本文選題：著作權 + 侵權損害賠償責任��； 參考：《山東大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文主要運用案例分析法、比較研究法和文獻研究法等研究方法,研究了我國與德國著作權侵權損害賠償責任制度的相似點與差異,通過比較中德兩國的制度后,發(fā)現(xiàn)兩國在著作權損害賠償原則、類推許可與合理交易費用、法院酌定賠償?shù)谋匾耘c規(guī)范方式和法院酌定賠償?shù)拇_定因素等方面存在差異,所以本文對上述差異進行了對比和闡述。通過深入了解德國相關制度后,提出德國《著作權與鄰接權法》將主觀過錯作為賠償責任前提條件的立法值得我國參考借鑒,并對侵權人有過錯應作為賠償責任的構成要件、對法院和權利人查閱侵權人賬簿及資料的權限加以限制、對懲罰性賠償數(shù)額的上限及其適用范圍作出規(guī)定和在賠償方式上明文規(guī)定"請求法院酌定"的方式等修法建議進行了論證,并參酌德國法在理論及司法實踐中的相關經(jīng)驗,系統(tǒng)的闡述了我國著作權受侵害時,損害賠償計算的實然面與應然面,以期對我國實務及立法提供一個有價值的參考依據(jù)。我國著作權侵權損害賠償理論認為,著作權法立法的最終目的是促進社會文明的進步,而非創(chuàng)作本身。現(xiàn)行《著作權法》第49條第1項因缺乏規(guī)范主觀過錯等歸責要件的條文而存在不足。我國不同學者對損害賠償請求權的認識不同,大致存在三種不同的觀點,分別是:①損害賠償請求權是一種民事權利;②損害賠償請求權是一種民事責任形式;③損害賠償請求權是一種民事法律制度。因著作權受侵害而產(chǎn)生的損害賠償請求權既具有賠償請求權的共性,又基于作品的無形性而具有非損耗性。《著作權法修訂草案(送審稿)》(以下簡稱《送審稿》)第76條區(qū)分了四種侵權損害賠償數(shù)額計算方式,即實際損害法、違法所得法、合理交易費用法和法院酌定法,其中"權利交易費用的合理倍數(shù)"是新增的計算方式,將法院酌定賠償?shù)纳舷尢岣咧烈话偃f元,并首次增加了懲罰性賠償條款。德國民法認為,侵害人的損害賠償義務是以過錯為前提的,損害賠償請求權是以存在侵害他人合法權利的違法行為為前提的。德國《著作權與鄰接權法》規(guī)定了三種損害賠償數(shù)額的計算方式,即實際損害法、違法所得法和類推許可法。根據(jù)德國法院的判決,這三種計算方式是相互排斥且不允許累積計算的,也不允許混合使用,但允許在訴訟中轉(zhuǎn)換計算方式。德國關于損害賠償?shù)挠嬎惴绞脚c我國相似,因此選擇以德國著作權法為研究對象。通過研究我國的相關規(guī)范與司法實務,并參酌德國法規(guī)與實務運作的演變,發(fā)現(xiàn)德國在著作權損害賠償中并未修法增加懲罰性賠償原則,我國承襲了大陸法系的補償性賠償原則。德國在特殊領域中考察著作的易受侵害性而開始承認預防侵害也是侵權損害賠償制度的主要功能之一,值得我國借鑒。從表面看,德國的類推許可與我國《送審稿》的合理交易費用相類似,但德國的類推許可在性質(zhì)上更接近于我國的法院酌定賠償,而德國法律中的合理交易費在性質(zhì)上相當于我國的權利人的實際損害。法院酌定賠償?shù)囊?guī)范與運作模式,使其較其他三種計算方式更利于權利人獲得賠償,并且法院酌定賠償方式是多元化的。《送審稿》相較于國家版權局之前公布的征求意見稿在總體上做了優(yōu)化,特別是較之于現(xiàn)行著作權法有較大改進。然而,《送審稿》仍然有進一步改進完善的空間。德國《著作權與鄰接權法》規(guī)定的賠償責任是以故意或過失為前提條件的,參酌德國《著作權與鄰接權法》及我國相關司法解釋和司法實務,我國著作權法修法應當將主觀過錯寫入著作權法,確認其作為賠償責任的前提和構成要件。德國《民法典》及《著作權與鄰接權法》對侵權人賬簿、資料查閱權限加以限制的規(guī)定有其合理之處,故我國在《送審稿》第76條也可考慮加入必要的限制性條文。法院酌定賠償是我國借鑒英美法的基礎上制定的,我國和美國的法定賠償金額相差不多,然而與美國所規(guī)定的法定賠償金額相接近是否適合我國國情值得商榷。在社會各界對適用懲罰性賠償還未形成共識前,懲罰性賠償金額仍應堅持設置上限的做法。在法院酌定賠償案件中,法院已經(jīng)將侵權行為的性質(zhì)、侵害人過錯程度等作為考察因素,明顯具有懲罰性質(zhì),為避免法院酌定賠償適用二到三倍的懲罰性賠償后導致重復懲罰,故建議將懲罰性賠償條文放在賬簿、資料查閱權條文的后面�！端蛯徃濉吩谫r償方式上應明文規(guī)定"請求法院酌定"的方式,同時賦予侵害人舉反證推翻的權利,以避免產(chǎn)生不合理的損害賠償計算結果。
[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.

