版權(quán)保護(hù)的挑戰(zhàn)及對(duì)策翻譯-中英對(duì)照
Challenge and Countermeasure of Copyright Protection in Digital Environment :
華東政法大學(xué) 王遷
East China University of Political Science and Law Wang Qian
涉及P2P技術(shù)的侵權(quán)問題有三類：
Three major types of copyright infringement related with P2P technology:
網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商僅僅提供P2P軟件或同時(shí)為P2P軟件提供檢索服務(wù)器（單純的P2P服務(wù)）；
Network service provider only provide P2P software or access server for the P2P software (simple P2P service)；
網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商在提供P2P軟件及為P2P軟件提供檢索服務(wù)器，還提供被搜索到的影視、音樂等作品的目錄，供P2P用戶點(diǎn)擊下載或在線欣賞；
While providing the P2P software and access server for the P2P software, the network service providers also provide the catalogue of video and music for clicking download or enjoying online for the users：
P2P軟件的用戶未經(jīng)許可“分享”作品是否構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。
Whether the users of P2P software constitute copyright infringement for “sharing” the works without permission.
中國(guó)的現(xiàn)狀Current Status in China
在中國(guó)目前出現(xiàn)的各類涉及P2P技術(shù)的服務(wù)均非單純的P2P服務(wù)，而是同時(shí)涉及提供精心編制的作品目錄，或提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間，供P2P用戶上傳作品的鏈接。
Various service of P2P technology in China at present are not simple P2P service, but provides the content of relevant earnestly compiled works at the same time, or provide storage space for uploading linked service of P2P users.
《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》第22條和第23條明確規(guī)定：提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商，以及提供搜索或鏈接的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商，在明知或應(yīng)知用戶上傳的內(nèi)容侵權(quán)，或被鏈接的內(nèi)容侵權(quán)，而不及時(shí)采取措施時(shí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。
Article 22 and article 23 of “Regulations for the Protection of Information Network Transmission Right” clearly stipulates : the Internet service provider for providing the storage space, and the internet service provider for providing the searching or linking who, is fully aware or should be aware that the content is infringed the copyright or the linked content and does no apply the relevant measure shall bear the responsibility for infringement. “步升音樂公司訴飛行網(wǎng)案”（北京市第二中級(jí)人民法院，2006年）
“Busheng Music Company Appeals to Kuro (Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, 2006)
“被告應(yīng)當(dāng)知道涉案歌曲的來源很可能是未經(jīng)原告許可而上載的，且被告未舉證證明其曾采取任何措施避免未經(jīng)原告上海步升公司許可而上載的涉案53首歌曲利用Kuro酷樂軟件在網(wǎng)上進(jìn)行傳播。因此，本院認(rèn)定被告舶盛舫安公司的上述行為具有主觀故意。”
Defendant shall fully aware of the source of songs involved in the case may be uploaded without permission of accuser, and the defendant does not prove to apply any measures to prevent the uploading behaviors of 53 songs without the permission of the Shanghai Busheng company involved in this case through Kure software. Therefore, the court held that the behaviors of Posheng Fangan Company shall be an act of subjective desire.
被告實(shí)際上是作為“搜索與鏈接服務(wù)提供者”承擔(dān)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的。
Defendant shall bear the indirect liability of infringement for copyright as “provider of searching and linked service”.
“優(yōu)度訴迅雷”：上海浦東新區(qū)人民法院（2008）
“51TV.com Appeals to Thunder”: the People’s Court of Pudong New Area of Shanghai (2008)
按照一般商業(yè)規(guī)則，制片公司及相應(yīng)權(quán)利人不可能允許他人未經(jīng)授權(quán)、不支付費(fèi)用對(duì)影片進(jìn)行毫無限制的開放式網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播。作為一家專業(yè)提供下載服務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司，被告應(yīng)當(dāng)了解這一常識(shí)，而且完全具備了解這一常識(shí)的能力。
In accordance with the normal business rules, the production company and the corresponding beneficiary has no right to implementing the unrestricted opening network communication of films without the authorization and payment. As a network company for offering the special downloading service, the defendant shall be fully aware of this knowledge and perfectly equip with the capacity for understanding this knowledge.
被告網(wǎng)站對(duì)該條目特別進(jìn)行了相關(guān)編輯行為，附有影片《傷城》的描述性段落、下載速度以及內(nèi)容的評(píng)價(jià)。在網(wǎng)友的評(píng)論列表中甚至有“是槍版的，來我這下吧，DVD版”、“但是畫面太模糊，有高清版的嗎”等可以判斷下載資源合法性的評(píng)論性文字。
The defendant website has edited the content and attached with the description paragraph of the film of “Confession of Pain” and the comment of the downloading speed and content. The comment list of net friends even has the comment words of “ This film is a pirate file; come here for downloading; “DVD edition” and “the picture is too dim, do you have the edition of high definition ?”, etc., which may judge the legality of the downloading resource.
被告實(shí)際上是作為“搜索與鏈接服務(wù)提供者”承擔(dān)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的。
Defendant shall bear the indirect liability of infringement for copyright as “the provider of searching and linked service”.
“廣州中凱訴廣州數(shù)聯(lián)”(POCO案)：上海市第一中級(jí)人民法院（2007）：“眾所周知，電影作品本身的性質(zhì)決定了其制作完成需耗費(fèi)大量的人力、物力、財(cái)力，電影作品的著作權(quán)人通常不會(huì)將電影作品無償提供給社會(huì)公眾欣賞，尤其是新片。就涉案電影作品而言，其于2004年9月在香港制作完成，2005年11月首次在香港公映，而該片在POCO網(wǎng)上發(fā)布的時(shí)間為2005年11月19日，與該片在香港的首映時(shí)間基本同步。因此從常理而言，著作權(quán)人不可能許可他人在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上免費(fèi)發(fā)布該部電影作品，這顯然是網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶擅自發(fā)布的行為。………在本案中，網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶的侵權(quán)行為是顯而易見的，被告卻視而不見，放任侵權(quán)行為的擴(kuò)大，其主觀過錯(cuò)明顯，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的法律責(zé)任。”
“Guangzhou Zhongkai Appeals to Guangzhou Shulian (POCO): Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court (2007): “It is well known that the original natures of film production determine that the manufacture of the film works shall consume a large quantity of labor, material resources and finance, therefore, generally the copyright owner may not supply the film products to the general public in free, especially the new film. So far as the films of this case concerned, the manufacture of these films is completed in September of 2004 in Hong Kong; it was shown firstly in November of 2005 in Hong Kong; the date to publish to film on the POCO is 19th, November, 2005 and is the same date with the opening of the film. Therefore, in general the copyright owner may not allow the others publish the film works without authorization, and it is obviously an unauthorized action of network user. ….. In this cast, the copyright infringement of network user is self-evident. However, the defendant turns a blind eye to it, and permits the enlargement of infringement behavior, which has an obvious subject fault and shall bear the corresponding leangle liability.
2013.6.27