著作权的正当性理论主要包括自然权利说和工具主义说。自然权利说认为著作权源于创作者的劳动权利,但未能有效解释著作权的地域性和期限性问题。工具主义说则以激励创作和社会利益为基础,但在实践中激励效果的证据不足,经济利益分配不均...著作权的正当性理论主要包括自然权利说和工具主义说。自然权利说认为著作权源于创作者的劳动权利,但未能有效解释著作权的地域性和期限性问题。工具主义说则以激励创作和社会利益为基础,但在实践中激励效果的证据不足,经济利益分配不均,且著作权可能无法实现预期的社会公共利益。这些理论上的不足在实际操作中表现为著作权制度的局限性。从历史视角来看,著作权法的制定和发展常受出版商利益的影响,初期的版权保护多服务于出版商的垄断利益。尽管现代著作权法注重保护作者权益,但实际中,作者的利益仍然被出版商主导。为改进著作权制度,建议减少道德化表述,避免将著作权仅视为保护创作者的道德义务,而忽视其经济垄断性质。同时,应更加关注实际效果,确保著作权制度能够有效激励创作,减少理论与现实之间的脱节。The legitimacy theories of copyright primarily include the natural rights theory and the instrumentalism theory. The natural rights theory posits that copyright originates from the creator’s labor rights but fails to effectively address the issues of territoriality and duration. On the other hand, the instrumentalism theory is based on incentivizing creation and serving social interests, but in practice, there is insufficient evidence of its incentivizing effects, unequal distribution of economic benefits, and the potential failure of copyright to achieve the anticipated public social benefits. These theoretical shortcomings reflect the limitations of the copyright system in practical application. From a historical perspective, the formulation and development of copy- right law have often been influenced by the interests of publishers, with early copyright protection largely serving the monopolistic interests of publishers. Although modern copyright law focuses on protecting author rights, in practice, authors’ interests are still dominated by publishers. To improve the copyright system, it is suggested to reduce moralistic expressions, avoiding viewing copyright solely as a moral duty to protect creators, and instead, recognizing its economic monopolistic nature. At the same time, greater attention should be paid to practical effects to ensure that the copyright system effectively incentivizes creation and reduces the gap between theory and reality.展开更多
文摘著作权的正当性理论主要包括自然权利说和工具主义说。自然权利说认为著作权源于创作者的劳动权利,但未能有效解释著作权的地域性和期限性问题。工具主义说则以激励创作和社会利益为基础,但在实践中激励效果的证据不足,经济利益分配不均,且著作权可能无法实现预期的社会公共利益。这些理论上的不足在实际操作中表现为著作权制度的局限性。从历史视角来看,著作权法的制定和发展常受出版商利益的影响,初期的版权保护多服务于出版商的垄断利益。尽管现代著作权法注重保护作者权益,但实际中,作者的利益仍然被出版商主导。为改进著作权制度,建议减少道德化表述,避免将著作权仅视为保护创作者的道德义务,而忽视其经济垄断性质。同时,应更加关注实际效果,确保著作权制度能够有效激励创作,减少理论与现实之间的脱节。The legitimacy theories of copyright primarily include the natural rights theory and the instrumentalism theory. The natural rights theory posits that copyright originates from the creator’s labor rights but fails to effectively address the issues of territoriality and duration. On the other hand, the instrumentalism theory is based on incentivizing creation and serving social interests, but in practice, there is insufficient evidence of its incentivizing effects, unequal distribution of economic benefits, and the potential failure of copyright to achieve the anticipated public social benefits. These theoretical shortcomings reflect the limitations of the copyright system in practical application. From a historical perspective, the formulation and development of copy- right law have often been influenced by the interests of publishers, with early copyright protection largely serving the monopolistic interests of publishers. Although modern copyright law focuses on protecting author rights, in practice, authors’ interests are still dominated by publishers. To improve the copyright system, it is suggested to reduce moralistic expressions, avoiding viewing copyright solely as a moral duty to protect creators, and instead, recognizing its economic monopolistic nature. At the same time, greater attention should be paid to practical effects to ensure that the copyright system effectively incentivizes creation and reduces the gap between theory and reality.
