本文選題：開放平臺　切入點：客戶端軟件服務(wù)商　出處：《華南理工大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：新的商業(yè)模式總會帶來知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的新問題，隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)開放平臺的興起，版權(quán)的戰(zhàn)火已從互聯(lián)網(wǎng)蔓延至移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時代甚至有愈演愈烈的趨勢，現(xiàn)有的版權(quán)制度對移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)內(nèi)容保護(hù)仍處于灰色地帶，新型網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境對傳統(tǒng)的著作權(quán)制度帶來了不小的沖擊。 所謂開放平臺，指網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商提供一個基本的服務(wù)，通過開放API，使得第三方開發(fā)者得以通過運用和組裝其接口以及其他第三方服務(wù)接口產(chǎn)生新的應(yīng)用，并且使得該應(yīng)用能夠統(tǒng)一運行在這個平臺之上，我們將這種網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)模式稱做開放平臺。開放平臺主要分為應(yīng)用型開放平臺和服務(wù)型開放平臺，本文所指的開放平臺主要是應(yīng)用型開放平臺，如為我們所熟悉的蘋果公司的APP Store，谷歌公司的Android Store。 在開放平臺業(yè)務(wù)模式下，出現(xiàn)的版權(quán)侵權(quán)涉及到網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商（平臺方）、客戶端軟件提供商、傳統(tǒng)作者、終端用戶四方，侵權(quán)類型復(fù)雜。平臺方并不直接參與應(yīng)用的開發(fā)與設(shè)計。應(yīng)用開發(fā)者獨立完成客戶端軟件開發(fā)并將應(yīng)用上傳至開發(fā)平臺供用戶使用。由于可能涉及到侵權(quán)內(nèi)容，平臺方會收到很多關(guān)于客戶端應(yīng)用軟件的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)投訴。這些投訴涉及到版權(quán)等知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)問題，對其是否侵權(quán)的判斷難度非一般影視內(nèi)容版權(quán)侵權(quán)的判斷所能比擬。 要判定是否侵權(quán)首先要確定客戶端軟件服務(wù)商的法律地位。服務(wù)商作為類似中介的中間人，僅提供平臺服務(wù)供第三方軟件開發(fā)者上傳客戶端軟件，若發(fā)生侵權(quán)，對其法律地位的確定關(guān)系到其侵權(quán)責(zé)任的承擔(dān)。 其次通過分析開放平臺的運行、盈利模式及國內(nèi)外的相關(guān)案例可知，眼下，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)紛紛推出開放平臺后都遇到這樣的困擾：一旦平臺中出現(xiàn)含有盜版侵權(quán)內(nèi)容的應(yīng)用程序，，作為平臺提供商，他們應(yīng)該承擔(dān)怎樣的法律責(zé)任？是能適用“避風(fēng)港原則”還是應(yīng)負(fù)嚴(yán)格審查義務(wù)？這里的平臺服務(wù)提供者的角色和避風(fēng)港性質(zhì)相同，但卻并非典型的鏈接或存儲服務(wù)，因此是否適用“避風(fēng)港制度”存有爭議。考慮到平臺服務(wù)提供者是為第三方行為承擔(dān)責(zé)任，本身并非侵權(quán)內(nèi)容的提供者，我們的法律應(yīng)該如何將其責(zé)任界定在合理的范圍之內(nèi)，是否應(yīng)為其為其提供新的避風(fēng)港?本文基于這一新興模式下對所發(fā)生的客戶端軟件版權(quán)侵權(quán)模式予以分析，對于平臺服務(wù)商的審查義務(wù)加以確定，意圖平衡四方利益，以促進(jìn)開放平臺商業(yè)模式的發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:New business models always bring new problems of intellectual property protection. With the rise of open Internet platforms, the war of copyright has spread from the Internet to the era of mobile Internet. The existing copyright system is still in the grey area for the protection of mobile Internet content, and the new network environment has a great impact on the traditional copyright system. The so-called open platform means that network service providers provide a basic service. By opening API, third-party developers can generate new applications by using and assembling their interfaces and other third-party service interfaces. We call this kind of network service mode open platform. The open platform is mainly divided into application-oriented open platform and service-oriented open platform. The open platforms in this article are mainly application-oriented open platforms, such as Apple's APP Store, Google's Android Store. In the open platform business model, copyright infringement involves Internet service providers (platform side, client software provider, traditional author, end user, etc.). The infringement type is complex. The platform side is not directly involved in the development and design of the application. The application developer independently completes the client software development and uploads the application to the development platform for use by the user. The platform will receive a lot of intellectual property infringement complaints about client application software. These complaints involve intellectual property protection issues such as copyright, and the difficulty of judging whether they are infringed is more difficult than that of ordinary movie and television content copyright infringement. In order to determine whether the infringement is infringing, we must first determine the legal status of the client software service provider. The service provider, as a middleman of a similar intermediary, only provides platform services for third-party software developers to upload the client software. If infringement occurs, The determination of its legal status is related to its tort liability. Secondly, through the analysis of the operation of the open platform, the profit model and the relevant cases at home and abroad, we can see that at present, Internet companies have encountered such problems after launching open platforms: once the platform contains pirated content of applications, as a platform provider, what kind of legal liability should they bear? Is it possible to apply the "safe haven principle" or should it be subject to strict vetting obligations? The role of the platform service provider here is the same as that of the safe haven, but it is not a typical link or storage service, so the application of the "safe haven system" is controversial... considering that the platform service provider is liable for the conduct of a third party, The law itself is not the provider of infringing content, how should our law define its liability within a reasonable scope, should it provide it with a new safe haven? Based on this new model, this paper analyzes the mode of software copyright infringement on the client side, determines the review obligation of the platform service provider, and tries to balance the interests of the four parties in order to promote the development of the open platform business model.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華南理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉程程;張凌浩;;移動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時代手機(jī)服務(wù)型APP產(chǎn)品設(shè)計研究[J];包裝工程;2011年12期

2 馮剛;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺服務(wù)提供商的侵權(quán)歸責(zé)原則問題——浙江淘寶網(wǎng)絡(luò)有限公司與中國友誼出版公司侵犯著作權(quán)糾紛案[J];今日財富(中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán));2010年08期

3 王遷;;發(fā)達(dá)國家網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)司法保護(hù)的現(xiàn)狀與趨勢[J];法律適用;2009年12期

4 王遷;;視頻分享網(wǎng)站著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問題研究[J];法商研究;2008年04期

5 王遷;;論版權(quán)“間接侵權(quán)”及其規(guī)則的法定化[J];法學(xué);2005年12期

6 廖煥國;;注意義務(wù)與大陸法系侵權(quán)法的嬗變——以注意義務(wù)功能為視點[J];法學(xué);2006年06期

7 胡開忠;;“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”在視頻分享網(wǎng)站版權(quán)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定中的適用[J];法學(xué);2009年12期

8 王遷;;《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》中“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則的效力[J];法學(xué);2010年06期

9 梁志文;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的著作權(quán)責(zé)任:文本解釋與比較分析[J];法治研究;2011年02期

10 彭曉韻;宋迪;;平臺與內(nèi)容的共贏之路——數(shù)字內(nèi)容產(chǎn)業(yè)的時代[J];中國傳媒科技;2011年04期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 中國社會科學(xué)院法學(xué)研究所研究員 張新寶 遼寧省撫順市中級人民法院 李玲;[N];人民法院報;2001年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 黃健;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2011年

2 王輝;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商的責(zé)任與免責(zé)[D];重慶大學(xué);2008年

3 蔡志巖;論互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)提供商著作權(quán)的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

本文編號：1627628