期刊文献+

知识产权保护与科技创新的悖论——P2P文件共享软件案和索尼案评析

原文传递
导出
摘要 目次一、问题的提出二、P2P软件案相关背景:索尼案及规则三、P2P软件案四、索尼规则与积极诱导规则解读五、P2P软件案判决的影响六、P2P案引发的问题评析七、版权法的精髓透视八、余论:数字化时代的感悟一、问题的提出米高梅(MGM)公司诉格罗克斯特(Grokster)有限公司案(Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios,Inc.,et al.v.Grokster,Ltd.,etal.)(以下简称P2P软件案)是由美国最高法院(以下简称高院)
出处 《经济法论丛》 2007年第1期272-307,共36页 Economic Law Review
基金 郑友德主持的国家自然科学基金项目(批准号70573039)的阶段性研究成果
  • 相关文献

参考文献10

  • 1王迁.P2P软件提供者的帮助侵权责任——美国最高法院Grokster案判决评析[J].电子知识产权,2005(9):52-56. 被引量:25
  • 2Michael O’Hare.Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity[J].Journal of Cultural Economics.2005(2)
  • 3.RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services,Inc[].F d (DC Cir ) cert denied S Ct.
  • 4.
  • 5Margo E.K. Reder.P2P File-Sharing:What the Supreme Court Has an Opportunity to Consider[].BC Intell Prop & Tech F.
  • 6.Piracy of Intellectual Property on Peer-to-Peer Networks,Hearing Before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts,the Internet and Intellectual Property[]..2002
  • 7Margo E. K. Reder.P2P File-Sharing:What the Supreme Court Has an Opportunity to Consider[].B C Intell Prop & Tech F.
  • 8Elizabeth Miles.In re Aimster & MGM,Inc. v. Grokster,Ltd.:Peer-to-Peer and the Sony Doctrine[].Berkeley Tech LJ.2004
  • 9.Brief in Opposition of a Writ of Certiorari at 28-29,MGM v. Grokster[].F d (th Cir) cert granted U S L W (U S Dec )(No-).
  • 10.“about DRM”[]..

二级参考文献12

  • 1王迁.P2P软件最终用户版权侵权问题研究[J].知识产权,2004,14(5):9-13. 被引量:36
  • 2王迁.新型P2P技术对传统版权间接侵权责任理论的挑战——Grokster案评述[J].电子知识产权,2004(11):30-33. 被引量:9
  • 3王迁.“索尼案”二十年祭——回顾、反思与启示[J].科技与法律,2004(4):59-68. 被引量:57
  • 4Sony Corporation of America et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc,. et al. 464 U.S. 417 at 431 (1984).at 89.
  • 5Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, S.2560, 108th Congress (June 22, 2004).
  • 6Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights,Hearing on S.2560, the International Inducement of Copyright Infringements Act of 2004, Committee on the Judiciary(Senate, July 22, 2004).
  • 7Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., Petitioners v. Grokster, Ltd., 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5212, at 36-37.at 36, 48.at 38.at 18-21.at 21-22.at 45.at 22-23, 45.at 23, 46.at 18.at 42, 47.at 46, n12.
  • 8Amicus Curiae, U.S Internet Service Provider Association, p.6,RIAA v.Verizon, 240. F. Supp.2d 24, at 31.
  • 9David Nimmer,Nimmer on Copyright,Matthew Bender & Company, Inc Chapter 12.04 [A] [2], Chapter 13(2003).
  • 10A&M Records, Inc v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 at.1022(9th Cir. 2001).at.1023.

共引文献24

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部