數(shù)字環(huán)境下版權(quán)保護(hù)的 挑戰(zhàn)及對策 Challenge and Countermeasure of Copyright Protection in Digital Environment :
涉及P2P技術(shù)的侵權(quán)問題有三類：
Three major types of copyright infringement related with P2P technology:
網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商僅僅提供P2P軟件或同時(shí)為P2P軟件提供檢索服務(wù)器（單純的P2P服務(wù)）；
Network service provider only provide P2P software or access server for the P2P software (simple P2P service)；
網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商在提供P2P軟件及為P2P軟件提供檢索服務(wù)器，還提供被搜索到的影視、音樂等作品的目錄，供P2P用戶點(diǎn)擊下載或在線欣賞；
While providing the P2P software and access server for the P2P software, the network service providers also provide the catalogue of video and music for clicking download or enjoying online for the users：
P2P軟件的用戶未經(jīng)許可“分享”作品是否構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。
Whether the users of P2P software constitute copyright infringement for “sharing” the works without permission.
中國的現(xiàn)狀Current Status in China
在中國目前出現(xiàn)的各類涉及P2P技術(shù)的服務(wù)均非單純的P2P服務(wù)，而是同時(shí)涉及提供精心編制的作品目錄，或提供信息存儲空間，供P2P用戶上傳作品的鏈接。
Various service of P2P technology in China at present are not simple P2P service, but provides the content of relevant earnestly compiled works at the same time, or provide storage space for uploading linked service of P2P users.
《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》第22條和第23條明確規(guī)定：提供信息存儲空間的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商，以及提供搜索或鏈接的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商，在明知或應(yīng)知用戶上傳的內(nèi)容侵權(quán)，或被鏈接的內(nèi)容侵權(quán)，而不及時(shí)采取措施時(shí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。
Article 22 and article 23 of “Regulations for the Protection of Information Network Transmission Right” clearly stipulates : the Internet service provider for providing the storage space, and the internet service provider for providing the searching or linking who, is fully aware or should be aware that the content is infringed the copyright or the linked content and does no apply the relevant measure shall bear the responsibility for infringement.
“步升音樂公司訴飛行網(wǎng)案”（北京市第二中級人民法院，2006年）
“Busheng Music Company Appeals to Kuro (Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, 2006)
“被告應(yīng)當(dāng)知道涉案歌曲的來源很可能是未經(jīng)原告許可而上載的，且被告未舉證證明其曾采取任何措施避免未經(jīng)原告上海步升公司許可而上載的涉案53首歌曲利用Kuro酷樂軟件在網(wǎng)上進(jìn)行傳播。因此，本院認(rèn)定被告舶盛舫安公司的上述行為具有主觀故意。”
Defendant shall fully aware of the source of songs involved in the case may be uploaded without permission of accuser, and the defendant does not prove to apply any measures to prevent the uploading behaviors of 53 songs without the permission of the Shanghai Busheng company involved in this case through Kure software. Therefore, the court held that the behaviors of Posheng Fangan Company shall be an act of subjective desire.
被告實(shí)際上是作為“搜索與鏈接服務(wù)提供者”承擔(dān)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的。
Defendant shall bear the indirect liability of infringement for copyright as “provider of searching and linked service”.
“優(yōu)度訴迅雷”：上海浦東新區(qū)人民法院（2008）
“51TV.com Appeals to Thunder”: the People’s Court of Pudong New Area of Shanghai (2008)
按照一般商業(yè)規(guī)則，制片公司及相應(yīng)權(quán)利人不可能允許他人未經(jīng)授權(quán)、不支付費(fèi)用對影片進(jìn)行毫無限制的開放式網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播。作為一家專業(yè)提供下載服務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司，被告應(yīng)當(dāng)了解這一常識，而且完全具備了解這一常識的能力。
In accordance with the normal business rules, the production company and the corresponding beneficiary has no right to implementing the unrestricted opening network communication of films without the authorization and payment. As a network company for offering the special downloading service, the defendant shall be fully aware of this knowledge and perfectly equip with the capacity for understanding this knowledge.
