數(shù)字環(huán)境下的限制翻譯-中英對照
：私人復(fù)制問題 Restriction and Exception in Digital Environment: the Problem of Private Copy
華東政法大學(xué) 王遷
East China University of Political Science and Law Wang Qian
個(gè)人從網(wǎng)絡(luò)中下載盜版作品是否構(gòu)成侵權(quán)？
Whether behavior of individuals downloading pirated works from the network is an infringement or not?
《著作權(quán)法》第22條： 在下列情況下使用作品，可以不經(jīng)著作權(quán)人許可，不向其支付報(bào)酬，但應(yīng)當(dāng)指明作者姓名、作品名稱，并且不得侵犯著作權(quán)人依照本法享有的其他權(quán)利： （一）為個(gè)人學(xué)習(xí)、研究或者欣賞，使用他人已經(jīng)發(fā)表的作品。
“Copyright Law” Clause 22: In the following cases, a work may be exploited without permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work shall be mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law shall not be prejudiced:
(l) use of a published work for the purposes of the user's own private study, research or self-entertainment;
Trips協(xié)議第13條：“全體成員均應(yīng)將專有權(quán)利的限制或例外局限于一定特例中，該特例不能與作品的正常利用相沖突，也不能不合理地?fù)p害權(quán)利人的合法利益”。
Trips Agreement Clause 13: “All members should limit restriction or exception of exclusive rights to some special case that neither impacts the normal use nor unreasonably prejudices legitimate interests of the obligee”.
信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例（草案）第9條 ：（合理使用）在下列情況下使用作品，可以不經(jīng)著作權(quán)人許可，不向其支付報(bào)酬，但應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)情況指明作者姓名、作品名稱，并且不得侵犯著作權(quán)人依法享有的其他權(quán)利：
Ordinance on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information (draft) Clause 9: (logical use) in the following circumstances, the use of works without permission of the copyright owner and without any remuneration is available, but the author's name, the name of works should be specified and it is not allowed to violate other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner in accordance with this law:
（一）為個(gè)人閱覽、學(xué)習(xí)或者研究，以電子形式復(fù)制通過信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)向公眾傳播的作品，非免費(fèi)、共享軟件除外。
(I) The works that are duplicated in an electronic form and propagated to the public through information network for individual read, study or research, except for software that are not free or shared.
“泛亞訴張偉及百度”（2006）：
Pan-Asia Appeals to Zhang Wei and Baidu (2006) 泛亞發(fā)現(xiàn)張偉在杭州一網(wǎng)吧下載其享有權(quán)利的5首歌曲，認(rèn)為其侵犯版權(quán)，要求其為每首歌賠償2角，共1元人民幣。
Pan-Asia found that Zhang Wei downloaded five songs with rights enjoyed by itself in a cyber bar, who considered he infringed its copyright and requested him to compensate two Jiao for each song, with a total amount of one Yuan.
“環(huán)球唱片公司訴百度”（2008）
Universal Music Group Appeals to Baidu (2008)
原告的訴因之一是百度“引誘”用戶侵權(quán)。這意味著要求法院認(rèn)定用戶下載盜版音樂是直接侵權(quán)。
One of the reasons for the plaintiff to appeal is that Baidu “seduces” users into infringement, which means requesting the court to assert that downloading pirated music by clients is a direct infringement.
Napster案（美國第九巡回上訴法院2001年）：用戶使用P2P軟件下載盜版音樂不構(gòu)成合理使用：
Napster Case (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001): the behaviors that users use P2P software to download pirated music do not constitute fair use:
1．使用的目的和性質(zhì)：“反復(fù)以復(fù)制方式利用版權(quán)作品的價(jià)值之所以會被認(rèn)定為商業(yè)性使用，是因?yàn)樗?jié)省了購買授權(quán)復(fù)制件的花費(fèi)”。
1. Purpose and nature of application: “the repeated application of copyright works by duplicating is regarded as commercial use, because it saves the cost of purchasing authorized hard copies”.
2. 使用作品的性質(zhì)：具有創(chuàng)造性的作品比描述事實(shí)的作品受到更大程度的版權(quán)保護(hù)。
2. Properties of applied works: creative works are subjected to more copyright protection than works that describes fact.
3．使用的量和重要性：“大批量地復(fù)制版權(quán)作品” 不易成立合理使用。
3. Quantity and importance of application: “large quantities of duplicated copyright works ” are not easy to constitute fair use.
