本文選題：著作權(quán) + 侵權(quán)��； 參考：《華東政法大學》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：著作權(quán)的保護從一開始就建立在各國著作權(quán)相互獨立的前提之下，這種方法不僅為第一部著作權(quán)國際公約《伯爾尼公約》所采納，而且為后續(xù)國際公約所效仿，并延續(xù)至今。這種方法曾經(jīng)促進了外國作者在本國的同等保護，并為構(gòu)成著作權(quán)國際保護的基礎(chǔ)。但是這種建立在地域性基礎(chǔ)上的保護格局一度被認為阻礙了該領(lǐng)域跨界訴訟的產(chǎn)生，導致長期以來形成的觀點是著作權(quán)領(lǐng)域并不存在沖突法。雖然經(jīng)濟、社會的發(fā)展使得這種觀點變得有點過時，然而，地域性對法律適用規(guī)則的建構(gòu)造成了影響則是不爭的事實。與此相反，地域性是否對涉外著作權(quán)訴訟的管轄權(quán)確定產(chǎn)生影響的問題并未獲得充分的重視，主要是由于有限的涉外著作權(quán)訴訟使得問題長期被遮蔽。而這樣的問題在網(wǎng)絡等科技發(fā)展的情況下越發(fā)需要解釋和厘清。本文以涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)管轄權(quán)確立的標準為研究對象，在對既往實踐和學說進行梳理、分析的基礎(chǔ)上，認為盡管著作權(quán)保護的地域性使得傳統(tǒng)侵權(quán)管轄權(quán)制度并不完全適合于著作權(quán)侵權(quán)，但是地域性并不阻礙發(fā)展適合于網(wǎng)絡時代特點的侵權(quán)管轄權(quán)制度；具體管轄權(quán)標準的設(shè)定應該能夠適應于網(wǎng)絡發(fā)展的需要。 除緒論外，本文分為四章，分別為： 第一章主要解釋了為什么涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)訴訟在歷史上并未充分發(fā)展的原因。通過對著作權(quán)起源的考查發(fā)現(xiàn)，地域性不僅指權(quán)利只能在授予國有效，而且只能在授予國執(zhí)行，因此本國并不會承認他國的權(quán)利保護，這一特征即便在《伯爾尼公約》締結(jié)后也保持不變。公約只是通過國民待遇的方式解決了外國作者本國保護的問題，對于其他問題幾乎留待各國自行決定。在當時的環(huán)境下，這是最行之有效的解決方法。這方面英美國家的實踐也進一步佐證了對著作權(quán)權(quán)利性質(zhì)的認識。其中英國以“不可裁決性”作為拒絕的原因，并通過將著作權(quán)訴訟當作“當?shù)刂V”等理由加以解釋，這種認識直到2011年才發(fā)生根本的改變；相反，美國一般通過“不方便法院”原則拒絕對涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛進行裁決，尤其是當訴訟方為外國人時�？紤]到這兩個國家所具有的國際影響力，就會發(fā)現(xiàn)這種拒絕裁決給此領(lǐng)域制度的發(fā)展帶來了多大的影響。 第二章在第一章的基礎(chǔ)上，試圖分析當各國不再因為涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)而拒絕裁決時，傳統(tǒng)的管轄權(quán)制度是否適合于著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的問題。本章重點分析了歐盟和美國管轄權(quán)確定的依據(jù)、一般管轄權(quán)和特別管轄權(quán)確立的方法、標的管轄權(quán)以及專屬管轄權(quán)等問題，尤其是歐美國家在特別管轄權(quán)方面司法實踐的發(fā)展及其影響。并且在考查管轄制度確立的目的、對比歐美之間司法實踐的基礎(chǔ)上，認為，專屬管轄權(quán)并不適合于涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)；一般管轄權(quán)在歐美趨同，并且一般管轄權(quán)的獲得無需著作權(quán)權(quán)利的存在為前提。然而，就侵權(quán)特別管轄權(quán)而言，在比較了學術(shù)論點以及司法實踐后，認為著作權(quán)保護的地域性使得傳統(tǒng)的“引起損害發(fā)生的事件所在地”和“損害發(fā)生地”的“二分法”并不完全適合于著作權(quán)侵權(quán)。即便承認“二分法”，也重合于存在權(quán)利的國家。 第三章分析的對象為網(wǎng)絡發(fā)展對著作權(quán)侵權(quán)管轄權(quán)確定的影響。尤其是重點分析了歐盟和美國在應對網(wǎng)絡挑戰(zhàn)時所發(fā)展出的確定管轄權(quán)方法，比如“滑動標尺”標準及其修正、“指向”標準、“特定指向”標準以及“可登入性”標準。同時分析了美國司法實踐中對網(wǎng)絡情況下管轄權(quán)意義上“損害發(fā)生地”的認定及其影響。這些針對網(wǎng)絡所發(fā)展出的各種方法進一步表明針對此問題的認識，分歧大于共識，這對當事方以及其他方都帶來了影響�？紤]到著作權(quán)甚至知識產(chǎn)權(quán)所具有的巨大價值，協(xié)調(diào)這方面的管轄權(quán)制度變得越發(fā)必要。 第四章討論了目前協(xié)調(diào)涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)管轄權(quán)的四個建議方案，即海牙國際私法會議的“判決公約（草案）”、美國的ALI原則、歐洲的CLIP原則以及日韓的“共同提案”。由于“判決公約”未能充分處理知識產(chǎn)權(quán)、網(wǎng)絡等問題，導致學者們專門起草了針對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的沖突法原則。就后三個方案而言，其共同點主要體現(xiàn)在：首先，都規(guī)定了內(nèi)容實質(zhì)上相同的一般管轄權(quán)制度，并且一般管轄權(quán)的確立并不以權(quán)利的存在為前提；同時認為專屬管轄權(quán)并不適合著作權(quán)侵權(quán)，這樣的建議也與前述司法實踐相一致；其次，均在實質(zhì)上區(qū)分了管轄權(quán)和法律適用，這等于否定美國司法實踐中獲得管轄權(quán)就確立了美國法適用的做法；最后，在侵權(quán)特別管轄權(quán)確定上，采取了確定管轄權(quán)的同時限定管轄范圍的做法。然而最大的分歧也在特別管轄權(quán)標準上：除CLIP原則外，包括“判決公約”在內(nèi)的其他方案均認為一般侵權(quán)的二分法同樣適用于涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛。相反，CLIP原則嚴格遵循地域性對侵權(quán)管轄權(quán)確定的影響，只在網(wǎng)絡情況下予以特殊處理。而三個方案都特別處理了網(wǎng)絡情況下的侵權(quán)管轄權(quán)確定問題，且均以“指向”標準作為獲得管轄權(quán)的根據(jù)，只是各自規(guī)定的內(nèi)容稍有不同。 最后部分是本文的結(jié)論。由于在專屬管轄、一般管轄等問題上已經(jīng)幾乎達到共識，故涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)管轄權(quán)的主要爭議僅在于地域性是否對其存在影響。本論文的分析表明，地域性對涉外著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的特別管轄權(quán)確立產(chǎn)生了影響。然而，，在應對網(wǎng)絡語境下的侵權(quán)問題時，需要特殊處理才能符合現(xiàn)實中靈活而有效的要求。
[Abstract]:On the premise that copyright protection is not only adopted by the first copyright international convention , but also for the follow - up international conventions , this method has promoted foreign authors ' protection in the field of copyright infringement , and it is the basis for the international protection of copyright .
The establishment of specific jurisdiction standards should be adapted to the needs of network development .

