【作者】 江波；

【导师】 彭诚信；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 民商法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 虚拟财产的法律保护问题是近年来的热点和难点问题，但限于其法律地位的不明确性，司法实践中法官基于对虚拟财产的不同的理解做出不同甚至截然相反的判决，理论研讨中法学家也基于对虚拟财产的不同考察视角而提出了不同的理论。这些不同的判决和理论给处理虚拟财产问题的实务工作者带来极大的困惑。为此，本文拟从虚拟财产司法保护的视角，总结和分析这些判决和理论，希望能找出困扰我们的实质性法律问题，并根据国内外最新的理论研究成果和实务突破，以民法的适用为核心，提出符合我国实际的虚拟财产司法保护基本原则和具体规则。在这个思想指导下，本文拟通过阐述虚拟财产及其引起的法律纠纷，探讨解决该纠纷的理论和规则。首先，在司法实践中，认定案件事实是法官审判的首个前提，即虚拟财产的法律界定。通过技术层面的分析，本文有了第一个发现，即我国现有的虚拟财产和美国等国家的虚拟财产存在很大的不同，即国内存在的网络游戏主要是网络游戏开发商设定游戏主题和进程的网络游戏（本文称之为角色升级类网络游戏）。而美国等国家除了前述游戏外，还存在另外一种截然不同的网络游戏（本文称之为模拟人生类网络游戏），在这个游戏中，网络游戏开发商并不为玩家设定游戏主题和提供虚拟物品，玩家需要通过自己的构想和设计去创造虚拟物品并开展虚拟人生。但恰恰是模拟类网络游戏引起了美国等国家学者的极大研究热情，并提出了符合普通法系制度的理论构想，如排除现实世界法律干预的魔圈理论、游戏角色的化身权理论、虚拟财产的财产权理论、虚拟财产问题的合同法规制理论。而国内学者在借鉴国外这些理论时，常常忽略其提出的背景和适用条件，直接套用在并不存在模拟人生类网络游戏的我国虚拟财产问题，导致了原本已经纷乱的我国虚拟财产司法实务更加地混乱。认清这一点后，本文基于我国与国外虚拟财产的不同背景及其产生过程，揭示了我国虚拟财产的四大固有特征，即具有依附性、人为稀缺性、可转让性和虚拟价值的不可预期性波动，进而得出虚拟财产在法律上无法直接归类为物权客体或者知识产权客体的结论。其次，在认清案件事实之后，司法实践中法官所要进行的便是要找法。不过，虚拟财产是最新网络技术普遍商业应用的产物，国内甚至国外都没有对此进行直接的立法。法官找法，结果却发现这是一个法律漏洞，而且还不能因此而拒绝裁判。于是，法官不得不去寻找各种弥补这个漏洞的法律理论。对于游离于现实与虚拟之间的虚拟财产问题，法官还是要判断现实世界的法律和虚拟世界的关系。对于这个问题，国外学者提出魔圈理论和修正魔圈理论进行解决。对此，本文首次在国内介绍并评述了该理论。在回答这个问题之后，便要判断虚拟财产之上存在哪些需要平衡的利益。这里，本文首次系统地叙述了这些利益学说，如财产理论、化身权理论、消费者权益保护理论和安全保障义务理论。深刻认识这些利益学说及其优缺点之后，法官便可有选择地解释和适用现有法律。最后，本文首次系统地阐述了司法审判所要遵守的基本原则，对法官的自由裁量权进行了一定的限制。这些原则，既有传统的利益衡量原则，也有网络背景下亟需引入的新原则，即产业导向原则和技术中立原则。在这三大原则的指导下，本文从法经济学的角度回应了不选择适用物权方面法律的原因，并认为虚拟财产民事纠纷，首先仍应按照玩家与运营商订立的游戏规则进行合同方面的分析，审查该规则是否有违法律对格式合同的要求。尽管合同法对格式合同的审查有明确规定，但对于格式合同是否排除相对方（即玩家）主要权利的判断上并没有客观的标准。于是，本文将两大法系国家在司法实践中基本遵循的合理预期标准，援引到游戏规则的审查中。对于依照合同法所作出的判决，本文结合虚拟财产存在环境及其对玩家的意义，系统阐述了继续履行是一种既符合玩家利益又推动网络产业发展的执行方式。尔后，本文还根据我国侵权法理论的进展和美国虚拟财产案件中的最新司法判决，认为有关虚拟财产的债权可以根据我国侵权法进行保护，并提出了具体的司法规则。最后，对虚拟财产刑事司法中的刑民交叉问题，本文在研究荷兰最高法院的最新判决和台湾地区的修法后，认为在虚拟财产的刑事司法审判中并不必然求助于民事法律理论，而且需要考虑到虚拟财产在技术层面的可复制性，尽量淡化其财产意义，强化计算机犯罪方面的规制。更多还原

【Abstract】 As far as virtual property is concerned, its legal protection practices and theoriesvary considerably, because there is no legislation on this fairly new subject.Undoubtedly, the situation made lawyers feel frustrated and confused. From this point,this article choose the view of judicial protection on virtual property not only to figureout the substantial legal problem and to discover how to solve those legal disputes, butalso to find a ideal solution to promote the robust and health development of interneteconomy. However, the judicial protection of virtual property is such a big problemthat we could loss ourselves in the discovery. Consequently, we need to make surewhat “virtual property” means, and to find out what is really happening. And then, wetry to figure out how to deal with the disputes.Firstly, judge has to discover the fact of dispute on virtual property, in otherwords, to find the nature of virtual property on court. From the technical perspective,we unexpectedly discover that there are tremendous differences on the types of virtualproperty between China and foreign countries, especially the United Nations, wherethe law allows game creators set up a virtual environment in which players couldsocialize with family and friends, build their own palace and cars, go skiing, and evenhold down a job. So, foreign scholars have poured out variety legal theories, includingmagic circle theory, avatar rights