本文選題：信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán) + 知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法定原則　； 參考：《華中科技大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)，即以有線或者無線方式向公眾提供作品，使公眾可以在其個人選定的時間和地點獲得作品的權(quán)利。我國著作權(quán)法規(guī)定的信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)面臨三個方面的困境，即無法控制在局域網(wǎng)中向公眾交互式提供作品的行為，無法控制提供深層鏈接服務(wù)使公眾直接獲得作品的行為，無法控制定時在線播放和網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播他人作品行為。導(dǎo)致困境的原因一是我國著作權(quán)法中未明確界定“公眾”的含義，而最高法院相關(guān)司法解釋卻將“公眾”界定為“不特定的人”，原因之二是WCT和WPPT1996年簽訂時未充分考慮鏈接技術(shù)發(fā)展對作品傳播（提供）的影響。為了破解上述困境，，我國理論界和司法界提出了各種方法，但這些方法或多或少違背了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法定原則，譖越了立法和司法的權(quán)限。在解釋論層面，考慮到知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法定原則和著作權(quán)法的立法目的，應(yīng)通過解釋復(fù)制權(quán)來控制在局域網(wǎng)中向特定多數(shù)人傳播作品、定時在線傳播作品的行為；對于深層鏈接服務(wù)提供行為，應(yīng)采用“用戶標準為原則，技術(shù)標準為例外”的原則，區(qū)分具體情況來認定深層鏈接服務(wù)行為究竟屬于技術(shù)上的鏈接服務(wù)提供行為還是法律上的作品內(nèi)容提供行為，從而進一步判斷是否屬于直接侵害信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)、是否應(yīng)當(dāng)享受《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護條例》第23條規(guī)定的安全港待遇。在立法論層面，則應(yīng)當(dāng)擴充信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)內(nèi)容，使之能夠控制定時在線播放、網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播等行為；應(yīng)當(dāng)采取“用戶標準為原則，技術(shù)標準為例外”的原則，規(guī)定原告能夠舉證證明網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者具有提供作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的外觀，人民法院可以認定其實施了提供行為，但網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者能夠證明其僅為被訴侵權(quán)的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品提供了自動接入、自動傳輸、信息存儲空間、搜索、鏈接、點對點技術(shù)等服務(wù)的除外；同時應(yīng)當(dāng)對“公眾”做出解釋，使之包含“特定多數(shù)人”。
[Abstract]:The right to network dissemination of information, which provides works to the public by wired or wireless means, so that the public can obtain the works at the special time and place the right. The right to network dissemination of information of China's copyright law is facing three difficult aspects, namely cannot control in the local network to provide interactive public works unable to control, provide deep link service to the public direct access to works, unable to control the timing of online play and webcast works of others. One of the reasons lead to the plight of the Chinese copyright law does not clearly define the meaning of "the public", and the relevant judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court is the "public" is defined as "not specific who, because of the two WCT and WPPT1996 signed did not fully consider the link technology on the dissemination of works (provided) effects. In order to solve these problems, the theory circle of our country and The judicial circles have put forward various methods, but these methods are more or less in violation of the statutory principle of intellectual property, the repetition of the legislative and judicial authority. In the perspective of interpretation, taking into account the legislative purpose of intellectual property rights and the legal principle of the copyright law, should be controlled by furtherinterpreting the right of reproduction in the LAN communication works to certain people, from time to time online dissemination of works; provide for deep link service, should adopt the "user standard principle, technical standards for exception" principle, to distinguish the specific circumstances to recognize the deep link service behavior whether it belongs to the technical link on the service behavior or legal works provide behavior, so as to further determine whether it is a direct violation of information network transmission right, should enjoy the "Information Network Transmission Right Protection Ordinance > twenty-third provisions of the safe harbor treatment. In the perspective of legislation, it should be When the expansion of the right to network dissemination of information content, which can control the timing of online play, network broadcast and other acts; it should adopt "user standard principle, technical standards for exception" principle, provisions of plaintiff can prove that the network service provider can provide works, performances, audio and video products appearance, the people's court may determine the implementation of the provide network service provider behavior, but can only prove the allegedly infringing works, performances, audio and video products provides automatic access, automatic transmission, information storage, search, links, except for technical services; at the same time should explain to the "public", which contains the "specific majority".

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.41

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 尹鋒林;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播與信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)[J];重慶工學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年03期

2 王遷;;我國《著作權(quán)法》中“廣播權(quán)”與“信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)”的重構(gòu)[J];重慶工學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年09期

3 劉軍華;;論“通過計算機網(wǎng)絡(luò)定時播放作品”行為的權(quán)利屬性與侵權(quán)之法律適用——兼論傳播權(quán)立法之完善[J];東方法學(xué);2009年01期

4 焦和平;;論我國《著作權(quán)法》上“信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)”的完善——以“非交互式”網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播行為侵權(quán)認定為視角[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2009年06期

5 王仁云;;深度鏈接的爭議及應(yīng)用前景[J];電子商務(wù);2007年04期

6 梁志文;;信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的謎思與界定[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年04期

7 陳加勝;;信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)與鏈接的關(guān)系[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年02期

8 王遷;;論“網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播行為”的界定及其侵權(quán)認定[J];法學(xué);2006年05期

9 喬生;國際信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)對我國立法影響評析[J];河北法學(xué);2005年05期

10 李揚;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法定主義及其適用——兼與梁慧星、易繼明教授商榷[J];法學(xué)研究;2006年02期

本文編號：1736420