技术措施版权法保护：比较与评价
|
摘要
技术措施的法律保护是当代版权制度必须解决的三大核心问题之一，它肇始于1988年美国的一个案例，1995年美国提出的立法模式尽管未获通过，随后由于1996年WIPO版权公约和录音录象品公约的影响，技术措施的版权保护迅速进入各国的立法体系。
版权法保护的技术措施是指，版权人所主动采取的，能有效控制进入受保护的作品并对版权人权利进行有效保护，防止侵犯其合法权利的设备、产品和方法。在现行立法中，侵犯版权人的技术措施可以分为两类：直接侵权和间接侵权，后者又称为预备性侵权行为。侵犯技术措施的归责原则也有两种：无过错原则和过错原则。我国立法仅规定了直接侵权和过错原则。当然，技术措施保护也存在三种限制，即合理使用，新的例外清单以及通过授权为新的例外产生可能。
从本质上讲，技术措施是网络上作品的有偿使用制度，它是版权人的经济权利，也是作品传播者的经济权利。技术措施纳入版权法，是因为知识具有公共产品的性质，作为知识产品的一部分，版权产品在新技术条件下产生的外部经济性越来越难以用传统版权法的方式予以矫正，技术措施正是这种新的制度需求的产物。
但是，技术措施体现了新技术条件下作品财产权的强化趋势，故技术措施的版权保护同表达自由、合理使用等价值目标相冲突，还有可能和传统版权法中的首次销售原则、版权保护期限等制度相冲突。因此，技术措施的版权法保护仍需重申利益平衡。
在利益平衡下技术措施保护的制度设计上，版权滥用原则的运用将有助于保障使用者的诸如合理使用、表达自由等非侵权性使用。同时，强调个人使用在技术措施保护中的例外也将有助于利益主体之间的平衡。最后，复制版税应该是技术措施版权法保护的较佳选择。
由于我国立法比较粗疏，技术措施在我国版权法中最终得以确立仍有待于单行条例的实施。因此借鉴各国立法的成败利弊，将有助于我国的版权法治。
The legal protection to technology measures(TM), which derived from U.S. case in 1988, is one of the core problems for copyright law that must resolve in 21 century. Because of WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty passed in 1996, the copyright protection of TM increasingly becomes the one of national legal system.
The TM under copyright law is a device, production and approach that can efficiently control any person to access the copyrighted works, and it must be adopted by copyright holder. Infringe for protection of TM included directed and undirected infringement, and the principle of liability also includes two: strictly liability and neglect liability. But there are only ruled directed infringement and neglect liability in China. As all copyright law, there are three limitation on TM protection that are fair use, new exemplar list and authority that can pass new limitation.
TM, in nature, is a new institution used for net-works, and it also is the economic right of the works' neighbor righter. The reason that copyright law protect TM, is the public goods of knowledge's nature. The externabilities of copyrighted production cannot corrected by traditional means of copyright law because of the new technology. And TM is the production of the new institutional wants.
However, the protection of TM is a tide of strengthening the works' economic rights, so the TM may conflict with the value purpose of expression freedom and fair use and so on. Besides these, it also may conflict with traditional copyright law such as first sale doctrine, protection terms and so on. So, we must protect the interest balance.
Concerning about the institutional design of TM under interest balance, the copyright abuse doctrine can uphold the user right to non-infringement use such as fair use and expression freedom. Second, the exceptions of person's use will balance among the interest subjects. Final, the copy royal will be our better chooses .
Because China law is too simple, TM protected by Chinese law still depend on the Rule of TM Protection. Leaning from the succeed and failure of nations' legislation, we will perfect our copyright law.
版权法保护的技术措施是指，版权人所主动采取的，能有效控制进入受保护的作品并对版权人权利进行有效保护，防止侵犯其合法权利的设备、产品和方法。在现行立法中，侵犯版权人的技术措施可以分为两类：直接侵权和间接侵权，后者又称为预备性侵权行为。侵犯技术措施的归责原则也有两种：无过错原则和过错原则。我国立法仅规定了直接侵权和过错原则。当然，技术措施保护也存在三种限制，即合理使用，新的例外清单以及通过授权为新的例外产生可能。
从本质上讲，技术措施是网络上作品的有偿使用制度，它是版权人的经济权利，也是作品传播者的经济权利。技术措施纳入版权法，是因为知识具有公共产品的性质，作为知识产品的一部分，版权产品在新技术条件下产生的外部经济性越来越难以用传统版权法的方式予以矫正，技术措施正是这种新的制度需求的产物。
但是，技术措施体现了新技术条件下作品财产权的强化趋势，故技术措施的版权保护同表达自由、合理使用等价值目标相冲突，还有可能和传统版权法中的首次销售原则、版权保护期限等制度相冲突。因此，技术措施的版权法保护仍需重申利益平衡。
在利益平衡下技术措施保护的制度设计上，版权滥用原则的运用将有助于保障使用者的诸如合理使用、表达自由等非侵权性使用。同时，强调个人使用在技术措施保护中的例外也将有助于利益主体之间的平衡。最后，复制版税应该是技术措施版权法保护的较佳选择。
由于我国立法比较粗疏，技术措施在我国版权法中最终得以确立仍有待于单行条例的实施。因此借鉴各国立法的成败利弊，将有助于我国的版权法治。
The legal protection to technology measures(TM), which derived from U.S. case in 1988, is one of the core problems for copyright law that must resolve in 21 century. Because of WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty passed in 1996, the copyright protection of TM increasingly becomes the one of national legal system.