被告網(wǎng)站對該條目特別進(jìn)行了相關(guān)編輯行為，附有影片《傷城》的描述性段落、下載速度以及內(nèi)容的評價(jià)。在網(wǎng)友的評論列表中甚至有“是槍版的，來我這下吧，DVD版”、“但是畫面太模糊，有高清版的嗎”等可以判斷下載資源合法性的評論性文字。
The defendant website has edited the content and attached with the description paragraph of the film of “Confession of Pain” and the comment of the downloading speed and content. The comment list of net friends even has the comment words of “ This film is a pirate file; come here for downloading; “DVD edition” and “the picture is too dim, do you have the edition of high definition ?”, etc., which may judge the legality of the downloading resource.
被告實(shí)際上是作為“搜索與鏈接服務(wù)提供者”承擔(dān)間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任的。
Defendant shall bear the indirect liability of infringement for copyright as “the provider of searching and linked service”.
“廣州中凱訴廣州數(shù)聯(lián)”(POCO案)：上海市第一中級人民法院（2007）：“眾所周知，電影作品本身的性質(zhì)決定了其制作完成需耗費(fèi)大量的人力、物力、財(cái)力，電影作品的著作權(quán)人通常不會將電影作品無償提供給社會公眾欣賞，尤其是新片。就涉案電影作品而言，其于2004年9月在香港制作完成，2005年11月首次在香港公映，而該片在POCO網(wǎng)上發(fā)布的時(shí)間為2005年11月19日，與該片在香港的首映時(shí)間基本同步。因此從常理而言，著作權(quán)人不可能許可他人在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上免費(fèi)發(fā)布該部電影作品，這顯然是網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶擅自發(fā)布的行為。………在本案中，網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶的侵權(quán)行為是顯而易見的，被告卻視而不見，放任侵權(quán)行為的擴(kuò)大，其主觀過錯(cuò)明顯，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的法律責(zé)任。”
“Guangzhou Zhongkai Appeals to Guangzhou Shulian (POCO): Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court (2007): “It is well known that the original natures of film production determine that the manufacture of the film works shall consume a large quantity of labor, material resources and finance, therefore, generally the copyright owner may not supply the film products to the general public in free, especially the new film. So far as the films of this case concerned, the manufacture of these films is completed in September of 2004 in Hong Kong; it was shown firstly in November of 2005 in Hong Kong; the date to publish to film on the POCO is 19th, November, 2005 and is the same date with the opening of the film. Therefore, in general the copyright owner may not allow the others publish the film works without authorization, and it is obviously an unauthorized action of network user. ….. In this cast, the copyright infringement of network user is self-evident. However, the defendant turns a blind eye to it, and permits the enlargement of infringement behavior, which has an obvious subject fault and shall bear the corresponding leangle liability.
被告仍然是作為“搜索與鏈接服務(wù)提供者”承擔(dān)責(zé)任的。與其是否同時(shí)提供了P2P軟件，或該軟件是否使用P2P技術(shù)毫無關(guān)系
Defendant shall bear the corresponding liability as an “Provider of searching and linked service”, which has not relationship whether or not it offers the P2P software or apply the P2P technology.
《著作權(quán)法》第10條第1款第12項(xiàng)： “信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)，即以有線或者無線方式向公眾提供作品，使公眾可以在其個(gè)人選定的時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)獲得作品的權(quán)利”
The 12th term of the 1st subparagraph of article 1 of Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China provided that “the right of communication of information on networks, that is, the right to communicate to the public a work, by wire or wireless means in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them”.
《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》第26條： “信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)，是指以有線或者無線方式向公眾提供作品、表演或者錄音錄像制品，使公眾可以在其個(gè)人選定的時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)獲得作品、表演或者錄音錄像制品的權(quán)利” 。
The article 26th of Order of the State Council of the People's Republic of China provided that: “right to network dissemination of information" refers to the right to provide the works, performance and audio-visual products to the general public in a wire or wireless manner so that the general public may get access to the works, performance and audio-visual products at the time and place that the relevant owner has chosen”.
在歐盟，三類涉及P2P技術(shù)的侵權(quán)問題均已出現(xiàn)。
Three types of copyright infringement related with P2P technology has appeared in EU.
