侵犯著作权罪客观行为的司法适用探究

发布时间：2018-03-14 03:47

本文选题：复制发行　切入点：网络传播　出处：《华东政法大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：对于侵犯著作权罪客观行为而言,当前所遇到的理论分歧与司法实务制肘主要体现在:1.如何理解适用《刑法》第217条所表述的“复制发行”、“出版”、“制作、出售”之间的关系?2.发行行为是否可以包括《著作权法》意义上的“信息网络传播行为”?是否可以包括刑事司法解释意义上的“通过网络传播行为”?如果可以,这些行为有哪些主要类型?当前对网络上侵犯著作权的犯罪行为又应持什么刑事司法态度?3.《刑法修正案》(九)第29条第2段规定的“为网络犯罪提供技术支持、帮助行为”与刑事司法解释意义上“通过网络传播行为”是什么关系?在具体实务中应如何使用法律?4.上述客观行为适用的前提,还要“未经许可”,司法适用时如何认定“未经许可”?那些情况下可以不必经许可?《著作权法》最新立法对这些不必许可有何影响?著作权许可类型对“未经许可”司法认定有何影响?当前我国国内对侵犯著作权犯罪理论研究的多而不透,所导致的不论从法理的分析上还是对实务操作的指导上均存在一定的不足,而这种不足尤其体现在上文所述的对侵犯著作权罪的客观行为的理论分歧和司法实务制肘上,这些理论分歧与司法实务制肘正是当前关于本罪认定的难题所在。基于此,本文的价值及意义也正是为了能在司法适用层面捋顺上述问题,以更好地实现法治。为此,本文探究得出以下结论:《刑法》第217条所表述的“复制发行”、“出版”、“制作、出售”,这三种表述实质上可理解为一种行为,即“既复制又发行”行为。《刑法》第217条的“发行”行为可以适用刑事司法解释意义上的“通过网络传播行为”,《著作权法》意义上的“信息网络传播行为”与刑事司法解释意义上的“通过网络传播行为”是包含关系。当前对网络上侵犯著作权的犯罪行为的认定应慎之又慎。《刑法修正案》(九)第29条第2段规定的“为网络犯罪提供技术支持、帮助行为”包括刑事司法解释意义上“通过网络传播行为”,在具体实务中应适用《刑法修正案》(九)第6款进行认定。著作权许可类型对《刑法》第217条的“未经许可”的认定具有重大影响。在适用著作权权利限制理论情况下可以不必经许可,《著作权法》最新立法在合理制度的修改方面对《刑法》第217条“未经许可”的认定具有重大影响。司法实践时应当依据2004年两高司法解释第11条、2011年两高一部意见第11条对“未经许可”进行认定。
[Abstract]:As for the objective behavior of the crime of infringing on copyright, the theoretical differences encountered at present and the system of judicial practice are mainly reflected in the: 1.How to understand the relationship between "reproduction and distribution", "publication", "production and sale" as expressed in Article 217 of the Criminal Law? 2. Can the issuing act include "information network communication" in the sense of "copyright Law"? Could it include "communication through the Internet" in the sense of criminal judicial interpretation? If so, what are the main types of behavior? What kind of criminal judicial attitude should we hold to the criminal act of infringing copyright on the network at present? 3. What is the relationship between article 29, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law Amendment (IX), "providing technical support for cybercrime and aiding acts" and "dissemination through the Internet" in the sense of criminal judicial interpretation? How should the law be used in specific practice? 4. How can the application of the above-mentioned objective acts be considered "unauthorized" if they are to be applied "without authorization"? In which cases no permission is required? What is the impact of the latest legislation on these imperatives? How does the type of copyright license affect the judicial recognition of "unauthorized"? At present, there are a lot of theoretical research on copyright infringement crime in our country, which leads to some deficiencies in both the legal analysis and the practical operation guidance. This deficiency is especially reflected in the theoretical differences on the objective acts of copyright infringement mentioned above and the limitations of judicial practice. These theoretical differences and judicial practical constraints are precisely the current difficulties in the determination of this crime. Based on this, The value and significance of this paper is also in order to smooth the above problems in the level of judicial application, so as to better realize the rule of law. Therefore, this paper explores the following conclusions: "Reproduction", "publication" and "production" as expressed in Article 217 of the Criminal Law. "to sell", these three expressions are essentially understood as an act, That is, the act of "issue" in Article 217 of the Criminal Law can be applied to the "act of communication through the network" in the sense of criminal judicial interpretation, and the "act of information network communication" and the punishment in the sense of "copyright Law". In the sense of judicial interpretation of the matter, "the act of spreading through the network" is an inclusive relationship. At present, the identification of criminal acts infringing copyright on the network should be considered with great care. (9) Article 29, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law Amendment stipulates "for the net". Network crime provides technical support, The act of aiding "including the act of" spreading through the network "in the sense of criminal judicial interpretation, shall be determined by paragraph 6 of the Amendment to the Criminal Law (9) in the specific practice... the type of copyright license is not the same as that of Article 217 of the Criminal Law." The recognition of "licensed" has a significant impact. In the case of the application of the theory of restriction of copyright rights, it is not necessary to obtain a license. Article 217 of the Criminal Law is "unlicensed" by the latest legislation of the copyright Law with regard to the revision of the reasonable system. The judicial practice should be based on article 11 of the judicial interpretation of the two high schools on 2004 and article 11 of the opinions of the two high schools on 2011.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】