美国禁止规避技术措施例外制度评析(一)——移动通信设备越狱立法例考察被引量：1

On American Anti-circumvention of Technological Protection Measures Exemption System 1——A Survey of the Jail-breaking in Portable All-Purpose Mobile Devices

下载PDF

导出

摘要技术措施能够保护版权,同时也被版权人用来实现垄断、下游控制和价格歧视,客观上影响到用户的选择权、使用权和隐私权。2010年美国国会图书馆首次将手机越狱确定为禁止规避技术措施的例外,并在2015年扩展到移动通信设备越狱。关于该例外的博弈主要围绕美国国会图书馆的权限、是否构成合理使用以及如何界定移动通信设备等问题展开。移动通信设备越狱例外的确立及其规则的细化顺应了社会发展需求,但规则对规避主体和规避对象的界定不太明确,需要细化和明确。 Technological measures,which protecting copyright and being used by owners of copyrights to achieve monopoly,down-stream control and price discrimination,affect users＇ right of selection,use and privacy. In 2010,Library of Congress（LC）listed mobile phone jail-breaking as one of the exemptions,and extended the exemption to all mobile devices in 2015. The exemption involves the issues concerning the rights of LC,how to judge a fair use,how to define a mobile computing device,etc. The exemption and its rules adapt to social development,but fail to define the circumvention subjects and objects,thus needing further clarification.

作者覃斌武刘聪

机构地区湘潭大学法学院知识产权学院

出处《图书馆论坛》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第6期10-18,共9页 Library Tribune

基金国家社科基金重点项目"云计算知识产权问题与对策研究"(项目编号:11AZD113)研究成果之一

关键词禁止规避技术措施移动通信设备越狱合理使用国会图书馆例外制度 access control measures mobile device jailbreak fair use Library of Congress exemption system

分类号 D971.2 [政治法律—法学] DD913 [政治法律]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献10

1EFF. Petition of Electronic Frontier Foundation[EB/OL [2016-04-25]. http ://copyright.gov/1201/2014/pe- titions/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation 2 1201_Initial_ Submission_2014.pdf.
2Maneesh Pangasa. Petition for Proposed Exemption under 17 USC ξ 1201[EB/OL], [2016-04-25]. http://copyright. gov/1201 / 2014 / petitions / Pangasa Maneesh _ 1201 _lnitial_Submission_2014.pdf.
3Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc.[Z] 381 F. 3d 1178, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (predicating DMCA liability on a "nexus" to an act of infringement).
4MDY Indus. v. Blizzard Entrn't, Inc.[Z] 629 F.3d 928, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2010).
5TracFone Wireless Inc. v. Zip Wireless Products Inc. [Z] 716 F.Supp.2d 1275(2010).
6TracFone Wireless Inc. v. Dixon[Z] 475 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (2006).
7Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Carangi et al[Z] Case No.: 2: 12-cv-06473 (E.D. Pennsylvania 2013).
8Sprint Solutions, Inc. v. Simsir et al[Z] Case No.: 3: 13-cv 04271 (N.D. Texas2013).
9T-mobile USA, Inc. v. AU Electronics, Inc. et al[Z]. CaseNo.: 1:12 cv-10046(N.D.Illinois2014).
10王迁.论提供规避技术措施手段的法律性质[J].法学,2014(10):31-45. 被引量：14

二级参考文献49

1祝建军,冯刚.互联网电视机传播侵权影视作品的责任认定[J].人民司法,2012(8):46-49. 被引量：2
2郭禾.《规避技术措施行为的法律属性辨析》,载沈仁干主编.《数字技术与著作权--观念、规范与实例》,法律出版社,2004年版,第45-60页.
3See RealNetworks v. DVD Copy Control Association,6glF. Supp. 2d 913,942( N. D. Cal. 2009).
4See Pamela Samuelson, Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy:Why the Anti - Circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised, 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 519,1999, pp. 523 - 533.
5昊汉东主编.《知识产权法学》第5版,北京大学出版社,2011年版,第123页.
6See New Zealand Copyright Act,226A ( 1 ) (2) (3).
7See the Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Technologies,381 F. 3d 1178,1195( Fed. Cir. 2004).
8See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America,480 F. Supp. 429 ( CD Cal. 1977 ) ,435 - 436.
9See Sony Corporation of America et al. v. Universal City Studios,Inc. et al. ,464 U. S. 417(1984).
10See Sony Corporation of America et al. v. Universal City Studios,Inc. et al. ,464 U. S. 417(1984).第442页.