對于第二類問題（網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商同時(shí)提供被搜索到的影視、音樂等作品的目錄），歐盟的立法與司法實(shí)踐與中國相同。
As for the second types of problem (network provider provides the content of searching film and music at the same time), the legislation and jurisdiction practice of EU is the same with China.
對于第三類問題（P2P軟件個(gè)人用戶“分享”作品），歐盟各國不但普遍認(rèn)為構(gòu)成侵權(quán)，而且部分歐盟各國還對其進(jìn)行刑事制裁。
As for the third type of problem (the private user of P2P software “share” the works), countries in EU held that it constitutes the infringement of copyright, and part of EU countries will prosecute the criminal sanction.
對于第一類問題（單純提供P2P服務(wù)），歐盟在立法和司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)了兩種趨勢：
As for the fist type problem (offering the simple P2P service), there are two tendencies in the legislation and jurisdiction practice:
認(rèn)定P2P服務(wù)提供者引誘他人侵權(quán)，嚴(yán)重者可構(gòu)成犯罪（法國）
The provider of P2P service seduces the infringement behavior of the others and constitutes a crime in serious cases.
要求P2P服務(wù)商采取過濾措施：比利時(shí)Scarlet案：布魯塞爾地方法院（2007年）：
Ask the P2P dealer to take the relevant filtering measure: Scarlet case of Belgium：magistrate‘s court of Brussels（２００７）
比利時(shí)作者、作曲家和出版商協(xié)會（SABAM）要求網(wǎng)絡(luò)接入服務(wù)商Scarlet采取過濾措施，以防止用戶使用P2P軟件非法交換音樂作品。法院對Scarlet下達(dá)禁令，要求其在6個(gè)月內(nèi)安裝Audible Magic系統(tǒng)，以過濾侵權(quán)音樂。
The Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SABAM) asked the website to access the Scarlet network and apply the filtering measure for preventing the illegal behavior of music exchanging of user through P2P software. The court bans the Scarlet and orders it to install the Audible Magic system within 6 months for filtering the infringement music.
《著作權(quán)法》第44條：“ 廣播電臺、電視臺有權(quán)禁止未經(jīng)其許可的下列行為： （一）將其播放的廣播、電視轉(zhuǎn)播 ； （二）將其播放的廣播、電視錄制在音像載體上以及復(fù)制音像載體。 ”
The article 44 of Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China provided that “A radio station or television station shall have the right to prohibit the following acts without authorization therefrom:
(1) to rebroadcast its broadcast radio or television program; and
(2) to fix its broadcast radio or television program on a sound recording or video recording carrier and to reproduce the sound recording or video recording carrier”.
法條沒有對“廣播電臺”、“電視臺”和“轉(zhuǎn)播”等術(shù)語進(jìn)行定義。對其只能根據(jù)《羅馬公約》和Trips協(xié)議進(jìn)行解釋。
The regulation does not define the concept of “rebroadcast station”, “TV station” and “rebroadcast”, which may be interpreted according to the terms of “Rome Convention” and “Trips agreement”.
“網(wǎng)播組織”并不受保護(hù)；“轉(zhuǎn)播”也僅限于以傳統(tǒng)的無線方式轉(zhuǎn)播。
“Organization of broadcasting on Internet” is not protected by the law; “rebroadcast” is also limited to the pattern of traditional wireless rebroadcast.
歐盟《信息社會版權(quán)指令》賦予了廣播組織對其廣播的“交互式傳播權(quán)”（相當(dāng)于我國的“信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)”），但卻沒有賦予廣播組織一項(xiàng)廣義的“向公眾傳播權(quán)”。
The “directive of information society copyright” of EU has endowed the broadcast organization the “authorization of interactive transmission” (equal to the authorization of information network), but does not endowed the “authorization of transmission to the general public” to the broadcast organization.
由于歐盟《信息社會版權(quán)指令》承認(rèn)“臨時(shí)復(fù)制”也屬于復(fù)制行為，而廣播組織對其廣播又享有“復(fù)制權(quán)”，因此未經(jīng)許可通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)轉(zhuǎn)播廣播組織的節(jié)目可以構(gòu)成對“復(fù)制權(quán)”的侵權(quán)。
The “directive of information society copyright” of EU recognized that the “temporary duplication” belongs to the action of duplication. However, the broadcast organization is also has the “duplication right”. Therefore, the program of broadcast organization on Internet without permission may constitutes the infringement of “duplication right”.
