中德著作权侵权损害赔偿责任制度比较研究

发布时间：2018-05-01 21:10

本文选题：著作权 + 侵权损害赔偿责任　；参考：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文主要运用案例分析法、比较研究法和文献研究法等研究方法,研究了我国与德国著作权侵权损害赔偿责任制度的相似点与差异,通过比较中德两国的制度后,发现两国在著作权损害赔偿原则、类推许可与合理交易费用、法院酌定赔偿的必要性与规范方式和法院酌定赔偿的确定因素等方面存在差异,所以本文对上述差异进行了对比和阐述。通过深入了解德国相关制度后,提出德国《著作权与邻接权法》将主观过错作为赔偿责任前提条件的立法值得我国参考借鉴,并对侵权人有过错应作为赔偿责任的构成要件、对法院和权利人查阅侵权人账簿及资料的权限加以限制、对惩罚性赔偿数额的上限及其适用范围作出规定和在赔偿方式上明文规定"请求法院酌定"的方式等修法建议进行了论证,并参酌德国法在理论及司法实践中的相关经验,系统的阐述了我国著作权受侵害时,损害赔偿计算的实然面与应然面,以期对我国实务及立法提供一个有价值的参考依据。我国著作权侵权损害赔偿理论认为,著作权法立法的最终目的是促进社会文明的进步,而非创作本身。现行《著作权法》第49条第1项因缺乏规范主观过错等归责要件的条文而存在不足。我国不同学者对损害赔偿请求权的认识不同,大致存在三种不同的观点,分别是:①损害赔偿请求权是一种民事权利;②损害赔偿请求权是一种民事责任形式;③损害赔偿请求权是一种民事法律制度。因著作权受侵害而产生的损害赔偿请求权既具有赔偿请求权的共性,又基于作品的无形性而具有非损耗性。《著作权法修订草案(送审稿)》(以下简称《送审稿》)第76条区分了四种侵权损害赔偿数额计算方式,即实际损害法、违法所得法、合理交易费用法和法院酌定法,其中"权利交易费用的合理倍数"是新增的计算方式,将法院酌定赔偿的上限提高至一百万元,并首次增加了惩罚性赔偿条款。德国民法认为,侵害人的损害赔偿义务是以过错为前提的,损害赔偿请求权是以存在侵害他人合法权利的违法行为为前提的。德国《著作权与邻接权法》规定了三种损害赔偿数额的计算方式,即实际损害法、违法所得法和类推许可法。根据德国法院的判决,这三种计算方式是相互排斥且不允许累积计算的,也不允许混合使用,但允许在诉讼中转换计算方式。德国关于损害赔偿的计算方式与我国相似,因此选择以德国著作权法为研究对象。通过研究我国的相关规范与司法实务,并参酌德国法规与实务运作的演变,发现德国在著作权损害赔偿中并未修法增加惩罚性赔偿原则,我国承袭了大陆法系的补偿性赔偿原则。德国在特殊领域中考察著作的易受侵害性而开始承认预防侵害也是侵权损害赔偿制度的主要功能之一,值得我国借鉴。从表面看,德国的类推许可与我国《送审稿》的合理交易费用相类似,但德国的类推许可在性质上更接近于我国的法院酌定赔偿,而德国法律中的合理交易费在性质上相当于我国的权利人的实际损害。法院酌定赔偿的规范与运作模式,使其较其他三种计算方式更利于权利人获得赔偿,并且法院酌定赔偿方式是多元化的。《送审稿》相较于国家版权局之前公布的征求意见稿在总体上做了优化,特别是较之于现行著作权法有较大改进。然而,《送审稿》仍然有进一步改进完善的空间。德国《著作权与邻接权法》规定的赔偿责任是以故意或过失为前提条件的,参酌德国《著作权与邻接权法》及我国相关司法解释和司法实务,我国著作权法修法应当将主观过错写入著作权法,确认其作为赔偿责任的前提和构成要件。德国《民法典》及《著作权与邻接权法》对侵权人账簿、资料查阅权限加以限制的规定有其合理之处,故我国在《送审稿》第76条也可考虑加入必要的限制性条文。法院酌定赔偿是我国借鉴英美法的基础上制定的,我国和美国的法定赔偿金额相差不多,然而与美国所规定的法定赔偿金额相接近是否适合我国国情值得商榷。在社会各界对适用惩罚性赔偿还未形成共识前,惩罚性赔偿金额仍应坚持设置上限的做法。在法院酌定赔偿案件中,法院已经将侵权行为的性质、侵害人过错程度等作为考察因素,明显具有惩罚性质,为避免法院酌定赔偿适用二到三倍的惩罚性赔偿后导致重复惩罚,故建议将惩罚性赔偿条文放在账簿、资料查阅权条文的后面。《送审稿》在赔偿方式上应明文规定"请求法院酌定"的方式,同时赋予侵害人举反证推翻的权利,以避免产生不合理的损害赔偿计算结果。
[Abstract]:This article mainly uses the case analysis method, the comparative research method and the literature research method to study the similarities and differences between China and Germany's copyright infringement damages liability system. After comparing the Chinese and German system, we find the two countries' compensation principle of copyright damage, the analogy license and the reasonable transaction cost, the court discretionary compensation. There are differences in the necessity of compensation, the way of standardization and the determining factors of the discretion of the court, so this paper makes a comparison and exposition of the above differences. After a thorough understanding of the relevant German system, the legislation of the German "copyright and adjacent rights law" and the subjective fault as the precondition for compensation liability is worth reference for our country. And the fault of the tortfeasor should be the constitutive requirement of the liability, the limits of the court and the right holder's access to the book and information of the tortfeasor, the upper limit of the amount of punitive damages and the scope of its application, and the proposal of the method of repair in the manner of "requesting the court to be discretionary" in the manner of indemnity, and as appropriate The relevant experience of German law in theory and judicial practice systematically expounds the actual face and deserved face of the damage compensation calculation in the case of infringement of copyright in our country, in order to provide a valuable reference for our country's practice and legislation. The progress of civilization, not the creation itself. The current < Copyright Law > forty-ninth articles and first items lack of the provisions to standardize the subjective fault and other provisions. The different scholars in our country have different views on the claim of compensation for damages, and there are roughly three different views, which are: (1) the claim of damages is a civil right; 2. The right of claim for compensation is a form of civil liability; (3) the right of claim for damages is a civil legal system. The claim for damages caused by copyright infringement not only has the commonness of the claim for compensation, but also is based on the invisibility of the works. < < manuscript for review > (hereinafter referred to as < referred