本文選題：著作權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：侵犯著作權(quán)罪　出處：《東北師范大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：著作權(quán)的法律保護(hù)一直都是國(guó)際熱點(diǎn)話題之一。在著作權(quán)的法律保護(hù)體系中，刑法以其最后的手段性和特殊的嚴(yán)厲性在懲治侵犯著作權(quán)行為方面發(fā)揮著重要作用。然而由于現(xiàn)行刑事法律對(duì)認(rèn)定侵犯著作權(quán)罪的規(guī)定比較模糊，使得理論界和司法界對(duì)侵犯著作權(quán)罪的認(rèn)定產(chǎn)生了許多分歧，司法實(shí)踐操作中也出現(xiàn)了諸多疑難問(wèn)題。 在侵犯著作權(quán)的客觀方面，未經(jīng)著作權(quán)人許可的前提是需要準(zhǔn)確判斷出不同種類作品的著作權(quán)人。復(fù)制發(fā)行就是指通過(guò)將他人享有的著作權(quán)的作品的內(nèi)容制作為特定物品或者電子資料，提供給不特定的人，以換取經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的行為。對(duì)于“違法所得數(shù)額”的含義，司法解釋規(guī)定的比較混亂，理論界也未給出明確合理的解釋，使得在司法實(shí)務(wù)中界定違法所得數(shù)額產(chǎn)生很多分歧。違法所得數(shù)額情節(jié)并不能準(zhǔn)確反映侵犯著作權(quán)行為的本質(zhì)以及危害社會(huì)的程度，而且與其他侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)犯罪的定罪情節(jié)不協(xié)調(diào)。因此，應(yīng)當(dāng)取消違法所得數(shù)額的規(guī)定，修改為“非法經(jīng)營(yíng)數(shù)額較大或者有其他嚴(yán)重情節(jié)”，也需要將侵權(quán)行為給權(quán)利人造成的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失或者聲譽(yù)貶損作為分析侵犯著作權(quán)行為社會(huì)危害性的一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或者定罪量刑的一個(gè)重要情節(jié)。侵犯著作權(quán)罪的主觀方面，“以營(yíng)利為目的”的立法設(shè)置，雖然縮小了刑事處罰的范圍，但是卻無(wú)法適應(yīng)現(xiàn)代科學(xué)技術(shù)的發(fā)展，不能全面地保護(hù)事實(shí)上嚴(yán)重侵犯著作權(quán)的行為，而且還會(huì)對(duì)在司法實(shí)踐中查證侵權(quán)著作權(quán)的犯罪造成一定的困難，，也與各國(guó)侵犯著作權(quán)刑事立法的趨勢(shì)和相關(guān)國(guó)際公約的規(guī)定不相協(xié)調(diào)，從而不利于充分保護(hù)著作權(quán)。因此，應(yīng)當(dāng)取消侵犯著作權(quán)罪中“以營(yíng)利為目的”主觀要素的立法規(guī)定。 侵犯著作權(quán)罪與銷售侵權(quán)復(fù)制品罪因?yàn)榘l(fā)行與銷售的關(guān)系而存在競(jìng)合關(guān)系。對(duì)于實(shí)踐中，行為人既實(shí)施侵犯著作權(quán)行為又實(shí)施銷售侵權(quán)復(fù)制品的行為，是按一罪處理還是數(shù)罪并罰，應(yīng)當(dāng)區(qū)分具體情況而不能一概而論。對(duì)于未取得音像制品經(jīng)營(yíng)許可證而復(fù)制發(fā)行他人制作的錄音錄像或銷售侵權(quán)復(fù)制品行為是按照侵犯著作權(quán)罪或銷售侵權(quán)復(fù)制品罪定罪，與制作、復(fù)制、出版、販賣、傳播淫穢物品牟利罪的區(qū)別在于犯罪對(duì)象是否具有合法性。
[Abstract]:The legal protection of copyright has always been one of the hot topics in the world.In the legal system of copyright protection, criminal law plays an important role in punishing infringement of copyright with its last resort and special severity.However, due to the vague provisions of the current criminal law regarding the crime of copyright infringement, there are many differences between the theoretical and judicial circles on the determination of the crime of infringement of copyright, and there are also many difficult problems in the operation of judicial practice.In the objective aspect of infringement of copyright, the premise without permission of copyright owner is to accurately judge the copyright owner of different kinds of works.Reproduction and distribution refers to the act of making the content of a copyright work enjoyed by others as a specific object or electronic material and providing it to a non-specific person in exchange for economic benefits.For the meaning of "illegal income", the judicial interpretation of the provisions of the confusion, the theoretical circle has not given a clear and reasonable explanation, resulting in a lot of differences in the judicial practice to define the amount of illegal income.The amount of illegal proceeds can not accurately reflect the nature of copyright infringement and the degree of harm to society, and it is inconsistent with the conviction circumstances of other crimes against intellectual property rights.Therefore, the provision on the amount of illegal income should be abolished and amended to read "the amount of illegal business is relatively large or has other serious circumstances",It is also necessary to take the economic loss or reputational derogation caused by the infringement to the obligee as a criterion for analyzing the social harmfulness of copyright infringement or an important circumstance of conviction and sentencing.The subjective aspect of the crime of infringing upon copyright, the legislative setting of "for profit", has narrowed the scope of criminal punishment, but it is unable to adapt to the development of modern science and technology, and can not fully protect the act of serious infringement of copyright in fact.Moreover, it will make it difficult to investigate the crime of infringing copyright in judicial practice, and it will not coordinate with the trend of criminal legislation of infringement of copyright in various countries and the provisions of relevant international conventions, which is not conducive to the full protection of copyright.Therefore, we should abolish the legislative provisions of the subjective element of "profit-oriented" in the crime of copyright infringement.The crime of copyright infringement and the crime of selling infringing copies have competing relationship because of the relation between issue and sale.In practice, the perpetrator should distinguish the specific situation and not generalize whether the act of infringing copyright and selling infringing copies should be dealt with according to one crime or combined with punishment for a number of crimes.For the reproduction and distribution of audio and video recordings or the sale of infringing copies made by others without obtaining a business license for audio-visual products, the offence of infringing copyright or the sale of infringing copies shall be criminalized, and shall be related to the making, reproduction, publication or sale of infringing copies,The difference of the crime of spreading obscene articles for profit lies in the legality of the object of crime.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3;D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 高曉瑩;;論非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪在著作權(quán)刑事保護(hù)領(lǐng)域的誤用與退出[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2011年02期

2 谷翔,柏浪濤;銷售侵權(quán)復(fù)制品罪若干問(wèn)題之澄清[J];法律適用;2004年12期

3 朱繼良，雷東生;對(duì)侵犯著作權(quán)犯罪的探討[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1995年03期

4 曹堅(jiān);非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪與銷售侵權(quán)復(fù)制品罪之界定[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

5 劉亞娜;王大洋;;論刑事和解在重罪案件中的適用[J];求索;2012年03期

6 劉軍;;當(dāng)前辦理著作權(quán)犯罪案件適用法律中存在的問(wèn)題與對(duì)策[J];人民檢察;2006年15期

7 梁華仁,朱平;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)犯罪若干問(wèn)題的探討[J];政法論壇;2000年01期

8 田宏杰;論我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的刑事法律保護(hù)[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2003年03期

9 胡云騰,劉科;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)刑事司法解釋若干問(wèn)題研究[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2004年06期

10 高銘暄;王俊平;;侵犯著作權(quán)罪認(rèn)定若干問(wèn)題研究[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2007年03期

本文編號(hào)：1718903