對平臺提供者侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定
Definition of the infringement liability of the provider of platform
直接上傳侵權(quán)內(nèi)容的是用戶，而非平臺提供者，因此平臺提供者并不構(gòu)成直接侵權(quán)。但如其明知或應(yīng)知用戶上傳了侵權(quán)內(nèi)容，而不及時(shí)加以刪除，則構(gòu)成間接侵權(quán)。
Users is the person which directly upload the infringement content, not the platform provider. Therefore, the platform provider does not constitute the direct infringement. However, when the platform provider is fully aware or should be aware that the users upload the infringement content and does not cancel it in time, the platform provider shall constitutes indirect infringement.
符合《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》要求的通知能夠證明平臺提供者“明知”侵權(quán)內(nèi)容的存在；
Notification complied with the regulation of “Regulations for the Protection of Information Network Transmission Right” may prove that the platform provider is “fully aware” the existence of the infringement content.
權(quán)利人不發(fā)通知，或通知不符合要求，法院同樣有可能認(rèn)定平臺提供者“應(yīng)知”侵權(quán)內(nèi)容的存在。
If the rightful owner does not issue the notification or the notification does not meet the relevant requirements, the court may determine that the platform provider should be aware the existence of the infringement content.
《信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)保護(hù)條例》第22條： 網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者為服務(wù)對象提供信息存儲空間，供服務(wù)對象通過信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)向公眾提供作品、表演、錄音錄像制品，并具備下列條件的，不承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任： …… �。ㄈ┎恢酪矝]有合理的理由應(yīng)當(dāng)知道服務(wù)對象提供的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品侵權(quán)； …… �。ㄎ澹┰诮拥綑�(quán)利人的通知書后，根據(jù)本條例規(guī)定刪除權(quán)利人認(rèn)為侵權(quán)的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品。
Article 22 of “Regulations for the Protection of Information Network Transmission Right” provided that Where a network service provider provides information memory space to its service objects, or provides the works, performance and audio-visual products to the general public through the information network and in case the following requirements are satisfied, he is not required to assume the liabilities of compensation:
….
(3) Having no knowledge of and being justifiable reason to know the infringement of the works, performance and audio-visual products;
….
(5) After receiving a notice from the owner, deleting those works, performance and audio-visual products that the owner regards as infringing ones according to the present Ordinance.
新傳在線訴土豆網(wǎng)（上海市高級人民法院，2008年）：
Nubb.com Appeals to Tudou.com (Shanghai People’s court, 2008) 上訴人（原審被告）特意將“原創(chuàng)”作品與其他“娛樂”“影視”“音樂”等作品分設(shè)不同頻道的行為本身，說明上訴人除了對廣大網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶將自拍的家庭生活或娛樂片斷等原創(chuàng)作品上傳之外，還可能將其他未經(jīng)許可的熱門電影和電視劇等上傳至網(wǎng)站從而招致可能的侵權(quán)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的情況是知曉的；
Appellant (defendant) which purposely arranges the “original” works and the other “entertainment”, “video files” and “music” in a different channel shows except the family living or amusement video that uploaded by the general network user, the appellant may fully aware the rise of infringement for uploading the other popular film or TV play to the website. 根據(jù)常理可知，目前沒有任何一家中外著名電影制片公司許可過任何網(wǎng)站或個(gè)人免費(fèi)提供其攝制的熱門電影供網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶下載。上訴人作為一家專門從事包含影視、音樂等在內(nèi)的多媒體娛樂視頻共享平臺的專業(yè)網(wǎng)站，在日常網(wǎng)站維護(hù)中，應(yīng)當(dāng)知曉當(dāng)時(shí)在大陸熱播的電影作品之一的《瘋狂的石頭》的上傳是未經(jīng)許可的。
Generally, no well known film production corporation may authorize any website or individual to offering the download resource of popular film in free. As a special website engaging in the sharing platform of multi-media of film and music, it shall fully aware in daily maintenance that the uploading of popular film production of “Crazy Stone” of mainland in China is unauthorized.