【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.41;D951.6;DD913

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 胡宜奎;;公司對敗訴股東的損害賠償請求權[J];南京財經(jīng)大學學報;2012年01期

2 劉傳山;論胎兒的損害賠償請求權[J];甘肅政法成人教育學院學報;2002年02期

3 楊海涌;論損害賠償請求權——由黑龍江王君索賠一案引發(fā)的思考[J];株洲工學院學報;2002年S1期

4 楊海涌;關于損害賠償請求權的法律思考[J];邵陽學院學報;2004年02期

5 曾青;胎兒損害賠償請求權相關法律問題探討[J];西南民族大學學報(人文社科版);2005年04期

6 左平良,鄭石榮;論胎兒的損害賠償請求權[J];南華大學學報(社會科學版);2005年03期

7 戎魏魏;;論從屬公司的損害賠償請求權[J];重慶工商大學學報(社會科學版);2006年04期

8 陳向軍;鄔文俊;;論因侵害生命權而產(chǎn)生的損害賠償請求權之理論基礎[J];湖北師范學院學報(哲學社會科學版);2007年01期

9 陳煜;;生命損害賠償請求權基礎的再探究[J];安徽大學法律評論;2007年01期

10 張文勝;;胎兒損害賠償請求權基礎之考察[J];滁州學院學報;2008年06期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 徐麗芳;;論法人的精神損害賠償請求權[A];當代法學論壇（2008年第4輯）[C];2008年

相關重要報紙文章 前10條

1 馮玉璋;人身損害賠償請求權不得轉(zhuǎn)讓[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2009年

2 栗嘉寶;關于胎兒損害賠償請求權的探討[N];法制日報;2013年

3 陽賢文;損害賠償請求權的法理依據(jù)[N];人民法院報;2005年

4 秦曉東;精神損害賠償請求權能繼承嗎[N];人民法院報;2004年

5 胡坤;刑事被害人精神損害賠償請求權探析[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2012年

6 韋標昌;離婚損害賠償請求權中的主體與時效[N];廣西政法報;2002年

7 潘昌奎 吳育瑞;錦屏檢方督促起訴挽回國家損失11萬[N];法制生活報;2010年

8 劉俊海 中國人民大學商法研究所所長 中國消費者協(xié)會副會長;夯實保護消費者法律基石[N];經(jīng)濟日報;2014年

9 高嶺;違約責任還是侵權責任[N];證券時報;2003年

10 記者 陳郁;讓消費維權底氣更足[N];經(jīng)濟日報;2014年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 汪洋;論精神損害賠償請求權的法律構建[D];上海大學;2015年

2 萬星宇;論配偶性利益損害賠償請求權[D];廣西大學;2015年

3 陳麗婧;論損益相抵之適用[D];華東政法大學;2015年

4 禚洪娟;論旅游者的時間浪費損害賠償請求權[D];揚州大學;2015年

5 呂倩西;胎兒權益損害賠償法律問題研究[D];西南大學;2016年

6 李穎;論工傷保險賠償請求權與人身損害賠償請求權競合及其法律適用[D];廣西師范大學;2015年

7 趙龍;中德著作權侵權損害賠償責任制度比較研究[D];山東大學;2017年

8 張萬明;論胎兒損害賠償請求權的法律保護[D];蘭州大學;2009年

9 許卓訓;海上運輸貨物損害賠償請求權研究[D];上海海事大學;2006年

10 劉峭;錯誤出生損害賠償請求權研究[D];遼寧大學;2013年

，

本文編號：1831055