“异体复制”的定性与复制权规定的完善——以我国《著作权法》第三次修改为契机

在现行《著作权法》中,异体复制是否属于"复制"规定不明,理论与实务也均存在分歧。基于解释论的立场,通过对《著作权》第10条第5项依循文义、体系和目的三种解释进路,可以得出异体复制属于"复制"的结论。基于立法论的立场,有必要将复制权的定义修改为"以任何方式或者采用任何形式将作品固定在有形载体上的权利",以使其涵盖异体复制行为,并达到国际公约的要求,促进我国文化产业的发展。     

Is linking communicating?

File-sharing sites such as the Pirate Bay which provide an index of searchable bit torrent files or some type of list or catalogue of links to massively copyright infringing content (whether for streaming or downloading) have raised the question whether the providers of these links are infringing the “communication to the public” right. In these cases there are two potential infringers 1) the person who has uploaded the work without the authorisation of the copyright owner (and the uploading is likely to infringe the reproduction right) and 2) the person who sets the link to the uploaded work. This article is concerned with the liability of the person setting the link.     

Software-as-a-service – Legal nature: Shifting the existing paradigm of copyright law

Today's business environment is no longer defined exclusively by bricks and mortar. Business models of software distribution are constantly evolving as new technologies develop. Traditional retail versions of software products are mostly replaced with digital distribution of copies of software products. However, these ways of software distribution are by no means exhaustive. Functionality of software is not necessarily tied with provision of the copy of the relevant program to the user. Instead he can receive access to it via the Internet without the need to install software onto his computer. This type of business model received the name “Software-as-a-Service” (SaaS) or, sometimes “Cloud Computing”. The legal nature of relations arising between the user and provider of distant access to such software is subject to considerable debate in Russia. The main problem is that at first glance it resembles the features of various types of contracts, recognized in the Civil Code of Russia, although not falling completely within any of them. At the same time the type of agreement chosen by the parties defines the legal framework, which governs relevant relations and relevant tax consequences. This article aims to analyze the nature of existing relations between the user and SaaS-provider and to define whether it can be characterized as a license, service, lease or some kind of sui generis contract. Based on the analysis the author comes to a conclusion that as delivery of copies of software becomes less and less relevant for the software industry, due to the new business models implemented by vendors, the rights to use the particular copy of software around which the traditional copyright regime has been built, become more and more superseded with the right to access such software. Thus traditional contractual models developed for IP distribution (license agreements, assignment agreements) and, more generally, the legal framework of existing copyright law that is centered on the core idea of the “use” of the copy, are no longer adequate regulators in the digital era where remote access to objects of copyright will soon start to dominate.     

Decipher the Overseas Success of “Decoded”

正EARLY in 2014,the Chinese spy thriller,which the New York Times Book Review declared"truly is a page turner,"captured the international book market.Published in 21 countries,including Britain and the U.S.,Decoded,the English translation of Mai Jia’s Jie Mi,broke international records for Chinese authored works,and made 17th ranking in the Amazon list of U.S.fiction best-sellers.The shot of Mai Jia,chin cupped in hand beaming a piercing bespectacled gaze,is now a staple item in     

台湾作者在大陆行使著作权的新思考——由叶佳修状告东莞KTV经营者系列案件谈起

随着两岸经济文化交流的深入,两岸之间的著作权纠纷也日渐增多。台湾著名的词曲作者叶佳修在东莞对多家KTV经营者提起著作权侵权诉讼,在这一系列案件中,台湾作者在大陆著作权的行使依据、行使范围以及其与中国著作权集体管理组织之间的权力行使划分都成为案件争议的焦点。本文以该系列案件为引,展开对台湾作者在大陆行使著作权的新思考,从而明确台湾作者在大陆行使著作权的依据、范围和权限限制。     

Are Internet protocol addresses personal data? The fight against online copyright infringement

Internet Protocol addresses [IP addresses] are central for Internet electronic communications. They individualize computers and their users to make the delivery of data packets possible. IP addresses are also often used to identify websurfers for litigation purposes. In particular, they constitute a key in the fight against online copyright infringement to identify infringers. However, it is a matter of dispute to know if IP addresses are personal data. In a review of relevant case law, the present paper seeks to identify when IP addresses are - or should be - considered as personal data. It suggests a contextual approach to the concept of personal data.