累积犯视域下网络版权犯罪的入罪标准

The criminalizing criteria of network copyright infringementin accumulative offences field

受网络版权侵权严重化与不同限缩入罪范围方法的影响,网络版权犯罪的入罪标准正处于扩张与限缩的张力之间。为防止迎合社会对“安全”的单纯想象而选择盲目扩张入罪标准,保留一种合理的限缩方法是妥当的。但学界通常依据法秩序统一性原理进行限缩的做法难以发挥实效。因为这一理论仅能够消极地通过前置法规定排除刑法处罚范围中不构成民事违法的行为,却无法揭示刑事处罚的上限。相反,累积犯理论与网络版权犯罪十分契合,为明确网络版权犯罪的入罪标准提供了理论支持。具体而言,累积犯理论中的“阈值”概念可以引导刑法将打击范围限定为恶意违法行为,以区别于合理的市场自我调节行为,从而贯彻谦抑性原则。“真实的累积效应”概念可以引导刑法去判断违法行为是否具有现实的普遍化趋势。根据累积犯理论的启示,《刑法》应当保留“以营利为目的”以论证“真实的累积效应”的存在;因非交互式传播行为在事实上缺乏普遍扩张的趋势,所以信息网络传播行为不应当包含非交互式传播行为。同时,帮助规避行为具有普遍效仿的现实性,而破坏技术措施行为既包括直接规避行为也包括帮助规避行为。但是,由于这种普遍效仿的程度要低于复制发行和信息网络传播行为,因此,应当为破坏技术措施行为设置比复制发行和信息网络传播行为更高的入罪标准。

Under the impact of the intensifying network copyright infringement and varying methods to narrow the criminalizing criteria,the threshold for criminal liability in network copyright crimes is caught between pressures for expansion and restriction.To prevent blindly expanding these criteria solely to cater to society’s simplistic perception of“security”,it is appropriate to maintain a reasonable approach to restriction.However,the academic community’s conventional application of the principle of legal order unity as a means of limitation has proven ineffective.This is because the theory can only negatively exclude acts from criminal punishment through prior legal provisions if they do not constitute civil violations,without revealing an upper limit for criminal sanctions.On the contrary the accumulative offence theory aligns well with network copyright infringement,providing theoretical backing to clarify the criminalizing criteria for such crimes.Specifically,the concept of a“threshold”within the accumulative offence theory guides the Criminal Law to target maliciously unlawful conduct,distinguishing it from reasonable market self-regulation,thus upholding the principle of restraint.The notion of“real cumulative effect”helps guide the Criminal Law in assessing whether illegal acts have a realistic potential for widespread occurrence.Guided by the accumulative offence theory,the Criminal Law should retain the“profit purpose”provision to substantiate the existence of“real cumulative effect”.Given the lack of a pervasive expansion trend in reality,dissemination of information over networks should not encompass non-interactive forms of distribution.Since aiding circumvention behavior is indeed prone to widespread imitation,acts of undermining technological measures involve both direct circumvention and aiding circumvention.However,since the extent of such imitation is lower than that of reproduction,distribution,and dissemination of information over networks,a higher criminalizing standard should be set for acts undermining technological measures compared to these latter activities.