红卫.网络环境版权相关法律问题[J].山东师范大学学报。2005(5):72-75.
[9]王利.网络时代我国版权合理使用制度的构建[J].内蒙古社会科学(汉文版)。2005(3):43-47.
[10]谭九生,高俊宽.网络信息资源建设中的知识产权问题[J].图书馆理论与实践,2005(6):36-39.
[11]丛立先.我国网络版权保护制度的构建与完善[J].中国出版,2006(1):53-55.
[12]范陈泽,高山行.信息产品版权管理的策略初探[J].情报理论与实践,2004(1):38-39,95.
[13]北京市第二中级人民法院.再谈网络知识产权案件审理中的问题[J].人民司法,2001(7):32-33.
[14]金铃.知识产权与网络传输[J].科技与法律。2000(1):35-41.
[15]沈仁干,钟颖科.著作权法概论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.100.
[16]谭筱清.如何科学界定P2P技术涉及的侵权问题——Napster案和Grokster StreamCast版权侵权纠纷评析[EB/OL].http://www.myipr.com/suma/2005-05/1612.html,2005-05-21/2007-10-01.
[17]马宁,杨辉.“积极诱导规则”——从Grosker案看P2P侵权的新标准[EB/OL].http://www.law-lib.com/lw/lw_view.asp?no=6040,2007-10-01.
[18]崔莹莹.版权诉讼:P2P“生死劫”[EB/OL].http://old.news.hexun.com/1980_1430765A.shtml,2005-12-01/2007-10-01.
[19]周斌.国内首例P2P侵权案推进新技术立法[EB/OL].http://www.tzlsxh.com/Article_Print.asp?ArticleID=490,2007-10-01.
[20]蔡雄山.P2P一个网络时代的伟大发明与法律悖论[EB/OL].http://it.sohu.com/20060206/n241687313.shtml,2006-02-06/2007-10-01。
[21]孙长虹.计算机网络时代的公正之思考[J].实事求是,2005(6):21-23.
[22]高景民.WTO与网络著作权保护[J].内蒙古工业大学学报,2005(1):65-68.
[23]杨旭东.利用路由器来抑制BT软件及Nimda病毒的方法[J].电子商务,2005(1):100-101.
[24]任启炜.论链接与网络版权保护[J].经济与法,2005(10):35-37.
[25]都沁萍.论网络环境下的知识产权保护[J].陕西科技,2005(1):71-72.
[26]胡坚.美国保护知识产权的新动向——评美国《司法部知识产权工作组报告》[J].电子知识产权,2005(5):37-40.
[27]薛希希.强化网络著作权法律保护及对策[J].法制与监管,2005(3):74-75.
[28]吴敏,雷鑫.试论网络环境下著作权的法律保护[J].湖湘论坛,2005(2):37-38,72.
[29]王立诚,周玉陶.数字化作品与数字式作品的知识产权保护比较研究[J].情报杂志,2005(12):91-96.
[30]张淑亚.网络环境下的著作权若干问题研究[J].安徽警官职业学院学报,2005(1):27-29.
[31]陈志宏.新形势下知识产权保护的几个新问题[J].图书馆理论与实践,2005(2):54-56.
[32]周雪华.中外著作权法与国际网络资讯保护[J].现代情报,2005(7):37-40.
[33]王利.网络时代我国版权合理使用制度的构建[J].内蒙古社会科学,2005(3):43-47.
[34]翁鸣江,武累.Napster诉讼案及其对美国版权法的影响[J].法制与社会发展,2002(2):144-156.
[35]高富平,温健.Napster案的影响[J].电子商务与法律,2001(9):76-77.
[37]程圆圆,王兵.“合理使用”制度的实施[J].中国信息导报,2001(12):23-25.
[38]李琳,温浩宇.P2P技术下版权侵权问题及解决途径的研究[J].现代情报,2007(9):46-50.
[39]任秋娟,马瑛杰.论P2P引发的版权侵权责任认定[J].山东审判,2006(3):90-94.
[40]谭筱清,王璐.如何界定P2P技术涉及的侵权问题[J].人民司法,2005(4):90-94.
[41]魏震.P2P下的版权问题研究[D].济南:山东大学,2007:40.
[42]鲍艳丹.P2P技术与音乐著作权的冲突及解决方式研究[D].北京:中国政法大学,2005:25.
[43]陈菲.P2P网络服务提供商侵权责任的建立一Grokster案与Aimster案之对比及对中国的启示[D].西安:西北大学,2005:48.
[44]林惠惠.我国网络环境下应用PZP技术的法律规制[D].广州:华南师范大学,2007:35.
[45]肖琴.使用P2P软件带来的网络著作权法律问题研究[D].北京:中国政法大学,2006:20.
[46]戴轶龙.P2P技术引起的著作权问题研究[D].上海:华东政法大学,2006:36.
[47]朱雪忠.知识产权协调保护战略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005(1):250-274.
[48]刘春茂.知识产权原理[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2002:10-18.