對于UGC平臺提供者的間接侵權(quán)責(zé)任，歐盟2000年的《電子商務(wù)指令》規(guī)定的法律規(guī)則與中國完全相同。
As for the indirect liability of infringement for copyright of the provider of UGC platform, the regulation of EU “directive of E-commerce” in 2000 is the same with China.
歐盟一些成員國在司法實(shí)踐中開始要求UGC平臺提供者對內(nèi)容進(jìn)行過濾。
Some EU member states start to ask the provider of UGC platform to take the measure of content filtering.
德國Rapidshare案：杜塞爾多夫地方法院（2008年）：
German Rapidshare case: Dusseldorf magistrate's court
有一名為Rapidshare的文件共享網(wǎng)站。用戶可自由上傳文件，但每月只能免費(fèi)下載有限數(shù)量的文件。只有付費(fèi)用戶才能無限量高速下載。同時(shí)該網(wǎng)站提供用于上傳文件的軟件，并對那些其上傳的文件被大量下載的上傳者加以獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)。該網(wǎng)站采取了以下防止侵權(quán)的措施：
There is a file sharing website named Rapidshare. The users may upload the file freely, but can only download a number of files in free per month. Users may pay to the website for infinite high-speed download. At the same time, the website offers the uploading software and rewards the uploading users which have a large download record. The infringement preventing measures applied by the website are as follows:
進(jìn)行文件名關(guān)鍵詞過濾；
Keyword filtering of file name;
侵權(quán)文件一旦被刪除，無法以相同文件名再次上傳；
When the infringement file is deleted, it shall not be uploaded again with the same file name.
使用Md5過濾系統(tǒng)，阻止用戶以不同文件名上傳相同內(nèi)容的文件；
Applied the Md5 filtering system for preventing the user uploading the file of the same content with different file name.
成立專門的監(jiān)控部門，愿意在收到權(quán)利人通知后立即刪除被指稱侵權(quán)的文件。
Establish the special supervision department; and delete the infringement document which claimed by the rightful owner.
法院認(rèn)為：Rapidshare網(wǎng)站采用的過濾措施是不充分的，因?yàn)椋?br />
The court held that: the filtering measure of Rapidshare website is insufficient, the reasons are:
文件名關(guān)鍵詞作用不大，因?yàn)榭梢允褂貌煌奈募蟼飨嗤膬?nèi)容。用戶可以使用作品名搜索到相同的文件。
The function of the keyword of file play a minor role, because people can use different file names to upload the same content. Users can search the same file with the name of the works.
Md5過濾系統(tǒng)僅能識別內(nèi)容完全相同的文件，只要對內(nèi)容稍作修改就能加以規(guī)避；
Md5 filtering system can only discern the files with exact content, however, slight modification can evade the verification of that software;
由于共享文件數(shù)量巨大， Rapidshare網(wǎng)站監(jiān)控部門只能阻止少量侵權(quán)文件上傳。
Because the quantity of the sharing files is enormous, the supervision department of Rapidshare website only stop a small number of uploaded infringement file.
法院還認(rèn)為：Rapidshare網(wǎng)站的商業(yè)模式鼓勵(lì)了大量上傳，并從網(wǎng)站從中受益。因?yàn)橛脩舾顿M(fèi)的主要原因（即使不是唯一原因）是獲取盜版作品
The court held that: the commercial modes of Rapidshare websites have been encouraged the behavior of large amount uploading, and benefited from the websites. The main reason for the users pay to (Even it is not the only reason) the website is to obtain the pirate works.
法院的結(jié)論： Rapidshare網(wǎng)站必須采取更加有效的過濾措施，即使該措施會導(dǎo)致其對用戶的吸引力大幅降低。如果這些措施都無效， Rapidshare網(wǎng)站經(jīng)營者甚至有義務(wù)關(guān)閉該網(wǎng)站。
The court conclusion: Rapidshare websites shall take more effective filtration measures, even these measures will largely reduce its appealing to the users. If these measures are all invalid, the operator of Rapidshare website has the obligation to close this website.
謝謝！ Thanks!
2012.11.2