本文選題：技術(shù)措施　切入點(diǎn)：反技術(shù)規(guī)避　出處：《湖南大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：在信息化產(chǎn)業(yè)飛速發(fā)展的今日,高端技術(shù)產(chǎn)品的價(jià)值逐漸得到市場(chǎng)的認(rèn)可。為了保護(hù)自身的利益,版權(quán)人通常會(huì)采用技術(shù)措施,以達(dá)到限制他人訪問、使用、控制、修改及復(fù)制軟件的目的。這些技術(shù)措施的出現(xiàn)存在兩個(gè)問題,其一,它們不能絕對(duì)實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)軟件版權(quán)的保護(hù),版權(quán)人設(shè)置的技術(shù)措施極有可能被更高新的技術(shù)所規(guī)避。其二,這些技術(shù)措施有可能妨礙公眾的合理使用權(quán),造成版權(quán)人權(quán)利濫用的局面。反技術(shù)規(guī)避制度的存在能夠合理解決這兩個(gè)問題,當(dāng)然,前提是我們擁有一部科學(xué)而健全的相關(guān)法律。 精雕公司與奈凱公司關(guān)于著作權(quán)糾紛案是我國(guó)自修改《著作權(quán)法》、明確提出“反技術(shù)規(guī)避”以來第一起以此為據(jù)的案件。由于我國(guó)版權(quán)法中并沒有對(duì)“技術(shù)措施”、“反技術(shù)規(guī)避”的定義及范圍進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的描述,故法院的判決引發(fā)了很多爭(zhēng)議。原告對(duì)軟件的輸出文件格式加密的行為屬于為保護(hù)軟件版權(quán)而采取的技術(shù)措施,但是由于其最終目的是為了實(shí)現(xiàn)與其他產(chǎn)品的捆綁銷售,故技術(shù)措施的有效性不能得到法律的認(rèn)可。通過技術(shù)上的分析,被告破解輸出文件格式的行為應(yīng)當(dāng)視為對(duì)技術(shù)措施的規(guī)避,但是由于原告的技術(shù)措施不具備法律保護(hù)意義,因此不屬于“惡意規(guī)避技術(shù)措施”的行為。被告的破解行為沒有觸及原告的法律權(quán)益,并且其目的是為了實(shí)現(xiàn)軟件的兼容,故此該行為應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于“反技術(shù)規(guī)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".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D923.41;D920.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 盧靜;劉珉曳;;我國(guó)技術(shù)措施濫用版權(quán)法規(guī)制存在的問題及完善建議[J];中國(guó)城市經(jīng)濟(jì);2010年11期

2 王遷;濫用"技術(shù)措施"的法律對(duì)策——評(píng)美國(guó)Skylink案及Static案[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年01期

3 黃武雙;李進(jìn)付;;再評(píng)北京精雕訴上海奈凱計(jì)算機(jī)軟件侵權(quán)案——兼論軟件技術(shù)保護(hù)措施與反向工程的合理緯度[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年10期

4 宋祥輝;;從微軟“黑屏”事件淺談私力救濟(jì)[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年19期

5 楊輝;馬寧;;解讀我國(guó)首例軟件捆綁銷售案[J];中國(guó)專利與商標(biāo);2007年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孫涇波;反技術(shù)規(guī)避立法對(duì)合理使用原則保護(hù)的比較研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1724400