The TM under copyright law is a device, production and approach that can efficiently control any person to access the copyrighted works, and it must be adopted by copyright holder. Infringe for protection of TM included directed and undirected infringement, and the principle of liability also includes two: strictly liability and neglect liability. But there are only ruled directed infringement and neglect liability in China. As all copyright law, there are three limitation on TM protection that are fair use, new exemplar list and authority that can pass new limitation.
TM, in nature, is a new institution used for net-works, and it also is the economic right of the works' neighbor righter. The reason that copyright law protect TM, is the public goods of knowledge's nature. The externabilities of copyrighted production cannot corrected by traditional means of copyright law because of the new technology. And TM is the production of the new institutional wants.
However, the protection of TM is a tide of strengthening the works' economic rights, so the TM may conflict with the value purpose of expression freedom and fair use and so on. Besides these, it also may conflict with traditional copyright law such as first sale doctrine, protection terms and so on. So, we must protect the interest balance.
Concerning about the institutional design of TM under interest balance, the copyright abuse doctrine can uphold the user right to non-infringement use such as fair use and expression freedom. Second, the exceptions of person's use will balance among the interest subjects. Final, the copy royal will be our better chooses .
Because China law is too simple, TM protected by Chinese law still depend on the Rule of TM Protection. Leaning from the succeed and failure of nations' legislation, we will perfect our copyright law.
引文
[1] 郑成思：《版权法》，中国人民大学出版社，1997
[2] 郑成思：《知识产权论》，法律出版社，1998
[3] 郑成思：《知识产权法》，法律出版社，1997
[4] 刘波林：《知识产权法的经济分析》，法律出版社，1996
[5] 吴汉东 胡开忠：《无形财产权制度研究》，法律出版社，2001
[6] 阿瑟．R．米勒等：《知识产权法概要》周林等译，中国社会科学出版社 1998
[7] 吴汉东：《著作权合理使用制度研究》，中国政法大学出版社 1996
[8] 郭卫华等：《网络中的法律问题及其对策．》，法律出版社 2001
[9] 莫纪宏：《表达自由的限度》，法律出版社 1998
[10] 张玉瑞：《互联网上知识产权——诉讼与法律》，人民法院出版社，2000
[11] 罗伯特．考特，托罗斯．尤伦：《法和经济学》张军译．，上海三联出版社、上海人民出版社，1994
[12] 斯蒂格利茨：《经济学》．梁小民译．中国人民大学出版社，2000
[13] 薛虹：《因特网上的版权及有关权保护》，载郑成思《知识产权研究》(第一卷)，中国政法大学出版社 2000
[14] 王迁：《美国保护技术措施的司法实践和立法评论》，《西北大学学报(社会科学版)》，2000(2)
[15] 袁泳：《论版权法、技术措施和替代物的可能性》，《知识产权》1999(5)、(6)
[16] [台]冯震宇：《美国著作权法反技术规避规定之影响与检讨》，(台湾)2000年全国科技法律研讨会论文集
[17] 翁鸣江，武雷：《NASPTER诉讼案及其对美国版权法的发展》，《法制与社会发展》，2002(2)
[18] 金玲：《反规避技术措施立法研究》(英文)，载《知识产权研究》第9卷
[19] 侯健：《论自由及其限度》，《北大法律评论》第3卷第2辑
[20] Paul Goldstein, Copyright ,Patent, Trademark and Related State Doctrines, The Foundation Press, Inc 1990 p658
[21] Jane C. Ginsburg, COPYRIGHT AND CONTROL OVER NEW TECHNOLOGIES OF DISSEMINATION, Vol104 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 2001
[22] L. Ray Patterson, Copyright in the New Millennium: Resolving the Conflict between Property Rights and Political Rights. http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/law/LawJournal/patterson.htm
[22] Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy:Why the Anti-circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised, Vol13 Berkeley
TECH& INTELL. PROE L.1999(2)
[23] Pamela Samuelson, Anti-circumvention Rules: Threat to Science. http://law.berkely.edu/～sims/～papers.htm
[24] Yochai Benkler, The Battle over the Institution Ecosystem in Digital Environment, Comm. Of the ACM Feb.2001
[25] Michael A. Einkorn, Digital Rights Management and Access Protection: An Economic Analysis. http://www.law.colubia.edu/conference/2001/1_program_en.htm
[26] David Nimmer, A Rift on Fair Use in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,148U. Pa. L. Rev P71(2000)
[27] Exploitative Publisher, Untrustworthy System and the Dream of a Digital Revolution for Artist, Vol114:2438-2461 Harvard Law Review 2001
[28] YOCHAI BENKLER, FREE AS THE AIR TO COMMON USE:FIRST AMENDMENT CONSTRAINTS ON ENCLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Vol. 74:354
[29] Jane C. Ginsburg, Copyright Use and Excuse on the Internet, 3 CYBER. LAW. 2 (1999).
