法学研究

文章摘要

版权法保护技术措施的正当性

Justification for Protection of Technological Measure by Copyright Law

DOI：

英文关键词: technological measure;access control measure;copyright protection measure;right of access

基金项目:

作者	单位
王迁	华东政法大学教授

摘要点击次数: 1119

全文下载次数: 1433

中文摘要:

为了实施《世界知识产权组织版权条约》中有关保护技术措施的规定，我国与许多国家的版权法均同时保护旨在防止未经许可观赏文艺作品或运行计算机软件的“接触控制措施”和旨在防止未经许可复制、传播作品等版权侵权行为的“版权保护措施”。但版权法保护“接触控制措施”的正当性存在极大争议。不应以“接触控制措施”能够直接保护“复制权”(防止“临时复制”)和“接触权”以及间接保护版权作为版权法对其加以保护的正当性基础。因为中国版权法不承认“临时复制”为复制行为，也根本不存在所谓的“接触权”，并且只有部分“接触控制措施”能够间接保护版权。版权法保护“接触控制措施”的正当性在于其可保障作者等权利人在版权法中的正当利益，即从他人对作品的利用中获得合理报酬。根据这一正当性理论，如果某种“接触控制措施”无法保障权利人在版权法中的正当利益，版权法就不应对其加以保护。

英文摘要:

To implement WIPO Copyright Treaty, China and many other countries have amended the copyright law to protect both the “access control measures” which restrict unauthorized access to literal, artistic works or computer programs, and the “copyright protection measures” which prevent unauthorized reproduction, transmission or other infringing activities. The protection of the “copyright protection measures” by the copyright law is easy to be justified since this type of technological measure is a means to protect copyrights. However, unauthorized access to copyrighted works, including reading or watching pirated novels or movies, does not infringe the copyright, so the effect of the “access control measures” is not to protect copyrights. Therefore, the justification for protecting the “access control measures” by the copyright law becomes a highly controversial issue.One explanation bases the justification on the view that the “access control measures” can directly protect the exclusive right of reproduction by restricting temporary copying and the so-called exclusive “right of access” by restricting unauthorized access to works. This explanation is not well grounded since the “access control measures” cannot protect the right of reproduction in a country such as China where the temporary copying is not covered by the right of reproduction, and the hypothetical “right of access” does not actually exist in the copyright law. Another argument is that the “access control measures” have the effect of indirectly preventing copyright infringement by restricting access to works. But the fact is that only very limited number of “access control measures” can protect copyrights indirectly. This paper proposes that the justification for the copyright law to protect the “access control measures” arises from the fact that the measures can safeguard copyright owners’ legitimate interests recognized by the copyright law, i.e., to receive financial benefit from others’ exploitation of the works. In accordance with this theory, if an “access control measure” does not safeguard such legitimate interests, it should not be protected by copyright law.

查看全文下载PDF阅读器

关闭