本文選題：著作權(quán)集體管理組織 + 壟斷��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：本應(yīng)為著作權(quán)人和廣大使用人的作品許可交易提供服務(wù)的我國(guó)著作權(quán)集體管理組織，由于受到《著作權(quán)集體管理?xiàng)l例》以及行政主管部門的“特殊保護(hù)”而逐漸形成市場(chǎng)壟斷地位，并濫用其權(quán)利。嚴(yán)重侵害了著作權(quán)人和使用人的利益。面對(duì)著作權(quán)集體管理組織的權(quán)利濫用，現(xiàn)有的行政救濟(jì)方式根本起不到規(guī)制壟斷的作用。而我國(guó)目前有關(guān)著作權(quán)集體管理組織的研究多停留在集體管理組織的性質(zhì)、價(jià)值或管理模式選擇等問題上。對(duì)權(quán)利濫用的問題雖有引起大家的關(guān)注，卻很少有專門提出完善權(quán)利救濟(jì)的觀點(diǎn)。但現(xiàn)在的當(dāng)務(wù)之急恰恰應(yīng)該是想如何對(duì)權(quán)益已經(jīng)受到侵害或即將受侵害的著作權(quán)人及使用人進(jìn)行有效的救濟(jì)。司法救濟(jì)作為權(quán)利救濟(jì)中最直接、有效的救濟(jì)方式，，雖在我國(guó)著作權(quán)法和著作權(quán)集體管理?xiàng)l例中有部分規(guī)定，但幾乎都停留在權(quán)利表面上，十分簡(jiǎn)陋和粗糙。無(wú)法進(jìn)行實(shí)踐操作。 著作權(quán)集體管理組織與著作權(quán)人簽訂的入會(huì)協(xié)議、與使用人簽訂的許可使用協(xié)議都屬于民事合同，但合同內(nèi)容中有關(guān)著作權(quán)人的收益分配以及使用人的付費(fèi)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等都是著作權(quán)集體管理組織一方事先制定好的，而一類作品在我國(guó)對(duì)應(yīng)的著作權(quán)集體管理組織只有一家，也就是說權(quán)利人別無(wú)選擇。那么權(quán)利人應(yīng)該可以引用我國(guó)《合同法》第54條規(guī)定：主張合同顯失公平而向人民法院請(qǐng)求變更或撤銷，或者從《信托法》、《反壟斷法》中尋找司法救濟(jì)的依據(jù)。 本文運(yùn)用法解釋學(xué)方法、比較研究方法來(lái)論證著作權(quán)集體管理組織的權(quán)利濫用司法救濟(jì)問題。從已有的司法裁判以及現(xiàn)在的法律框架中找出司法救濟(jì)的支撐點(diǎn)，比較分析德國(guó)的行政管理模式和美國(guó)的市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)模式，從行政到市場(chǎng)，從立法到司法看權(quán)利人的救濟(jì)措施給我國(guó)帶來(lái)的啟發(fā)。最終提出完善我國(guó)著作權(quán)集體管理組織權(quán)利濫用的司法救濟(jì)的具體建議。
[Abstract]:China's copyright collective management organization, which is supposed to serve the copyright owners and the licensing transactions of the vast majority of the users, has gradually formed a market monopoly and abused its rights because of the "special protection of copyright collective management regulations and the special protection of the administrative department." In the face of the abuse of the rights of the collective management organization of copyright, the existing administrative remedy methods do not play the role of regulating the monopoly. At present, the research on the collective management organization of copyright in our country is mostly on the nature of the collective management organization, the choice of the value or the mode of management. However, there are few points of view to improve the remedy of rights, but the urgent task now is to make effective relief to the copyright owners and the users who have been infringed or infringed. Judicial relief is the most direct and effective remedy in the remedy of rights, although it is in the copyright law and copyright in our country. There are some provisions in the collective management regulations, but almost all remain on the surface of rights. They are very crude and crude.
The agreement signed by the collective management organization of copyright and the copyright owner and the licensing agreement signed with the user belong to the civil contract, but the distribution of the income of the copyright owner and the pay standard of the user are all set up first by the collective management organization of copyright, and a class of works correspond to our country. There is only one group of copyright collective management organizations, that is, the right holder has no choice. Then the right person should be able to quote the fifty-fourth provisions of the contract law of China: to claim that the contract is not fair and to ask for change or revocation to the people's court, or to find the basis for judicial relief from the trust law and the antitrust law.
This article carries out the method of Hermeneutics and compares the methods of comparative study to demonstrate the problem of judicial relief for the rights abused by the collective management organization of copyright. From the existing judicial referees and the present legal framework, we find out the supporting points of judicial relief, and compare the model of administrative management in Germany and the market competition mode of the United States, from the administration to the market, and from the establishment of the market. The law to the judiciary to see the inspiration of the relief measures of the right people to our country, and finally put forward the concrete suggestions to improve the judicial relief of the abuse of the rights of the collective management organization of the copyright of our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 葉新;國(guó)外著作權(quán)集體管理組織概況[J];出版發(fā)行研究;2005年06期

2 金武衛(wèi);《著作權(quán)集體管理?xiàng)l例》主要問題評(píng)述[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年02期

3 盧海君;;論市場(chǎng)導(dǎo)向的著作權(quán)集體管理[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年03期

4 湛益祥;論著作權(quán)集體管理[J];法學(xué);2001年09期

5 陳俊;吳墨;;微軟反壟斷案給我們留下的啟示[J];國(guó)際市場(chǎng);2008年07期

6 王新霞;左安磊;朱永勝;;我國(guó)著作權(quán)集體管理中的反壟斷問題研究——以卡拉OK版權(quán)收費(fèi)為視角[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2011年06期

7 崔國(guó)斌;;著作權(quán)集體管理組織的反壟斷控制[J];清華法學(xué);2005年01期

8 張維迎,盛洪;從電信業(yè)看中國(guó)的反壟斷問題[J];改革;1998年02期

9 劉曉遠(yuǎn);;我國(guó)著作權(quán)集體管理模式的探討[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)研究;2008年03期

10 盧旺存;德國(guó)著作權(quán)保護(hù)機(jī)構(gòu)及著作權(quán)集體管理協(xié)會(huì)[J];社科縱橫;1999年05期

本文編號(hào)：2035068