[30] Neil Weinstock Netanel, Market Hierarchy and Copyright in Our System of Free Expression, 1083,.1882 VANDERBIL T LAW REVIEW Vol. 53
[31] Neil Weinstock Netanel, Locating Copyright Within the First Amendment Skein, 2 STANFORD LAW REVIEW Vol. 54:
[32] Neil Weinstock Netanel, FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS TO THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN COPYRIGHT LAW (1999-2000), 9 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 19 (2000)
[33] Alicia Morris Groos, Developments in U.S. Copyright Law 2000-2001: From Revising the Old South to Redefining the Digital Millennium, 10 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 1 (2001): 114-186
[2] 郑成思：《知识产权论》，法律出版社，1998
[3] 郑成思：《知识产权法》，法律出版社，1997
[4] 刘波林：《知识产权法的经济分析》，法律出版社，1996
[5] 吴汉东 胡开忠：《无形财产权制度研究》，法律出版社，2001
[6] 阿瑟．R．米勒等：《知识产权法概要》周林等译，中国社会科学出版社 1998
[7] 吴汉东：《著作权合理使用制度研究》，中国政法大学出版社 1996
[8] 郭卫华等：《网络中的法律问题及其对策．》，法律出版社 2001
[9] 莫纪宏：《表达自由的限度》，法律出版社 1998
[10] 张玉瑞：《互联网上知识产权——诉讼与法律》，人民法院出版社，2000
[11] 罗伯特．考特，托罗斯．尤伦：《法和经济学》张军译．，上海三联出版社、上海人民出版社，1994
[12] 斯蒂格利茨：《经济学》．梁小民译．中国人民大学出版社，2000
[13] 薛虹：《因特网上的版权及有关权保护》，载郑成思《知识产权研究》(第一卷)，中国政法大学出版社 2000
[14] 王迁：《美国保护技术措施的司法实践和立法评论》，《西北大学学报(社会科学版)》，2000(2)
[15] 袁泳：《论版权法、技术措施和替代物的可能性》，《知识产权》1999(5)、(6)
[16] [台]冯震宇：《美国著作权法反技术规避规定之影响与检讨》，(台湾)2000年全国科技法律研讨会论文集
[17] 翁鸣江，武雷：《NASPTER诉讼案及其对美国版权法的发展》，《法制与社会发展》，2002(2)
[18] 金玲：《反规避技术措施立法研究》(英文)，载《知识产权研究》第9卷
[19] 侯健：《论自由及其限度》，《北大法律评论》第3卷第2辑
[20] Paul Goldstein, Copyright ,Patent, Trademark and Related State Doctrines, The Foundation Press, Inc 1990 p658
[21] Jane C. Ginsburg, COPYRIGHT AND CONTROL OVER NEW TECHNOLOGIES OF DISSEMINATION, Vol104 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 2001
[22] L. Ray Patterson, Copyright in the New Millennium: Resolving the Conflict between Property Rights and Political Rights. http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/law/LawJournal/patterson.htm
[22] Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy:Why the Anti-circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised, Vol13 Berkeley
TECH& INTELL. PROE L.1999(2)
[23] Pamela Samuelson, Anti-circumvention Rules: Threat to Science. http://law.berkely.edu/～sims/～papers.htm
[24] Yochai Benkler, The Battle over the Institution Ecosystem in Digital Environment, Comm. Of the ACM Feb.2001
[25] Michael A. Einkorn, Digital Rights Management and Access Protection: An Economic Analysis. http://www.law.colubia.edu/conference/2001/1_program_en.htm
[26] David Nimmer, A Rift on Fair Use in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,148U. Pa. L. Rev P71(2000)
[27] Exploitative Publisher, Untrustworthy System and the Dream of a Digital Revolution for Artist, Vol114:2438-2461 Harvard Law Review 2001
[28] YOCHAI BENKLER, FREE AS THE AIR TO COMMON USE:FIRST AMENDMENT CONSTRAINTS ON ENCLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Vol. 74:354
[29] Jane C. Ginsburg, Copyright Use and Excuse on the Internet, 3 CYBER. LAW. 2 (1999).
[30] Neil Weinstock Netanel, Market Hierarchy and Copyright in Our System of Free Expression, 1083,.1882 VANDERBIL T LAW REVIEW Vol. 53
[31] Neil Weinstock Netanel, Locating Copyright Within the First Amendment Skein, 2 STANFORD LAW REVIEW Vol. 54:
[32] Neil Weinstock Netanel, FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS TO THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN COPYRIGHT LAW (1999-2000), 9 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 19 (2000)
[33] Alicia Morris Groos, Developments in U.S. Copyright Law 2000-2001: From Revising the Old South to Redefining the Digital Millennium, 10 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 1 (2001): 114-186
© 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 |