最近总听人说：判断合理使用的“四要件”和“三步检验法”，我就有点迷糊了……这“四要件”还听说过，貌似说的是美国版权案例中逐步形成的、判断行为是否属于合理使用的四个原则。这“三步检验法”是哪三步呢？没听说过哦。
一查，哦，原来大家说的是TRIPS第13条，以及之前的《伯尔尼公约》第9(2)条。这个条款被《著作权法实施条例》第21条抄了一半。最近很多人说应当把它升级称为判断行为是否属于合理使用的基本原则，还有人拿它跟美国的四原则作了下比较。
可是，这完全是一场误会。
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。
江湖上，有人说“上传与否”是网络侵权行为的构成要件。然后说ISP自己不是上传人，所有就不构成直接侵权，而只构成间接侵权。
看上去挺有道理，其实完全是错的。
为什么说是错的？因为这种想法把具体的行为方式和抽象的法律概念生硬地焊接在一起。
道理很简单。动手打人的人，当然是侵权行为人，但故意伤害不是以动手为要件的，而是以伤害的故意＋伤害的行为（不一定是你自己亲自的行为 ）＋伤害的结果为要件的。核心在于，你有故意。
Stopbadware是源自哈佛大学Berkman互联网与社会中心的一个非盈利性组织。
豆注：其实什么是bad ware，核心就是一句话：它在和你抢夺你电脑和网络连接的控制权吗？越是在你不知道的情况下、或者虽然你知道却无法改变的情况下，夺取你对你的电脑和网 络的控制权的软件，越是坏软件。自由最核心的要义就在于选择和决定。没有选择的地方，就是没有自由的地方，抢夺你的选择权、决定权的人，就是自由的敌人。
以下内容翻译自Stopbadware官方网站。
———————————————————–
Re:Born Digital, in Video
2010 summer interns take up "Born Digital"
October 01, 2010
This year’s Berkman Center summer interns tackled a big special project on top of their primary research responsibilities, working with the Youth and Media project and the Center’s digital media producer to create a set of videos — one for each chapter/topic of John Palfrey and Urs Gasser’s Born Digital.
Small teams of interns collected around the series of topics and formed video interpretations and presentations from out of their own perspectives and experiences, as well as the ways in which the topic intersected with their primary Berkman projects.
[Translation]
Notice
As a respond to the spirit of "Welcome Asian Games, Build Homonization", according to the admininstration & Service center of Rental Estate at Da Shi Street, all the non-permanent residencts living in the Da Shi Street should refrain from dialing "110" [Chinese 911 number]. Who dial once will be fined RMB500 [USD$75], twice fine RMB1000 [USD$150], so on so forth. If you need to call the police, please call:
Da Shi Police station: 020-8478-3027
Da Shi Public Security Force: 020-8478-5533 or
Da Shan Police Station General: 020-3993-1632
================
I know what happened.
There must be a stupid internal standard during the Asian Games in Guang Zhou – The police stations must assure the public security during the Asian Games, and one of the standards of examining their working achievement must be the times that the "110" Emergency Center recieved the calls from the regions under the police stations’ administration. (The 110 Center is set up in the headquater of the Guangzhou police Bureau).
Da Shi Street must be a region where a lot of non-permanent residents are living – most of them are low class employees — To avoid lagging behind other police stations, and then blamed by the superior officer, the Da Shi Police Station invented such notice: "hey there, if there is any emergency, you should not call 110, but call our local offices."
As it has been known by all creatures on earth (maybe except lawyers), the U.S. Library of Congress issued a statement on Monday that legalized “jailbreaking” wireless telephone handsets.
It is no doubt a good news for jailbreakers, the unauthorized App developers, as well as iPhone buyers. Now you can strut up to the black corner of the computer arcade, looking straight inside the eyes of the guy who knows how to satisfy your desire (of anything that Jobs don’t want you do, such as watching flash video), and speak laudly: "break it, please."
"Wait, wait! It’s an iPod … OK … if you like to call it iTouch, then it is an iTouch… It’s not an iPhone, I mean … not a telephone handset."
"What?"
Let’s stop the drama and go back to the law:
At least from the literal meaning of the newly annouced exemption, iTouch owners may be excluded from the benificiaries. Here is the fulltext of the exemption:
… Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking.
…
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
…
Is an iTouch a "wireless telephone handset"? I don’t know. At least Apple, even before such exemption promulgated, has already said it isn’t a telephone – it is a great iPod, a pocket computer and a game player, but not a telephone… because only iPhone will be a telephone. (How about iPad 3G? Too big to be a "handset"?)
Please watch Berkman Fellow Ethan Zuckerman‘s awsome talk puncturing the information cocoon. He introduces Yeeyan (译言), a website translating English articles into Chinese, and asks a very sharp question: who is translating the Chinese daily stories into English? And an even sharper question: if such culture bridges are constructed, who and how many ppl will cross them? Furthermore, (I say it in my words and I believe it should be what Ethan want to say) how to make people being used to crossing them?
Enjoy the vedio:
The latest full-text of ACTA agreement leaked again on 14 July. The version is dated July 1st 2010 from the Luzern round of negotiations, including the name of the negotiating parties along with their positions.
Available here:
http://www.laquadrature.net/
It is interesting that the ACTA always leaks (at least three times in this year). Would it be an intentional strategy of "announcing" the negotiating progress? … Just my guess…
Anyway, as a matter of fact, the leakage would more or less relieve the pressures from those countries who did not involve in the negotiation (India & China?), as well as from the stakeholders in the negotiating countries who are worrying about the privacy and other rights, and provide the public an opportunity to assess whether or not ACTA would cause "trade-distorting effects", which is the major concern at the WTO’s TRIPS council.