期刊文献+

论数字权利管理的本质及其两面性——“技术措施=电子锁”国内通说及其立法实践反思 被引量:5

On the Essence of Digital Rights Management and Its Dual Character—Introspecting Domestic Legislation Practice“Technical Measures=Electronic Lock”
下载PDF
导出
摘要 国内通说认为,数字权利管理是一种电子锁。新《信息网络传播权保护条例》关于技术措施的规范体系就是该通说的制度实践形态。但是,从数字权利管理的立法史与数字出版产业发展的新趋势看,通说有失偏颇。数字权利管理不仅是电子锁,也是数字作品交易控制器。这一本质决定了数字权利管理具有两面性。数字权利管理的规范体系建构应该放弃单纯以侵权制度为中心的传统做法。 Digital rights management is a kind of electric lock according to the domestic general opinion. Regulations of technological measures in the new Regulation on Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information are legislative practice of the general opinion. But the general opinion is opposed to the history of legislations on digital rights management, and also does not accord with the new trends of the development of digital publish industry. In our view, digital rights management is a kind of system of copyright enforcement which is composed of different kinds of technological protection measures and whose functions are both controlling transactions of digital works and preventing infi-ingements of copyrights. Because it has such a essence, it has both advantages and disadvantages.
作者 陈庆 周安平
出处 《知识产权》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第6期45-49,共5页 Intellectual Property
关键词 数字权利管理 著作权法 技术措施 数字出版 digital rights management copyright law technological measures digital publish
  • 相关文献

参考文献13

  • 1王迁.版权法保护技术措施的正当性[J].法学研究,2011,33(4):86-103. 被引量:66
  • 2梁志文.技术措施界定的比较与评价[J].知识产权,2003,13(2):11-14. 被引量:17
  • 3Joan Van Tassel, Digital Rights Management: Protecting and Monetizing Content (Oxford: Elsevier Inc., 2006): 15.
  • 4Graig Allen Nard, David W. Barnes & Michael J. Madison, The Law of Intellectual Property (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2008): 503.
  • 5Merges, Peter S. Menell & Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010): 666-673.
  • 6Record Rental Amendment of 1985 (codified at § 109(b)).
  • 7Computer Software Rental Amendments of 1990 (codified at § 109(b)).
  • 8Audio Home Recording Rights Act of 1992 (codified at 17 U.S.C.§§ 1001-10).
  • 9Cahn v. Sony Corp. 90 Civ.4537 (S. D. N. Y. July 9, 1990).
  • 10Merges, Peter S. Menell & Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010): 668.

二级参考文献86

  • 1《信息网络传播权保护条例》第12条.
  • 2In House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Review of technological protection measures exceptions (2006) p. 13.
  • 3Microsoft Corp. v. Silver StarMicro, Inc. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1526.
  • 4上海市浦东新区人民法院民事判决书(2008)浦民三(知)初字第453号.
  • 5MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25424, at 48.
  • 6《联通关于限制iPhone机卡分离公告》,http://news. xinhuanet, com/digi/2010 11/29/c_12826656. htm, 2010年12月1日访问.
  • 7See Library of Congress, Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 71 FR 68472-01, at 68476.
  • 8See 17USC 1201(a) (1) (C).
  • 9Dale Clapperton, Stephen Corones, Locking in Customers, Locking Out Competitors: Anti-Circumvention Laws in Australia and their Potential Effect on Competition in High Technology Markets, 30 Melbourne University Law Review 657, 690 (2006).
  • 10See Australia Copyright Act (revised in 2007), 10(1), Access control technological protection measure (c).

共引文献79

同被引文献96

引证文献5

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部