to as review >) > seventy-sixth The article distinguishes four ways of calculating the amount of compensation for tort damages, that is, the actual damage law, the illegal income law, the reasonable transaction cost law and the court discretion, among which the "reasonable multiple of the right transaction costs" is a new method of calculation. The upper limit of the court's discretionary compensation is raised to one million yuan, and the punitive damages clause is increased for the first time. German people The law holds that the obligation of indemnity for a infringer is on the premise of fault. The right of claim for damages is the premise of the illegal act that infringes on the legitimate rights of others. The German copyright and adjacent rights law stipulates three kinds of calculation methods of the amount of damages, namely, the actual damage law, the law of illegal income and the kind of administer. The three methods of calculation are mutually exclusive and not allowed to be calculated, but not allowed to be used, but they are not allowed to be used in a mixed way, but the method of calculation is allowed to be converted in litigation. As a result of the evolution of German law and practice, it is found that Germany does not increase the principle of punitive damages in the compensation for copyright damage. China has inherited the compensatory compensation principle of the continental law system. In the special field, Germany investigates the vulnerability of the works in the special field and begins to admit that the main work of the system of infringement is also the tort damage compensation system. One of them is worth our reference. On the surface, the German analogy license is similar to the reasonable transaction cost of our country, but the German analogy license is more close to the court's discretionary compensation in nature, and the reasonable transaction cost in German law is equivalent to the actual damage of the right holder in our country. The court's discretionary compensation The standard and operation model makes it more beneficial to the right holder to obtain compensation than the other three methods, and the court's discretion is pluralistic. Compared to the draft published before the National Copyright Office, the draft has been optimized in general, especially compared with the current copyright law. There is a further improvement in the space. The compensation liability stipulated in the German copyright and adjacent rights law is based on the precondition of intentional or negligent, and the German copyright and adjacent rights law and the relevant judicial interpretation and judicial practice in our country. The copyright law of our country should write the subjective fault into the copyright law and confirm that it is the liability for compensation. The precondition and constitutive requirements of the office of the civil code of Germany and the law of the right to contiguous rights to the infringers' books and the limits of access to information have their own reasonable points, so the seventy-sixth articles in our country may also consider joining the necessary restrictive provisions. The discretion of the court is based on the reference to the Anglo American Law in China, and China and There is not much difference in the amount of legal indemnity in the United States. However, it is worth discussing whether it is suitable for the situation of our country to be close to the legal compensation amount stipulated by the United States. Before the public opinion on the application of punitive damages is still not common, the amount of punitive damages should still be set to the upper limit. The nature of the act, the extent of the offending of the person as an investigation factor, obviously has the nature of punishment, and it is suggested to put punitive damages in the book, after the provision of the right of reference, to avoid the punishment of two to three times the penalty for the court's discretionary compensation. The court discretionary way also gives the infringer the right to reverse the rebuttal, so as to avoid the unreasonable result of damages.

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.41;D951.6;DD913

【相似文献】