[49]英国知识产权委员会.知识产权与发展整合报告[EB/OL].http://www.iprcommission.cn,2007-10-23.
[50]Jessica Litman.Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001:101.
[51]Shapiro,Bernstein and Co.v.H.L.Green Co.Federal Reporter.2nd Series.Vol.304,1963:316.
[52]Sony Corp.of Am.v.Universal City Studio.Inc.464 U.S.417,1984:442.
[53]Jason Schultz.The False Origins of the Induce Act,Northern Kentucky Law Review,2005:20.
[54]A&M Records,Inc.v.Napster,Inc.239 F.3d 9th Cir.2001.:1004
[55]New York Times Co.v.Tasini,533 U.S.483 at.2001:504
[56]See(Australia)Copyright Act 1968,s 31(1),s 36(1),s 101(1).
[57]Universal Music Australia Pry Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Lid,[2005]FCA 1242.
[1]P2P天空.什么叫P2P.[EB/OL].http://www.p2psky.com/Article/2005-09-13/8561126623140.html,2007-10-04.
[1]陈洪,刘双与,杨王华.《P2P技术发展与应用》[J].计算机工程,2003(11):19.
[1]王迁.P2P软件最终用户版权侵权问题研究[J].知识产权,2004(5):9.
[1]田享华.《首例P2P侵权案宣判两被告要赔20万元)[N].第一财经日报,2006-12-20.
[2]网易科技.宽带运营商高呼P2P冲击电信新业务[EB/OL].http://article.pchome.net/content-464716-4.html,2007-12-10.
[1]A&M Records,Inc.v.Napster,Inc.239 F.3d 1004(9th Cir.2001).
[1]翁鸣江,武累.Napster诉讼案及其对美国版权法的影响[J].法制与社会发展,2002(2)143.
[1]刘家瑞.NAPSTER案与文件共享技术的版权责任[J].SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND LAW,20004(4):42.
[1]马宁,杨辉.“积极诱导规则”——从Grosker案看P2P侵权的新标准[EB/OL].http://www.law-lib.com/lw/lw_view.asp?no=6040,法律图书馆.2007-10-1.
[1]谭筱清.如何科学界定P2P技术涉及的侵权问题——Napster案和Grokster StreamCast版权侵权纠纷评析[EB/OL].http://www.myipr.com/suma/2005-05/1612.html,2007-10-10.
[1]马宁,杨辉.“积极诱导规则”——从Grosker案看P2P侵权的新标准[EB/OL].http://www.law-lib.com/lw/lw_view.asp?no=6040,2007-10-3.
[1]Universal Music Australia Pry Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd,[2005]FCA 1242.
[2]See(Australia)Copyright Act 1968,s 31(1),s 36(1),s 101(1).
[1]晴正.BT侵权案件在香港正式开审[EB/OL].http://www.sinolaw.net.cn/News/tuijian/20051013102343.htm,2007-04-10.
[1]田享华.首例P2P侵权案宣判两被告要赔20万元[N].第一财经日报,2006-2-10.
[1]王迁.P2P软件最终用户版权侵权问题研究[J].知识产权,2004(5):12.
[1]陈菲.P2P网络服务提供商侵权责任的建立——Grokster案与Aimster案之对比及对中国的启示[D].西安:西北大学,2005:48.
[1]李琳,温浩宇.P2P技术下版权侵权问题及解决途径的研究[J].现代情报,2007(9):48.
[1]郑成思.知识产权论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:63-77.
[2]郑成思.中国知识产权保护现状与定位问题[J].今日中国论坛,2005(2-3):118-121.
[3]王迁.P2P软件最终用户版权侵权问题研究[J].知识产权。2004(5):9-13.
[4]李先波,龚帆,杨蕙.P2P技术之法律保护[J].湖南师范大学社会科学学报.2006(3):78-82.
[5]乔生.网络中的知识产权保护[J].现代法学,2001(10):66-72.
[6]郑海味.论著作权法对网络中作品的版权保护[J].编辑之友,2005(2):78-80.
[7]邱润根.网络版权侵权的法律适用[J].南昌大学学报,2006(1):53-56.
[8]赵红卫.网络环境版权相关法律问题[J].山东师范大学学报。2005(5):72-75.
[9]王利.网络时代我国版权合理使用制度的构建[J].内蒙古社会科学(汉文版)。2005(3):43-47.
[10]谭九生,高俊宽.网络信息资源建设中的知识产权问题[J].图书馆理论与实践,2005(6):36-39.
[11]丛立先.我国网络版权保护制度的构建与完善[J].中国出版,2006(1):53-55.
[12]范陈泽,高山行.信息产品版权管理的策略初探[J].情报理论与实践,2004(1):38-39,95.
[13]北京市第二中级人民法院.再谈网络知识产权案件审理中的问题[J].人民司法,2001(7):32-33.
[14]金铃.知识产权与网络传输[J].科技与法律。2000(1):35-41.
[15]沈仁干,钟颖科.著作权法概论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2003.100.
