IPTV限时回看服务的法律定性及其纠纷解决路径

Legal Nature of IPTV Time-Limited Review Service and Its Dispute Resolution Path

IPTV限时回看著作权纠纷的根源在于没有清晰地界定IPTV限时回看服务所属权利。在IPTV限时回看服务的法律定性上,根据《著作权法》相关条款修改的目的解释,非交互式传播归广播权负责,交互式传播归信息网络传播权负责,具备交互式特征的IPTV限时回看服务落入信息网络传播权的范围。另外,未经许可提供IPTV限时回看服务为商业性行为,与原权利人权利的正常使用相冲突,而且降低了著作权人信息网络传播权的许可费,不合理地损害了原权利人的正当利益。因此,未经许可提供IPTV限时回看服务会产生实质性的消极社会后果,不应被纳入广播权的二次使用范畴。IPTV限时回看服务的纠纷解决存在三种路径:《著作权法》修改、司法解释、完善行业规范。相比前两种的硬法路径,第三种的软法路径既具有权利界定的实际效力,又具备灵活性高、反弹小、交易成本低的优势,应该成为优选路径。

Disputes about IPTV time-limited review copyright are rooted in the fact that the right that IPTV time-limited review service belongs to is not clearly defined.In terms of the legal nature of IPTV time-limited review service,according to the purpose of amending the relevant provisions of the copyright law,non-interactive communication enjoys the right to broadcast while interactive communication enjoys the right to communicate the works to the public over information networks.IPTV time-limited review service with interactive characteristics falls into the scope of the right to communicate the works to the public over information networks.In addition,providing IPTV time-limited review service without permission is a commercial behavior,which conflicts with the normal use of the rights that the original right owners have,and unreasonably damages the legitimate interests of the original copyright owners since it reduces their license fee.Therefore,providing IPTV time-limited review service without permission will lead to substantial negative social consequences and should not be included in the scope of secondary use of the right to broadcast.There are three paths to solve the disputes about IPTV time-limited review service:revision of the Copyright Law,judicial interpretation,and improvement of industry norms.Compared with the first two hard paths,the third soft path,which not only produces the actual effect of defining rights,but also has the advantages of high flexibility,small rebound,and low transaction cost,should be preferred.