论网络环境下著作权侵权案件的诉讼管辖

发布时间：2018-02-01 14:23

本文关键词： 网络环境著作权侵权纠纷管辖　出处：《中国社会科学院研究生院》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：著作权是一种无形的财产权，其相对于有形的财产权而言具有无形性这一极其重要的特点，同时，由于著作权具有的这一无形性的特征，作品(文学，影视，设计等）这类受著作权法保护的客体具有可复制性。由于著作权是无形的权利，而且著作权的载体即作品是可以复制的，所以侵权者不合法的复制行为和盗用作品的行为就变得可以轻易在很多地点发生，由此侵犯著作权的行为发生的地方范围就大大扩张了。随着科技的发展和社会的进步，多媒体媒介的发明和普及特别是互联网时代为著作权侵权案件的发生提供了新的环境。当然，网络环境下的著作权保护仍按照以往旧的环境下对著作权进行维护的思路，从著作权是无形财产权和作品的可复制性这一角度出发，认定侵权行为发生过的地方和侵权结果可能存在的地方，也就是含有侵权内容的作品可能扩散到的地方以及进行印刷的地方。尽管如此，基于网络环境与传统坏境相比所具有的具有无中心性、开放性、信息传播的高效性等特点，网络环境中侵权行为的物理界限较传统环境下有所模糊，因此，关于侵权行为确切实施的地方或者是侵权的后果确实发生的地方都不太好确定。针对这一问题，本文通过对我国现有法律规定的分析，对比美国及欧盟的司法实践和相关法律规定，以分析案例的形式总结出了我国在司法实践中存在的一些现状。本文的第一部分从对著作权侵权纠纷的管辖规则进行了概括，从著作权无形财产权的特点入手分析，说明了有形财产权与无形财产权在侵权案件管辖地方面的区别，，并简要介绍了网络环境下与传统环境下著作权侵权纠纷管辖的异同。第二部分中，第一层就美国法院近年来在司法实践中广泛适用的目标指向检验标准进行了说明，并运用两个经典案例作为佐证，证实了目标指向检验标准在司法实践中的优越性。第二层就欧洲联盟国家的《布鲁塞尔规则》中的法律条文和司法过程中运用的方法进行了阐述，在法律条文中规定了与原告所在的地方相一致的侵权结果发生的地方可以认定为管辖法院所在的地方，同时欧盟某些法院也在司法实践中运用了类似于目标指向检验标准的原则。本文第三部分结合泛亚诉百度公司一案、浙江图书馆诉何湖苇一案等经典案例对我国司法实践中出现的某些现状进行了分析，我国网络环境下著作权纠纷管辖出现的主要问题有原告通过追加共同被告选择管辖地、原告通过在计算机终端上发现侵权内容来选择管辖地，以及司法实践中某些判断标准不够明晰、司法实践中认定起来比较困难等等。同时，在第三部分中还总结了美国和欧盟成功的立法和司法经验对我国的管辖制度可以借鉴之处，主要包括利用原告住所地进行限制以及在司法实践中适用目标指向检验标准。
[Abstract]:Copyright is a kind of intangible property right, which has the extremely important characteristic of intangibility relative to the tangible property right. At the same time, because of the intangible characteristic of copyright, the works (literature, film and television). Such objects protected by copyright law are reproducible. Because copyright is an intangible right, and the carrier of copyright, that is, the work, can be reproduced. Therefore, the illegal reproduction of the infringer and the act of embezzling the work can easily occur in many places. As a result, the local scope of copyright infringement has been greatly expanded. With the development of science and technology and social progress. The invention and popularization of multimedia media, especially in the Internet era, provides a new environment for the occurrence of copyright infringement cases. Copyright protection under the network environment is still in accordance with the old environment in the past to protect the idea of copyright, from the perspective of copyright is intangible property rights and the replicability of works. The place where the infringement has occurred and where the result of the infringement may exist, that is, where the work containing the infringing content may spread and where it is printed. Compared with the traditional bad environment, the network environment has the characteristics of non-centrality, openness and high efficiency of information dissemination, so the physical boundary of the tort in the network environment is more blurred than that in the traditional environment. On the exact implementation of tort or where the consequences of infringement are not very good to determine. In view of this problem, this article through the analysis of the existing laws and regulations of our country. Compared with the judicial practice of the United States and the European Union and the relevant legal provisions. The first part of this paper summarizes the jurisdiction rules of copyright infringement disputes in the form of analyzing cases. This paper analyzes the characteristics of intangible property rights of copyright and explains the differences between tangible property rights and intangible property rights in the jurisdiction of infringement cases. And briefly introduces the network environment and the traditional environment of copyright infringement disputes jurisdiction similarities and differences. Part two. The first level of the U. S. courts in recent years widely applied in the judicial practice of the goal of the test standards are explained, and use two classic cases as evidence. The second level expounds the legal provisions of the Brussels rules of the European Union countries and the methods used in the judicial process. In the provisions of the law, the place where the infringement results consistent with the place where the plaintiff is located may be considered as the place where the court of jurisdiction is located. At the same time, some courts in the European Union have also applied the principle similar to the standard of goal pointing test in judicial practice. The third part of this paper combines the case of Pan Asia v. Baidu Company. Some classic cases, such as Zhejiang Library v. he Huwei, analyze the present situation of judicial practice in China. The main problems in the jurisdiction of copyright disputes in the network environment of our country are that the plaintiff chooses the jurisdiction by adding the co-defendant, and the plaintiff selects the jurisdiction by discovering the infringing content on the computer terminal. And in judicial practice, some criteria are not clear enough, judicial practice is difficult to identify and so on. At the same time. The third part also summarizes the successful legislative and judicial experience of the United States and the European Union to China's jurisdiction system can be used for reference. It mainly includes the restriction of the plaintiff's domicile and the application of the target-pointing test standard in judicial practice.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.41;D925.1

【参考文献】