再论网络中设链行为的法律定性——兼与崔国斌先生商榷

A Re-Examination of the Legal Nature of Hyperlink-Setting in Internet:And Discuss with Mr.Cui Guobin

根据"实质呈现标准",有学者将交互式传播行为区分为"作品提供"和"作品展示"行为,设链行为可能侵犯版权人的"作品展示权"。这一观点未能明确"作品提供权"(信息网络传播权)与"作品展示权"之间的关系,因此存在问题:如果两者属于同一权利,在用户看来无论是设链网站还是被链网站都实施了交互式传播行为,设链网站与被链网站不存在差异,此时的"实质呈现标准"无异于"用户感知标准";如果两者不属于同一权利,那么交互式传播行为既受"作品提供权"控制又受"作品展示权"控制,显然不符合逻辑。根据公开传播权理论,设链网站提供的是作品的网络地址,而非作品本身,所以设链行为并非网络传播行为。将破坏技术措施的设链行为认定为不正当竞争行为,不会影响版权人获得行政、民事救济。

According to the ＂substantial display standard＂,interactive communication process is divided into two separate actions：＂making available（works）＂ and ＂display to the public（works）＂,as argued by some scholars; whereby anyone who,other than the copyright holder,supplies a hyperlink to the work on his website infringes the public display right.However,this argument fails to clarify the relationship between the concept of ＂making available＂ and the concept of ＂display to the public＂,so there are problems with this viewpoint.If the two separate actions are of one single right,both the hyperlink-setting websites and the hyper-linked websites would perform interactive communication behavior,and there is no difference between the two websites in the eyes of users; in such a case,the ＂substantial display standard＂ is equal to ＂user＇s perception standard＂; If the two actions are of different rights,an illogical result will be draw upon,as the one single interactive communication behavior would be controlled by both ＂public display right＂ and ＂making available right＂,while both rights are exclusive rights.According to the theory of right of public communication,what is provided by the hyperlinksetting websites is the IP address rather than the work itself,therefore the hyperlink-setting behavior is not the behavior of communicate through the internet.To hold the TPMs circumventing hyperlink-setting behavior as unfair competition will not interfere with the copyright owner＇s interests in obtaining administrative and civil remedies.