本文選題：數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利 + 財產(chǎn)權(quán)　； 參考：《復旦大學》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文所談的數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利是指在財產(chǎn)權(quán)視野下對數(shù)據(jù)的控制權(quán)和使用權(quán)。就財產(chǎn)權(quán)視角而言,數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利并非是一種不言自明、與生俱來的權(quán)利。在信息社會,由于有價值的數(shù)據(jù)與主體和載體分離,獨立存在且無須通過有形的載體即可傳輸；數(shù)據(jù)本身直接成為了交易的標的物進行單獨交換,這些特性使得數(shù)據(jù)區(qū)別于信息、數(shù)據(jù)庫等凸現(xiàn)出獨立的使用價值和交換價值。但受到勞動價值論等傳統(tǒng)觀念的束縛,現(xiàn)有法律中無形物的權(quán)利保護以創(chuàng)新性為首要判定標準,以投資和勞動投入作為輔助判定標準,這使得數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利無法得到應有的保護。立法機關變通的做法：一是通過人為擴大專利法保護范圍的方式,把數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利升格為知識產(chǎn)權(quán),強行賦予其創(chuàng)新性。二是通過確認信息權(quán)利或數(shù)據(jù)庫權(quán)利代替數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利。三是作為個案通過合同法、侵權(quán)法等進行個別調(diào)整。以上模式均不利于獨立的數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利保護。隨著大數(shù)據(jù)、云計算、物聯(lián)網(wǎng)等新技術運用,法律在數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利保護上的滯后現(xiàn)象表現(xiàn)為3個方面：一是對大數(shù)據(jù)收集行業(yè)擁有的數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利(特別是金融交易數(shù)據(jù)、物聯(lián)網(wǎng)零售數(shù)據(jù)、網(wǎng)絡用戶使用痕跡數(shù)據(jù)等的控制權(quán)和使用權(quán))沒有界定。二是對數(shù)據(jù)應用業(yè)的數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利(特別是代表創(chuàng)新方向的創(chuàng)客企業(yè)或個人開展產(chǎn)品設計時使用數(shù)據(jù)的權(quán)利)沒有界定。三是對數(shù)據(jù)的專屬權(quán)利和非專屬權(quán)利沒有界定。建立數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利保護制度已成為了一種社會需求。 建立適應信息社會特點的數(shù)據(jù)控制權(quán)和使用權(quán)制度的目標,是兼顧實現(xiàn)整體經(jīng)濟社會的公平和高效。產(chǎn)權(quán)經(jīng)濟學認為,數(shù)據(jù)同時具有非排他性和非強制性,應當屬于公共資源。但“開放數(shù)據(jù)運動”的實踐證明,將數(shù)據(jù)置于公共領域帶來了不公平和低效率,出現(xiàn)了侵犯隱私權(quán)、剝削勞動力、數(shù)據(jù)質(zhì)量下降、封閉使用造成浪費等情況。對此,筆者在分析現(xiàn)有的物權(quán)、債權(quán)、權(quán)利憑證、知識產(chǎn)權(quán)和新型權(quán)利模式對數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利借鑒意義的基礎上,探討建立一種以有限壟斷(優(yōu)先使用)為前提,推動數(shù)據(jù)公開的激勵機制和權(quán)利模式,達到避免數(shù)據(jù)被壟斷、數(shù)據(jù)被閑置、數(shù)據(jù)權(quán)利主張侵犯其他專屬權(quán)的目的,實現(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)控制權(quán)與使用權(quán)的平衡。
[Abstract]:The data right in this paper refers to the right to control and use the data under the view of property right.From the perspective of property rights, data rights are not a self-evident, inherent right.In the information society, because valuable data is separated from the subject and carrier, it exists independently and can be transmitted without physical carrier; the data itself becomes the subject matter of the transaction and is exchanged separately.These characteristics make data distinct from information, database and so on, showing independent use value and exchange value.However, under the restraint of traditional concepts such as labor value theory, the right protection of intangible things in the existing law takes innovation as the primary criterion, and investment and labor input as auxiliary criteria, which makes the data rights unable to be protected properly.The legislative organ's alternative approach: first, by artificially expanding the scope of patent law protection, the data rights are upgraded to intellectual property rights, and they are endowed with innovation by force.The second is to confirm the right to information or database rights instead of data rights.Third, as a case through contract law, tort law and other individual adjustments.The above model is not conducive to independent data rights protection.With the use of new technologies such as big data, cloud computing and the Internet of things, the lag in the protection of data rights by law is manifested in three aspects: the first is the data rights (especially financial transaction data) held by big data in the collection industry.Internet of things retail data, network users use trace data and other rights of control and use) is not defined.Second, the data rights of data application industry (especially the right of creative enterprises or individuals to use data in product design) are not defined.Third, there is no definition of exclusive right and non-exclusive right of data.The establishment of data rights protection system has become a social demand.The goal of establishing the system of data control and right to use in accordance with the characteristics of the information society is to realize the fairness and efficiency of the whole economy and society.According to the economics of property rights, data is both non-exclusive and non-mandatory and should belong to public resources.But the practice of the "Open data Movement" has proved that putting data in the public domain has brought about inequity and inefficiency, such as violation of privacy, exploitation of labor force, deterioration of data quality, waste caused by closed use and so on.On the basis of analyzing the significance of the existing real right, creditor's rights, documents of rights, intellectual property rights and new right models to the data rights, the author discusses the establishment of a limited monopoly (preferential use) as the premise.In order to avoid the monopoly of data, the idle data and the infringement of other exclusive rights, the data right can be balanced between the right of control and the right of use.
【學位授予單位】：復旦大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前3條

1 歐陽萍萍;;許可合同中知識產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷法規(guī)制問題[J];成都大學學報(教育科學版);2007年01期

2 韓元牧;吳莉娟;;SaaS法律問題研究[J];網(wǎng)絡法律評論;2009年00期

3 沈偉偉;;P2P技術下網(wǎng)絡版權(quán)許可模式初探[J];網(wǎng)絡法律評論;2009年00期

，

本文編號：1760275