【摘要】：出租權(quán)是我國(guó)2001年修訂《著作權(quán)法》時(shí)賦予著作權(quán)人的一項(xiàng)新的著作財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)。我國(guó)作為TRIPS協(xié)議等國(guó)際條約的成員國(guó),為了履行條約規(guī)定的義務(wù),在內(nèi)國(guó)法中規(guī)定了出租權(quán),但具體內(nèi)容和國(guó)際條約以及國(guó)際通行做法的相關(guān)規(guī)定還是有很大差距的。這主要體現(xiàn)在對(duì)出租權(quán)控制的出租行為的界定上,立法表述不明確。以及對(duì)出租權(quán)的限制沒(méi)有細(xì)化的規(guī)定,在實(shí)踐中缺乏可操作性。明晰出租行為的構(gòu)成要件,是嚴(yán)格界定出租權(quán)行使范圍的基礎(chǔ),也是進(jìn)一步研究出租權(quán)的首要任務(wù),因此對(duì)出租行為構(gòu)成要件的研究,以及對(duì)出租權(quán)限制規(guī)定的具體研究有著重要的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 本文總體上分為五個(gè)部分: 第一部分是引言,介紹了我國(guó)的出租權(quán)的立法過(guò)程并指出立法中的不足。 第二部分探討出租權(quán)立法的必要性。出租權(quán)的產(chǎn)生有其特定的現(xiàn)實(shí)背景,出租行業(yè)的盛行很大程度上削弱了著作權(quán)人的利益,因此賦予著作權(quán)人以出租權(quán)是新技術(shù)條件下著作權(quán)法平衡各方利益的需要,是從經(jīng)濟(jì)上對(duì)權(quán)利人利益的補(bǔ)償。 第三部分主要論述了出租行為的構(gòu)成要件。較之日常生活中所用到的“出租”一詞,著作權(quán)法意義上的出租權(quán)控制的出租行為范圍更窄,它僅指作品原件或復(fù)制件在物理空間上發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)移的出租,并且這種出租行為須具有商業(yè)性,也即出租目的的營(yíng)利性。要構(gòu)成著作權(quán)法意義上的出租行為,以上兩點(diǎn)必不可少。然而,我國(guó)著作權(quán)法卻并沒(méi)有體現(xiàn)出這兩個(gè)要件,因此,有必要修改著作權(quán)法中的相關(guān)規(guī)定對(duì)其加以明確,即在我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的法律體制下,出租行為只能適用于對(duì)有形載體轉(zhuǎn)移的控制上,且著作出租權(quán)控制的必須是商業(yè)性的出租行為。 第四部分是對(duì)出租權(quán)限制和例外的分析,我國(guó)對(duì)出租權(quán)的限制主要體現(xiàn)在對(duì)計(jì)算機(jī)軟件的例外規(guī)定上,即計(jì)算機(jī)軟件不是出租的主要標(biāo)的時(shí),著作權(quán)人對(duì)此不能主張出租權(quán)。但是我國(guó)并沒(méi)有對(duì)該例外作出細(xì)化規(guī)定。對(duì)此,本文建議應(yīng)對(duì)立法加以完善,明確對(duì)例外的判定應(yīng)根據(jù)租賃人的租賃目的、軟件在出租標(biāo)的中的作用和價(jià)值以及軟件是否可以被再次復(fù)制或獨(dú)立使用等標(biāo)準(zhǔn),結(jié)合具體的案情加以判斷。同時(shí)因?yàn)樯虡I(yè)性使用作品是構(gòu)成出租的要件,而合理使用制度的核心是非商業(yè)性的使用作品,因此合理使用制度不應(yīng)適用于出租權(quán)。 第五部分是結(jié)語(yǔ),集中論述全文的核心內(nèi)容,并依據(jù)全文的論述提出修改我國(guó)出租權(quán)相關(guān)立法的建議。
[Abstract]:The right to lease is a new property right granted to copyright owners when the copyright Law was amended in 2001. China, as a member of TRIPS and other international treaties, in order to fulfill its obligations under the treaty, has stipulated the right of lease in its internal law, but there is still a big gap between the specific contents and the relevant provisions of international treaties and international common practices. This is mainly reflected in the definition of the rental behavior controlled by the right to rent, and the legislative expression is not clear. As well as the limitation of the right to lease without detailed provisions, lack of operability in practice. It is the basis of strictly defining the scope of the exercise of the right to lease, and the primary task of further study of the right to lease, so the study of the constitutive elements of the act of lease. And the specific research on the restriction of rental right has important practical significance. This paper is divided into five parts as a whole: the first part is the introduction, introduces the legislative process of the right to lease in China and points out the deficiencies in the legislation. The second part discusses the necessity of rent right legislation. The emergence of the right of lease has its specific realistic background, the prevailing of the leasing industry has weakened the interests of the copyright owner to a great extent, so it is necessary for the copyright law to balance the interests of all parties under the condition of the new technology to give the copyright owner the right to lease. Is the economic compensation for the interests of the obligee. The third part mainly discusses the elements of rental behavior. Compared with the term "lease" used in daily life, the term "lease" in the sense of copyright law is much narrower. It only refers to the lease in which the original or duplicated work has been transferred in the physical space. And this act of leasing must be commercial, that is, the profitability of the purpose of leasing. To constitute the meaning of copyright law rental behavior, the above two indispensable. However, the copyright law of our country does not reflect these two elements, therefore, it is necessary to amend the relevant provisions of the copyright law to make it clear, that is, under the current legal system of our country, The behavior of leasing can only be applied to the control of the transfer of tangible carriers, and the control of the right to lease must be commercial. The fourth part is the analysis of the limitation and exception of the rental right, which is mainly embodied in the exception of the computer software, that is, when the computer software is not the main object of the lease, the copyright owner can not claim the rental right. But our country has not made the detailed stipulation to this exception. In view of this, this paper suggests that the legislation should be perfected, and that the exception should be judged according to the lease purpose, the function and value of software in the subject matter of the lease, and whether the software can be reproduced or independently used. Judge in combination with the specific circumstances of the case. At the same time, because the commercial use of the work is an important element of the rental, and the core of the reasonable use system is the non-commercial use of the work, the reasonable use system should not be applied to the rental right. The fifth part is the conclusion, focusing on the core content of the full text, and based on the full text of the proposal to amend the relevant legislation of rental rights.
【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】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳紹玲;公開(kāi)傳播權(quán)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2179478