本文選題：文檔分享 + 信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：近年來(lái)，文檔分享平臺(tái)飽受爭(zhēng)議，一方面作為新興的文檔傳播模式為很多人所追捧，另一方面又因著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題而困擾，特別是“百度文庫(kù)侵權(quán)事件”引發(fā)了社會(huì)各界對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)文字作品的廣泛關(guān)注。而在法律實(shí)踐中，法院對(duì)于判定文檔分享平臺(tái)是否構(gòu)成著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的具體規(guī)則還沒(méi)有形成統(tǒng)一的認(rèn)識(shí)。因此，本文擬從評(píng)析四組相關(guān)案例中所折射的問(wèn)題入手，對(duì)文檔分享平臺(tái)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的若干問(wèn)題進(jìn)行探討。 文章分為導(dǎo)言、正文、結(jié)論三個(gè)部分。 導(dǎo)言部分，說(shuō)明撰寫(xiě)本文的目的，即希望通過(guò)對(duì)文檔分享平臺(tái)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)若干問(wèn)題的研究，以便為法律實(shí)踐中如何正確判定文檔分享平臺(tái)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)行為，提供具有一定參考價(jià)值的建議。 正文部分由四章組成： 第一章以對(duì)比兩個(gè)案例中法院對(duì)侵權(quán)行為判定的差異為切入點(diǎn)，通過(guò)總結(jié)國(guó)內(nèi)文檔分享平臺(tái)的運(yùn)行機(jī)制，對(duì)文檔分享平臺(tái)進(jìn)行定性，并提出文檔分享平臺(tái)的性質(zhì)將直接影響其侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定。 第二章根據(jù)涉及文檔分享平臺(tái)直接侵權(quán)的案例所折射的問(wèn)題，引出對(duì)我國(guó)《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》第二十二條第二項(xiàng)免責(zé)條款的解讀，通過(guò)對(duì)“改變作品內(nèi)容”的解釋?zhuān)钊胩接懥恕案淖冏髌贰毙袨榈亩ㄐ耘c直接侵權(quán)責(zé)任認(rèn)定的關(guān)系。 第三章先通過(guò)對(duì)比兩個(gè)涉及文檔分享平臺(tái)間接侵權(quán)案例的不同判決思路，結(jié)合間接侵權(quán)的概念和特征，提出認(rèn)定文檔分享平臺(tái)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的一般規(guī)則。然后通過(guò)分析不同案例中文檔分享平臺(tái)與視頻分享網(wǎng)站在侵權(quán)認(rèn)定規(guī)則方面的差異，提出文檔分享平臺(tái)間接侵權(quán)認(rèn)定的特殊規(guī)則。 第四章以剖析案例中“直接獲得經(jīng)濟(jì)利益”的涵義入手，分析了《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》中“替代責(zé)任”規(guī)則的適用條件還不夠明確，導(dǎo)致在判定時(shí)有高度的不確定性，很容易導(dǎo)致大部分網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供商都不能適用“避風(fēng)港規(guī)則”，因此“替代責(zé)任”并不適用于文檔分享平臺(tái)的侵權(quán)責(zé)任認(rèn)定。 最后是結(jié)論部分，，筆者根據(jù)正文部分的分析，提出了對(duì)文檔分享平臺(tái)侵權(quán)認(rèn)定規(guī)則的具體建議。
[Abstract]:In recent years, document sharing platform has been controversial. On the one hand, as a new document dissemination mode, it is sought after by many people, on the other hand, it is troubled by copyright infringement. In particular, Baidu Library infringement incident has aroused widespread concern about the copyright infringement works on the Internet from all walks of life. But in the legal practice, the court has not formed the unified understanding to judge whether the document sharing platform constitutes the copyright infringement. Therefore, this paper discusses several problems of copyright infringement on document sharing platform from the perspective of the refraction in four groups of related cases. The article is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction part explains the purpose of writing this article, that is, through the study of several problems of copyright infringement of document sharing platform, how to judge the copyright infringement of document sharing platform correctly in legal practice, Provide some suggestions with reference value. The body consists of four chapters: The first chapter contrasts the difference of court judgment on tort in two cases, through summing up the operating mechanism of domestic document sharing platform, the document sharing platform is qualitatively analyzed. The paper also points out that the nature of document sharing platform will directly affect the recognition of tort liability. The second chapter introduces the interpretation of the second exemption clause of Article 22 of the "Information Network Transmission right Protection regulations" according to the problems reflected by the cases involving the direct infringement of the document sharing platform, and through the interpretation of "changing the content of the works". This paper probes into the relationship between the nature of "changing works" and the confirmation of direct tort liability. In the third chapter, by comparing two cases involving indirect infringement of document sharing platform, combining with the concept and characteristics of indirect infringement, the author puts forward the general rules to identify the indirect tort liability of document sharing platform. Then by analyzing the differences between document sharing platform and video sharing website in different cases, the paper puts forward the special rules of indirect infringement recognition of document sharing platform. The fourth chapter begins with the analysis of the meaning of "directly obtaining economic benefits" in the case, and analyzes that the applicable conditions of the "substitute responsibility" rule in the "Information Network Communication right Protection regulations" are not clear enough, resulting in a high degree of uncertainty in the judgment. It is easy for most Internet service providers not to apply the "safe haven rule", so "alternative liability" does not apply to the document sharing platform tort liability determination. Finally, it is the conclusion part. According to the analysis of the text part, the author puts forward the concrete suggestion to the document sharing platform infringement cognizance rule.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(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5條

1 劉華鋒;肖婷;;外國(guó)著作權(quán)間接侵權(quán)制度評(píng)析及對(duì)我國(guó)的立法借鑒[J];產(chǎn)業(yè)與科技論壇;2008年04期

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

3 王遷;;視頻分享網(wǎng)站著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問(wèn)題再研究[J];法商研究;2010年01期

4 馬殠;;淺析網(wǎng)絡(luò)文檔分享平臺(tái)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];中國(guó)外資;2011年08期

5 吳漢東;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的著作權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2011年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 曹源;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者著作權(quán)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

2 左登江;視頻分享網(wǎng)站侵犯著作權(quán)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：1812373