然后,有一位朋友认为从英文原文(见下)看,”which之后修饰的是“cases” 而不是“confine”这个行为。也就是confine的“规定”。而且对于规定这一词,也是翻译的时候为了语句的通顺加上去,其实原文里并没有对应的单词。因此他得出结论说,这不是一个误会——言下之意,三步检验法的确可以作为判断合理使用的概括性标准。

Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate inter-ests of the right holder.







WTO WT/DS363 Information Center 信息中心

本日志为WTO争端解决案件 《DS363 中国 – 关于影响贸易权利的措施和影响若干出版物及娱乐音像产品的分销服务的措施》 的中英文信息汇总。专家组报告(点此)于2009年8月12日公布,WTO上诉机构的最终裁决也已于2009年12月21日作出(点此查看).请收藏本页或订阅法豆获取最新资讯。

This is a collection of the materials on WT/DS363: Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products The Panel Report has been published on 12 Aug. 2009.

China appeals the case to the the Appellate Body. The Appellate Body Report was issued on 21 December 2009. please Bookmark this page or subscribe BLawgDog for update.

English Materials:




【内容摘要】在当前我国的著作权法中,不仅内容违法的作品,而且程序上违法的作品都不被授予著作权,并且程序与内容之间存在相互影响的关系。尽管“违法作品即无著作权”在现行国内法层面具有合法性,但在国际著作权法层面却无法获得正当性,并导致了超国民待遇的产生。通过“三步测试法”对“内容违法即无著作权”的规则予以衡量后,可以发现问题的关键是:并非不能在立法中否定内容违法的作品的著作权,而是需要通过各种手段明确内容违法的范围,使其符合 TRIPS 协定第 13 条中“特定的特殊情形”的要求。在此基础上,有必要探索出一套既符合国际公约,又有益于国内法治发展的制度改革方案。

【关键词】 违法作品 著作权 TRIPS 协定 三步测试法 实证法








Positive Analysis to the Illegal Works in China

Copyrightable or Not: A Positive Review of illegal Works under China’s Copyright Law and Suggestions to the Legal Reform

GU Minkang & DONG Hao


Abstract: This article reviews the copyright dilemma of illegal works in the context of Chinese copyright system. Under the current law, not merely the works with illegal content, but also the works did not fulfill the procedural requirement will be denied the copyright protection. Article 4(1) may find legitimacy in the domestic level, but does not comply with the WTO law. The three criteria in Article 13 of TRIPS Agreement can be applied to examine Article 4(1). The key problem lies in the uncertainty of the scope of denial of copyright. This leads to the Super-national Treatment. Based on these analyses, the last part of the article proposed some suggestions for the future legal reform.

WTO Panel Report – DS362 US v China on IP Measures

On 26 Jan. 2009, a Panel established by the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body issued its Report on the case China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (DS362). The United States brought the complaint. The full Report can be found here. An excerpt containing just the Panel’s conclusions and recommendation can be found here. A summary of the case can be found here.


ps一点牢骚: 关于中国著作权法第四条的讨论,我在2008年初已经写就万字文章,可惜因为懒于联系杂志,一直未能正式发表,现在想来有些遗憾。如果有需要,可给我发邮件(如果能帮忙推荐发表就更好了,唉……)。


Lecture – WTO IP Disputes – US v China DS362 DS363

On 2 Dec 2008, invited by my friend Ms. LEE Na, I lectured for 2 hours in English at the bilingual course "Advanced Int’l Trade Law" in School of Law, Kunming University of Sci. & Tech. The topic is: WTO IP Disputes: US v China DS362 & DS363.

 Here is the PPT. It will be updated along with the dispute resolution procedures. Please visit my website for the newest version.


Is TRIPS a "Forum Shifting" of WTO?

QUESTION: The inclusion of TRIPS Agreement in the WTO Agreements has been sharply criticized as an act of forum shifting with detrimental effects on the future of the WTO. Discuss this proposition*
Critical Analyses to the “Forum Shifting” and “Detrimental Effects” Proposition: from the Approaches of History, Political Science and Positivism Legal Analysis
Nov 2006
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Some Facts in the History of the TRIPS Agreement Negotiation
III. The “Strategy Linkage” between IP and WTO
IV. Legitimacy of “Forum Shifting”
V. Conclusion