theory and property hypothesis. However, there isnot such a virtual paradise in our country; instead, Chinese players like to play in agame where everything is provided by game creator. Thus, tragedy may happen onceChinese scholars simply introduce those foreign hypotheses into China withoutpaying any attention to their background and limitations. Bearing those differences inmind, we discover that virtual property in China have four major characters, includingdepending on the game-god (the game creator), man-made scarcity, convertible and unstable virtual value. It means that virtual property is different from not only thetangible goods, but the works under copyright law, too.The second concern of the article would be to find the adequate law governingvirtual property. To their disappointed, judges can’t find out a regulation or even ajudicial explanation on virtual property. Faced such a legal loophole, they can’t simplyrun away, but have to utilize all kind of theories to convince themselves that what mayconstitute the right rules to settle the disputes. Given there is a barrier between realworld and virtual world, judge firstly has to decide whether laws of real world have tointervene the disputes happened in virtual environment, which is a matter of magiccircle. And then, judge would find several legal hypotheses, property theory, forinstance, over contradicting interests on virtual property. And it’s judge’s job to findout the advantages and limitations of those theories and pick up the right one.The third and the most significant point will be the application of law. It’s thefirst time in China that this article has systematically articulate fundamental principlesdefining what judges can do when explaining the rules. Those principles consist ofone traditional principle called “balancing contradicting interests” and two new butcritical principles to the internet industry, the industry-oriental principle and thetechnical-independent principle. Navigated by those principles, the article initiallyresponses to the applicable of property law from an economic law perspective; andthen contend that contract laws and theories should be the basic rules bounding theplayers and the game creator or operator, because players have signed a contract withcreator or operator. When it comes to the determination of standard contract, we havedifficulties in finding whether the game rules have excluded players’ majorindispensable rights. Fortunately, the reasonable expectation theory used by bothcontinental law system and Anglo-American law system could be the objectivecriteria on this issue. Then we argue that the ideal judgment would be the continuousperformance of contract not only for the sake of our players, but to the long-termadvancement of internet economy. And we advise that virtual property right should beprotected by the law of torts in digital age. Finally, we argue that there is no need toresort to property theory in explaining the legal meaning of goods under criminal law since the supreme court of Dutch, a continental country, has skillfully solved theexplanation dilemma. At the meanwhile, given the multiplication of virtual property intechnical perspective, we’d better omit its property implication and convert tocomputer clauses in criminal law.更多还原