In addition to the introduction , this paper is divided into four chapters :

The first chapter mainly explains the reason why copyright infringement litigation has not been fully developed in history .
On the contrary , the United States generally refuses to award a dispute over copyright infringement involving foreign copyright through the principle of " inconvenient court " , especially when the party is a foreigner . In view of the international influence of the two countries , it will find that such refusal award has brought much influence on the development of the system in this field .

Chapter 2 , on the basis of the first chapter , attempts to analyze whether the traditional jurisdiction system is suitable for copyright infringement when the countries no longer refuse to decide because of copyright infringement . This chapter focuses on the development and influence of the judicial practice established by European Union and American jurisdiction , the jurisdiction of the subject and the exclusive jurisdiction , especially the judicial practice of European and American countries in special jurisdiction .
However , in the case of infringement of special jurisdiction , it is believed that the regional nature of copyright protection makes the traditional " dichotomy of event location " and " harm generating place " not suitable for copyright infringement . Even if the dichotomy is recognized , it is also coincident with the country where the right exists .

Chapter 3 analyzes the influence of network development on the determination of copyright infringement jurisdiction , especially the determination jurisdiction method developed by European Union and the United States in dealing with the network challenge , such as " slide scale " standard and its amendment , " point to " standard , " specific point " standard and " accessibility " standard .

The fourth chapter discusses four proposals for the coordination of the jurisdiction of copyright infringement , namely , the decision of the Hague Conference on Private International Law ( Draft ) , the ALI principle in the United States , the European clip principle and the " co - proposal " of Japan and Korea , which have led scholars to draw up the principle of conflict law aiming at intellectual property rights .
At the same time , it is believed that exclusive jurisdiction is not suitable for copyright infringement , which is also consistent with the aforesaid judicial practice ;
Secondly , the application of jurisdiction and law is clearly distinguished , which is tantamount to denying jurisdiction in American judicial practice and establishing the applicable law of American law ;
Finally , on the basis of the determination of the special jurisdiction of infringement , the practice of defining jurisdiction is adopted . However , the biggest difference is also on the criterion of special jurisdiction : the dichotomy of general tort is regarded as the dichotomy of general tort as well as the dispute of copyright infringement involving foreign copyright . On the contrary , it is specially dealt with in the case of network . In addition , the three schemes deal with the problem of jurisdiction determination in the case of network , and it is only slightly different according to the content of " pointing " standard as the basis for obtaining jurisdiction .

The final part is the conclusion of this paper . As a result , there is almost no consensus on the jurisdiction , general jurisdiction and so on . Therefore , the main dispute over the jurisdiction of copyright infringement is whether the regional nature has an influence on it . The analysis of this paper shows that the regional nature has an influence on the establishment of the special jurisdiction of copyright infringement . However , in dealing with the problem of infringement in the context of network , special treatment is required to meet the requirement of flexible and effective in reality .

【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D997.1;D997.3


本文編號：1887072