精雕公司诉奈凯公司著作权侵权纠纷案评析

发布时间：2018-04-09 02:16

本文选题：技术措施　切入点：反技术规避　出处：《湖南大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：在信息化产业飞速发展的今日,高端技术产品的价值逐渐得到市场的认可。为了保护自身的利益,版权人通常会采用技术措施,以达到限制他人访问、使用、控制、修改及复制软件的目的。这些技术措施的出现存在两个问题,其一,它们不能绝对实现对软件版权的保护,版权人设置的技术措施极有可能被更高新的技术所规避。其二,这些技术措施有可能妨碍公众的合理使用权,造成版权人权利滥用的局面。反技术规避制度的存在能够合理解决这两个问题,当然,前提是我们拥有一部科学而健全的相关法律。精雕公司与奈凯公司关于著作权纠纷案是我国自修改《著作权法》、明确提出“反技术规避”以来第一起以此为据的案件。由于我国版权法中并没有对“技术措施”、“反技术规避”的定义及范围进行详细的描述,故法院的判决引发了很多争议。原告对软件的输出文件格式加密的行为属于为保护软件版权而采取的技术措施,但是由于其最终目的是为了实现与其他产品的捆绑销售,故技术措施的有效性不能得到法律的认可。通过技术上的分析,被告破解输出文件格式的行为应当视为对技术措施的规避,但是由于原告的技术措施不具备法律保护意义,因此不属于“恶意规避技术措施”的行为。被告的破解行为没有触及原告的法律权益,并且其目的是为了实现软件的兼容,故此该行为应当属于“反技术规避”中基于合理使用的特例。
[Abstract]:In the rapid development of the information industry today, the value of high-end technical products is gradually recognized by the market.In order to protect their own interests, copyright owners usually adopt technical measures to restrict others' access, use, control, modification and reproduction of software.There are two problems in the emergence of these technical measures. One is that they can not protect the software copyright absolutely. The technical measures set up by the copyright owner are likely to be evaded by the more advanced technology.Second, these technical measures may hinder the reasonable use of the public, resulting in the abuse of copyright rights.The existence of anti-technology evasion system can solve these two problems reasonably, of course, if we have a scientific and sound relevant laws.The case of copyright dispute between QianDiao Company and Naikai Company is the first case based on this since the revision of copyright Law in China and the explicit proposal of "anti-technology circumvention".Because there is no detailed description of the definition and scope of "technical measures" and "anti-technology circumvention" in copyright law of our country, the judgment of the court has caused a lot of controversy.The plaintiff's act of encrypting the output file format of the software is a technical measure taken to protect the copyright of the software, but since its ultimate purpose is to achieve bundled sales with other products,Therefore, the effectiveness of technical measures cannot be recognized by law.Through the technical analysis, the defendant's behavior of breaking the format of the output file should be regarded as the circumvention of the technical measure, but because the plaintiff's technical measure does not have the legal protection significance, it does not belong to the behavior of "maliciously circumventing the technical measure".The defendant's breach does not touch the plaintiff's legal rights and interests, and its purpose is to achieve software compatibility, so it should be a special case based on reasonable use in "anti-technology circumvention".
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D923.41;D920.5

【参考文献】