4. 該使用對于市場的影響：大量下載減少了音樂CD在大學(xué)生中的銷售量，另外還為原告進(jìn)入音樂在線下載市場設(shè)置了障礙。即使被告對原告現(xiàn)有市場產(chǎn)生了正面的影響，也不能否認(rèn)被告直接復(fù)制了原告版權(quán)作品的行為將對原告的未來市場產(chǎn)生損害。
4. Influence of this application on market: a large quantity of download reduces sales of music CD among university students and also sets up obstacles for the plaintiff to enter into music online download. Even if the defendant contributes positive effect on current market of the plaintiff, the behaviors that the defendant directly duplicates copyright works of the plaintiff can not be denied, which do harm to future market of the plaintiff.
BMG等唱片公司訴塞西莉亞（美國第七巡回上訴法院，2005）被告塞西莉亞使用P2P軟件在幾周時(shí)間內(nèi)下載并保存了超過1370首由原告BMG等唱片公司享有版權(quán)的歌曲。塞西莉亞首先認(rèn)為：她下載的目的是試聽，以便挑出喜歡的歌曲后再去購買正版。對于歌曲版權(quán)人能夠起到很好的廣告宣傳的效應(yīng)、提高歌曲的銷量。
BMG and other record companies appeals to Cecilia (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005) Cecilia, the defendant made use of P2P software to download and save more than 1370 songs in few weeks with copyright enjoyed by BMG, the plaintiff and other record companies. Cecilia firstly considers: she tries to download music for a listening test so as to select out favorite songs and then to buy legal copy. It has a good advertising effect on copyright owner of song, improving sales volume of songs as well.
法院指出：免費(fèi)從網(wǎng)上下載歌曲會對正版歌曲產(chǎn)生市場替代效應(yīng)，很導(dǎo)致正版唱片銷量下降。同時(shí)，即使是那些能夠刺激作品銷量的作品使用行為，也是需要經(jīng)過版權(quán)人許可的。如廣播電臺、電視臺播放歌曲都是需要支付許可費(fèi)的。塞西莉亞本來可以通過合法途徑對歌曲進(jìn)行試聽，或通過在網(wǎng)上免費(fèi)收聽歌曲片斷而決定是否購買。塞西莉亞的觀點(diǎn)等同于說一個(gè)小偷順手牽羊拿走了30盤唱片，打算先拿回去聽，再購買她喜歡的歌曲，顯然是不合法的。
The court points out: downloading songs from the Internet for free will produce substitution effect, which causes sales volume of legal copy to decrease. Meanwhile, even if those behaviors are able to simulate sales volume of works which should be permitted by the copyright owner. For example, the broadcasting stations and TV stations must pay permission fee for playing songs. Cecilia is able to have a listening test for songs through the legal approach or listen to the music via the Internet for free to decide whether to buy it. Cecili’s point of view can be understood that a thief walked away with 30 records and he planed to listen to them at home, and then to buy them. It is illegal by all appearances.
歐盟2001年《信息社會版權(quán)指令》：成員國可以制定私人復(fù)制例外，但以權(quán)利人獲得合理補(bǔ)償為條件。
“Copyright Directive of the Information Society” issued by the European Union in 2001: except that member countries are able to establish private copies, it takes obligee to acquire reasonable compensation as a condition.
德國修改后的《著作權(quán)法》：“私人復(fù)制例外”不適用于來源明顯非法的作品。
“Copyright Law" revised by Germany: “except for private copies”, it is not applicable for illegal works with obvious origins.
歐盟一些成員國已出現(xiàn)了要求P2P用戶就其未經(jīng)許可分享作品的行為（既包括上傳，也包括下載）承擔(dān)責(zé)任的現(xiàn)象。
Some member countries have required P2P users to undertake responsibility for behaviors (including unload and download) of sharing works without permission.
對于用戶大量下載明顯是盜版的音樂、電影等作品的行為：
As for behaviors that users excessively download pirated works as music and films, etc. are:
認(rèn)定其行為不屬于私人復(fù)制例外，而是構(gòu)成侵權(quán)，會使大量個(gè)人用戶淪為侵權(quán)者，從公共政策角度來看并不適宜；
Make an exception for behaviors asserted not to be private copy, it constitutes infringement and a lot of individual users will fall into infringers, being unsuitable from view of public policy;
認(rèn)定其行為屬于私人復(fù)制例外則有可能違反三步檢驗(yàn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
Make an exception for behaviors asserted to be private copy, which may violate the Three Step Test.
至少在目前，應(yīng)通過制度設(shè)計(jì)避免直接追究個(gè)人下載者的責(zé)任。
Currently, the system design should be applied to avoid directly investigating and affixing the responsibility for individuals who download.
謝謝！ Thanks!
2013.6.19