技术措施不是权利

简单地讲,一句话

技术措施不是权利,破坏技术措施构成侵权是因为相关行为人影响了版权人对作品的发行予以绝对控制的权利

 

有人问我:

      关于信息网络传输中的技术措施,我一直不太清楚。这是一项独立的权利吗?是什么性质的呢?属于版权的一种,还是独立的类型?专门开发破解他人技术措施的软件并提供给公众,是否构成侵犯“技术措施权利”呢?破坏了他人的技术措施,而进行合理使用的行为,是否构成侵权?面是一道司法考试题,题中的问题正是我的疑问所在。

简单地讲,一句话

技术措施不是权利,破坏技术措施构成侵权是因为相关行为人影响了版权人对作品的发行予以绝对控制的权利

 

有人问我:

      关于信息网络传输中的技术措施,我一直不太清楚。这是一项独立的权利吗?是什么性质的呢?属于版权的一种,还是独立的类型?专门开发破解他人技术措施的软件并提供给公众,是否构成侵犯“技术措施权利”呢?破坏了他人的技术措施,而进行合理使用的行为,是否构成侵权?面是一道司法考试题,题中的问题正是我的疑问所在。

甲影视公司将其摄制的电影《愿者上钩》的信息网络传播权转让给乙网站,乙网站采取技术措施防范未经许可免费播放或下载该影片。丙网站开发出专门规避乙网站技术防范软件,供网民在丙网站免费下载使用,学生丁利用该软件免费下载了《愿者上钩》供个人观看。对此,下列哪些说法是正确的?

 A.丙网站的行为侵犯了著作权
 B.丁的行为侵犯了著作权
 C.甲公司已经丧失著作权人主体资格
D.乙网站可不经甲公司同意以自己名义起诉侵权行为人

 

我的答案:

I choose A, B and D.
TM (Technological Measure) is not, and should not be an independent right. Developing a technology is about the freedom of speech, the freedom of thinking, so in the western context of copyright law, cracking a TM will never be a right that can be reserved and controlled exclusively by copyright owners.

Then, why some crackers are copyright liable?

The reason that an act of cracking a TM is liable for copyright infringement lies on the basic essence of copyright. Copyright is an exclusive right over the works – that means, all rights (vested by the copyright law) are reserved. If a copyright owner used a TM upon a work to prevent 丁 from accessing such work, it means the copyright owner does not grant the license to 丁 to reproduce, distribute or exploit otherwise the work. In this context, if 丙 developed a software specifically aimed at cracking such techonological protection measure, 丙 are actually inducing, encouraging or aiding 丁’s infringing act. Therefore, 丙 is a joint infringer.

In other words, under the copyright law, even if the "xin xi wang luo chuan bo quan bao hu tiao li" dose not provide an article on the TM,  丙 would still be liable for joint infringement.

Then why the "xin xi wang luo chuan bo quan bao hu tiao li" add such an article on the TM. Is that a "drawing a snake but adding a foot?" The answer is no. Before that regulation, the cracker’s liability for joint infringement will be established only when a direct infringing act is proved existing. However, in many circumstances, such direct infringement can hardly be proved. Therefore, to protect the copyright holders in the Cyberspace, the law makers made a deductive assumption – if a software is specifically used to crack a TM, then no matter whether or not the direct infringement is proved, 丙 is assumpted by the law an infringing, hence should be liable for the copyright infringement – such liability is actually a statutory liability.

In conclusion, TM is not (and should not be) a statutory right, while cracking is statutorily liable for copyright infringement.
 

Update 101115:

出乎我的意料,司法考试这题的标准答案是BD,没有A。理由是根据信息网络传播权保护条例第4条第二款的第二、三句,提供破解技术措施的软件不属于该条规定的“装置”或者“部件”,也不属于提供技术服务,所以不选A。

我觉得答案是错的。

实际上,本题中所述的行为属于共同侵权行为无疑。即使没有信息网络传播权保护条例,也可以根据最高人民法院司法解释的第六条,作为共同侵权来处理。在有了信息网络传播权保护条例的条件下,正如上面英文内容所写的,即使没有办法证明学生丁的行为,丙的责任也被法定为侵权行为了。

给出标准答案的人明显是机械理解“装置”或“部件”。但是,只要翻查立法起草者撰写的《信息网络传播权保护条例释义》就会明白,这一条其实是对最高院司法解释的再确认。

Author: Donnie (豆哥)

Former academic in Law & Sociology, currently a lawyer, 15+ years experiences in IP and IT laws. 前任法律学者、现任滤师,专业过滤假货崴货(不限商品、服务、鸡汤鸡血);业余仁波切,负责解答精神问题。微信公号fadoufadou

2 thoughts on “技术措施不是权利”

Comments are closed.