[16]谭筱清.如何科学界定P2P技术涉及的侵权问题——Napster案和Grokster StreamCast版权侵权纠纷评析[EB/OL].http://www.myipr.com/suma/2005-05/1612.html,2005-05-21/2007-10-01.
[17]马宁,杨辉.“积极诱导规则”——从Grosker案看P2P侵权的新标准[EB/OL].http://www.law-lib.com/lw/lw_view.asp?no=6040,2007-10-01.
[18]崔莹莹.版权诉讼:P2P“生死劫”[EB/OL].http://old.news.hexun.com/1980_1430765A.shtml,2005-12-01/2007-10-01.
[19]周斌.国内首例P2P侵权案推进新技术立法[EB/OL].http://www.tzlsxh.com/Article_Print.asp?ArticleID=490,2007-10-01.
[20]蔡雄山.P2P一个网络时代的伟大发明与法律悖论[EB/OL].http://it.sohu.com/20060206/n241687313.shtml,2006-02-06/2007-10-01。
[21]孙长虹.计算机网络时代的公正之思考[J].实事求是,2005(6):21-23.
[22]高景民.WTO与网络著作权保护[J].内蒙古工业大学学报,2005(1):65-68.
[23]杨旭东.利用路由器来抑制BT软件及Nimda病毒的方法[J].电子商务,2005(1):100-101.
[24]任启炜.论链接与网络版权保护[J].经济与法,2005(10):35-37.
[25]都沁萍.论网络环境下的知识产权保护[J].陕西科技,2005(1):71-72.
[26]胡坚.美国保护知识产权的新动向——评美国《司法部知识产权工作组报告》[J].电子知识产权,2005(5):37-40.
[27]薛希希.强化网络著作权法律保护及对策[J].法制与监管,2005(3):74-75.
[28]吴敏,雷鑫.试论网络环境下著作权的法律保护[J].湖湘论坛,2005(2):37-38,72.
[29]王立诚,周玉陶.数字化作品与数字式作品的知识产权保护比较研究[J].情报杂志,2005(12):91-96.
[30]张淑亚.网络环境下的著作权若干问题研究[J].安徽警官职业学院学报,2005(1):27-29.
[31]陈志宏.新形势下知识产权保护的几个新问题[J].图书馆理论与实践,2005(2):54-56.
[32]周雪华.中外著作权法与国际网络资讯保护[J].现代情报,2005(7):37-40.
[33]王利.网络时代我国版权合理使用制度的构建[J].内蒙古社会科学,2005(3):43-47.
[34]翁鸣江,武累.Napster诉讼案及其对美国版权法的影响[J].法制与社会发展,2002(2):144-156.
[35]高富平,温健.Napster案的影响[J].电子商务与法律,2001(9):76-77.
[37]程圆圆,王兵.“合理使用”制度的实施[J].中国信息导报,2001(12):23-25.
[38]李琳,温浩宇.P2P技术下版权侵权问题及解决途径的研究[J].现代情报,2007(9):46-50.
[39]任秋娟,马瑛杰.论P2P引发的版权侵权责任认定[J].山东审判,2006(3):90-94.
[40]谭筱清,王璐.如何界定P2P技术涉及的侵权问题[J].人民司法,2005(4):90-94.
[41]魏震.P2P下的版权问题研究[D].济南:山东大学,2007:40.
[42]鲍艳丹.P2P技术与音乐著作权的冲突及解决方式研究[D].北京:中国政法大学,2005:25.
[43]陈菲.P2P网络服务提供商侵权责任的建立一Grokster案与Aimster案之对比及对中国的启示[D].西安:西北大学,2005:48.
[44]林惠惠.我国网络环境下应用PZP技术的法律规制[D].广州:华南师范大学,2007:35.
[45]肖琴.使用P2P软件带来的网络著作权法律问题研究[D].北京:中国政法大学,2006:20.
[46]戴轶龙.P2P技术引起的著作权问题研究[D].上海:华东政法大学,2006:36.
[47]朱雪忠.知识产权协调保护战略[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2005(1):250-274.
[48]刘春茂.知识产权原理[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2002:10-18.
[49]英国知识产权委员会.知识产权与发展整合报告[EB/OL].http://www.iprcommission.cn,2007-10-23.
[50]Jessica Litman.Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001:101.
[51]Shapiro,Bernstein and Co.v.H.L.Green Co.Federal Reporter.2nd Series.Vol.304,1963:316.
[52]Sony Corp.of Am.v.Universal City Studio.Inc.464 U.S.417,1984:442.
[53]Jason Schultz.The False Origins of the Induce Act,Northern Kentucky Law Review,2005:20.
[54]A&M Records,Inc.v.Napster,Inc.239 F.3d 9th Cir.2001.:1004
[55]New York Times Co.v.Tasini,533 U.S.483 at.2001:504
[56]See(Australia)Copyright Act 1968,s 31(1),s 36(1),s 101(1).
[57]Universal Music Australia Pry Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Lid,[2005]FCA 1242.
© 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 |