本文選題：網(wǎng)頁(yè)快照 + 轉(zhuǎn)化性使用　； 參考：《北京郵電大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：網(wǎng)頁(yè)快照是網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商提供的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù),不僅包括單個(gè)頁(yè)面的快照還包括對(duì)網(wǎng)頁(yè)中特定內(nèi)容(如圖片和歌詞)的快照。網(wǎng)頁(yè)快照因具有功能和表達(dá)上的創(chuàng)造性而構(gòu)成對(duì)原始作品的轉(zhuǎn)化性使用。網(wǎng)頁(yè)快照引起的網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)糾紛表面看是版權(quán)人和搜索引擎運(yùn)營(yíng)商利益之爭(zhēng),實(shí)際上存在著更重要的第三種利益——社會(huì)公眾的利益。在快照版權(quán)糾紛中,快照行為和搜索行為如影隨形,適用法律認(rèn)定責(zé)任時(shí)必須結(jié)合實(shí)際情況分析和鑒別“快照”行為和“搜索”兩個(gè)行為。網(wǎng)頁(yè)快照侵犯的是版權(quán)人的信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán),是對(duì)信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的直接侵犯,無(wú)需主觀(guān)過(guò)錯(cuò)。然而,快照技術(shù)符合經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)上的帕累托最優(yōu)規(guī)則,因其轉(zhuǎn)化性使用性質(zhì)和公眾有益性而具有存在的價(jià)值,因此有必要對(duì)版權(quán)人的權(quán)利進(jìn)行合理的限制。當(dāng)排除適用實(shí)質(zhì)性非侵權(quán)使用規(guī)則、避風(fēng)港條款和默示許可各種抗辯理由后,快照合法性的出路在于合理使用制度,這與版權(quán)法的核心價(jià)值相一致。面對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)的快速發(fā)展,我國(guó)規(guī)則主義立法模式下的合理使用制度彰顯出滯后性和僵硬性,因此有必要在一定程度上借鑒因素主義立法模式。相比之下《伯爾尼公約》和《TRIPs協(xié)定》的合理使用“三步檢驗(yàn)法”優(yōu)于美國(guó)合理使用“經(jīng)典四要素”,更能夠適應(yīng)時(shí)代的發(fā)展。在“三步檢驗(yàn)法”下對(duì)我國(guó)快照案例進(jìn)行判決和推理的過(guò)程是一個(gè)符合邏輯的推理過(guò)程,不會(huì)出現(xiàn)判決結(jié)果和判決理由的脫節(jié),并且能夠避免“法律身份決定法律行為”的邏輯錯(cuò)誤。 文章一共分為緒論、三個(gè)章節(jié)和結(jié)語(yǔ)。緒論部分介紹了我國(guó)的三起“快照”典型案例,通過(guò)分析案情引出文章接下來(lái)要探討的諸多法律問(wèn)題；第一章從技術(shù)原理分析入手概括了快照的內(nèi)涵,通過(guò)與相關(guān)技術(shù)的比較分析探討了網(wǎng)頁(yè)快照和搜索服務(wù)的區(qū)別,并總結(jié)了快照糾紛的特性；第二章對(duì)快照服務(wù)下的侵權(quán)責(zé)任進(jìn)行了探討,得出快照直接侵犯版權(quán)人信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的結(jié)論,并排除了“實(shí)質(zhì)性非侵權(quán)使用規(guī)則”、“避風(fēng)港條款”和“默示許可”抗辯理由的適用；第三章探討了快照和合理使用制度,探討了快照語(yǔ)境下的合理使用規(guī)則主義立法模式和因素主義立法模式,指出我國(guó)合理使用制度存在的問(wèn)題并提出立法建議。
[Abstract]:Web snapshot is an Internet service provided by web service provider, which includes not only the snapshot of a single page, but also a snapshot of specific content (such as pictures and lyrics) in a web page. Web snapshots constitute a transformative use of original works because of their functional and expressive creativity. The online copyright dispute caused by the web page snapshot is apparently a dispute between the copyright owner and the search engine operator. In fact, there is a more important third kind of benefit-the public interest. In the copyright dispute of snapshots, the act of snapshot and the act of searching follow each other. When applying the law to recognize the responsibility, we must analyze and identify the act of "snapshot" and "search" according to the actual situation. Web page snapshot infringes the copyright owner's right of information network communication, and it is a direct infringement of information network communication right without subjective fault. However, snapshot technology accords with the Pareto optimal rule in economics and has the value of existence because of its transformative nature and public benefit. Therefore, it is necessary to restrict the rights of copyright owners reasonably. After excluding the application of substantive non-tort rules, havens and implied permission, the way out of the legitimacy of snapshot lies in the system of reasonable use, which is consistent with the core value of copyright law. In the face of the rapid development of Internet technology, the reasonable use of the system under the ruleism legislation model in our country shows the lag and rigidity, so it is necessary to draw lessons from the factorism legislative model to a certain extent. In contrast, the reasonable use of the "three-step test" of the Berne Convention and the "TRIPs Agreement" is superior to the rational use of the "classic four elements" by the United States, and is more suitable for the development of the times. The process of judgment and reasoning of snapshot cases in China under the "three-step test method" is a logical reasoning process, and there will not be a disconnect between the result of judgment and the reason of judgment. And it can avoid the logic error of "legal status determines legal act". The article is divided into introduction, three chapters and conclusion. The introduction part introduces three typical cases of "snapshot" in China, and through the analysis of the case, leads to a lot of legal problems to be discussed. Chapter one summarizes the connotation of snapshot from the analysis of technical principle. Through the comparative analysis with the related technology, this paper discusses the difference between web page snapshot and search service, and summarizes the characteristics of snapshot dispute. Chapter two discusses the tort liability under snapshot service. Draw the conclusion that snapshot directly infringes the copyright owner's right of information network communication, and exclude the application of "substantive non-infringing use rules", "safe haven clause" and "implied permission". Chapter three discusses the snapshot and reasonable use system. This paper probes into the legislation mode of reasonable use rule doctrine and factor doctrine legislation mode in the context of snapshot, points out the problems existing in the system of rational use in our country, and puts forward some legislative suggestions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京郵電大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 彭暢;;搜索引擎的法律治理——以表達(dá)自由和知情權(quán)為視角[J];北京政法職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期

2 王遷;;搜索引擎提供“快照”服務(wù)的著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[J];東方法學(xué);2010年03期

3 董穎;;中國(guó)搜索引擎遭遇拷問(wèn)——百度MP3案法律問(wèn)題分析[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年12期

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

5 陳紹平;;MP3搜索引擎服務(wù)商的法律責(zé)任——對(duì)“百度案”和“雅虎案”二審判決的評(píng)析[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年08期

6 宋偉;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者間接侵權(quán)中過(guò)錯(cuò)推定原則的適用[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2008年11期

7 呂炳斌;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代的版權(quán)默示許可制度——兩起Google案的分析[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年07期

8 王遷;;“垂直搜索”的著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題研究——兼評(píng)“大眾點(diǎn)評(píng)網(wǎng)訴愛(ài)幫網(wǎng)案”及“攜程網(wǎng)訴趣拿網(wǎng)案”[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年11期

9 崔立紅;;我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)間接侵權(quán)的定位與規(guī)制探討[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年02期

10 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(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1919457