从Aereo案看我国表演权与广播权的界分

The Research on the Distinction between Performance Rights and Broadcasting Rights in China in light of the Aereo Case

2020年著作权法的修订依然未能解决我国表演权与广播权界线不清的问题,由此引发了对我国著作权保护模式选择及权利区分的激烈争论。美国联邦最高法院对Aereo案所作的判决为解决我国表演权和广播权立法模式选择的争论提供了新视角。通过对中美两国著作权保护模式的比较,本文指出现阶段坚持广播权与表演权的分立仍是我国应对技术冲击的最优选择。在此基础上,本文通过对《伯尔尼公约》中两权的发展历程进行溯源,明确广播权是对作品“远程传播”行为的规制,而利用各种设备或手段公开播送经无线或有线初始传播的广播作品则属于对作品在“表演发生地”的第二次传播,应作为普通表演权的特别规定,归属于表演权的规制范畴。

The revision of the Copyright Law in 2020 still failed to solve the problem of unclear boundary between performance rights and broadcasting rights in China,which triggered a heated debate on the choice of the mode of copyright protection and the distinction of rights in China.The decision on the Aereo case by the U.S.Supreme Court provides a new perspective for resolving the dispute on the choice of legislative model for performance rights and broadcasting rights in China.On the basis of the comparison of the copyright protection models in China and the United States,this paper points out that the separation of performance rights from broadcasting rights,at the current stage,is still the optimal choice in response to technology shock in China.On this basis,this paper examines the development of performance rights and broadcasting rights in the Berne Convention.And a conclusion was drawn that the provision on broadcasting rights regulates the behavior of“long-distance communication”of works,while the behavior of publicly transmitting broadcast works transmitted initially by radio or cable with various devices or means,is the second transmission of the works“in the place where the performance takes place”,and should be regulated under a special provision of the general performance rights.