【作者】 李杨；

【导师】 张玉敏；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 知识产权法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 自著作权法产生伊始，人们一直尝试通过规范使用行为来确立著作财产权的保护边界，即寻找一种行之有效的权利作用“焦点”。从传统理论和社会实践来看，著作权法主要通过规制竞争者对作品的商业利用行为来实现权利人的财产利益回报。将使用行为的“商业性”和“公/私性”作为判断是否构成著作权侵权行为的重要基准，能较好地实现对著作权人创作及投资付出的必要回报，有效激发创作的“涟漪”效应，从而推动文化事业的进一步繁荣与发展；另一方面，这种判断标准能够贯彻著作权法的根本宗旨，即在推动文化繁荣的基础上，通过为公众预留必要空间（即私域使用范围）来促进人的信息摄取和知识学习，推动文化的自由交流，实现人的自身发展。通过设置使用行为的“公”、“私”划分标准，著作权法可以为公众合理地使用作品提供文化交流自由的必要空间。正因为著作权法在传统意义上主要规制公开性的商业利用行为，才使个人使用在发挥公众文化之自由交流作用的同时，能够实现个体私权与大众民主之间的利益平衡。所以，从著作权不保护什么的否定性视角来看，个人使用如同著作权保护什么（即公开性的商业利用行为）一样，发挥着划定著作权保护边界的权利作用“焦点”功效。伴随数字技术特别是互联网技术的迅猛发展，个人使用对著作权人的作品市场利益带来的消极影响倍受世人关注，“个人使用是否依然合理”、“著作权法是否需要个人使用”以及“如何解决著作财产权与个人使用之间的冲突”等等成为著作权法最具争议的问题。与此同时，著作财产权的不断延伸乃至扩张却使著作权法传统意义上给予使用者自由接触、分享信息的有限空间受到多重排挤，个人使用的必要空间和合法性皆呈消减之势。这一结果与其说单纯由技术发展催生，毋宁说是技术背后人为因素推动的体系闭合使然，对此我们可以从国际政治经济学的视角加以认识。回归至现实中的个人使用困境，我们既要梳理出数字环境下个人使用的现实出路，更应解决好数字技术时代亟需构建何种著作财产权保护愿景的理论问题。遵循这样的思路，本文除导言以外，正文共分五章，约计十八万字，主要内容如下：第一章是个人使用界述，主要梳理以下几个问题：第一，通过对国际条约和示范法、欧盟著作权协调指令以及代表性国家有关“个人使用”的立法例进行考察，厘清著作权法个人使用的立法现状及发展轨迹；第二，从关系价值论的角度，对个人使用在著作权生态关系中的“公共”价值与“个人”价值进行考察。从哈贝马斯在政治学层面探讨的“公共领域”（public sphere）概念出发，“公共领域”一词应放到更宽泛的范畴中加以理解，它不仅指涉对政治性事务的公共商谈，还可用于市民文化生活的集体塑造。正是个人使用“私域”这一有限的必要空间，推动着信息在社会文化交往与互动中产生“涟漪”效应。个人使用在著作权生态关系中具有不容忽视的重要“公共”价值。同时，个人使用在个人表达自由和私域自治等两个层面还有着重要的“个人”价值。此外，在对个人使用进行价值考察时，不能脱离著作权生态关系。著作权人和使用者都是著作权关系的主体和参与者。就著作权人实现作品价值而言，应放在与他人及整个社会关系的联系和比较中加以衡量。在著作权生态关系中，法律不能过度延伸著作权人“财产自由”的个人价值欲求。第三，在立法例梳理及价值考察的基础上，对个人使用进行界定。综合对“personal use”、“private use”的辨析以及个人使用定义的几种观点评述，个人使用的概念可以从主体、使用范围、使用目的及影响、使用类型等四个方面来界定。在确立个人使用的使用类型时，应从社会实践与规范意义这两个层面加以区分。规范意义上的个人使用，主要是指自然人为了不具商业性的本人目的及与关系密切的亲友在家庭或类似家庭范围内使用的目的，对作品实施的复制行为以及翻译、改编等演绎行为。第二章主要论述数字技术发展中的个人使用困境以及技术发展与个人使用困境之间的关系。数字技术特别是互联网技术的飞速发展，一方面有效推动信息在公众之间的自由传播，另一方面使著作权侵权行为由职业转变成非职业特征，呈现大众化的蔓延趋势。对作品使用行为的侵权定位时，不应过度夸大数字环境个人使用对著作权人利益的消极影响，真正对著作权人的利益造成实质性影响的应是未经授权的作品传播行为。相反，数字技术却史无前例地为人所左右，控制着公众对信息的接触与交往自由。在数字环境下，由于技术控制下的作品拟物化、合同规则的“意思自治”滥用以及复制权的过度延伸态势，欧美立法传统意义上给使用者自由接触、分享信息的必要空间——个人使用，在结构性控制系统（包括代码、合同、法律等）的多重作用下，受到严重限制与挤压。如果我们忽视个别事件，以验证历史规律为唯一目标，将会助长历史偶然的规律化。在把握技术发展与个人使用困境之间的关系时，应避免片面性地套用机械主义的技术决定论，把社会历史的规律绝对化，否则就会得出个人使用受到多重挤压是历史必然的谬论。是故，应抛弃机械主义的技术决定论“宏伟史诗”般的叙述方式。在肯定技术能够催生制度环境变迁的基础上，我们应反思技术与制度会因为人为因素而可能产生的价值偏向与消极影响。第三章主要运用国际政治经济学的方法尝试构建一种阐释框架，解读造成个人使用困境的体系闭合动因。本文认为，数字环境下的个人使用日益受到挤压，并非技术发展造成的必然结果，而在一定程度毋宁说是特定历史条件下欧美发达国家主导的体系闭合使然。这一结论主要从以下三个方面加以论证：第一，以芝加哥学派为代表的新自由主义经济学，自20世纪80年代开始在西方经济学占据主导地位并呈现出全球范围的兴盛态势，推动欧美发达国家偏重于著作权制度在促进国民经济增长中的重要作用，从而使著作权保护观念过度信赖新自由主义经济学宣扬的市场价值决定论。然而，新自由主义经济观念具有内在局限性，它可能激发完全自由市场机制下的极端利己行为，致使著作权人与使用者之间脱离良性循环的著作权生态关系，影响市民社会的公共文化塑造，进而违背著作权法实现“最大多数人的最大幸福”的社会福利最大化目的。对此，就连自由主义经济学的开创者——亚当·斯密，其思想在晚年也从早先的市场放任的自由主义转变成具有某种建构倾向的德性主义，开始正视人性与社会性、私利与公益之间的非一致性。第二，在欧美私人（产业）利益集团特别是寡头精英的行动策略影响下，欧美著作权内外政策的制定呈现一种自上而下的推行过程，这也是造成著作权体系闭合的主要驱动力之一。由于利益集团政治中的“议价”能力差别，分散性的社会力量（如著作权政策制定中的使用者群体）很难在政策制定过程中发挥像财富和权力集中的垄断利益集团那样的作用和政治影响。国际知识产权体系重构中的集团（包括欧美发达国家和发展中国家两大阵营）政治亦是如此。这一结论可以运用曼瑟尔·奥尔森公共选择理论当中的集体行动逻辑来解释。第三，包括隐喻式的符号修饰与因果颠倒在内的单向话语体系，误导性地宣扬对著作权的强保护既有利于发达国家，更有利于发展中国家。这一单向话语逻辑承袭了新自由主义经济学的片面观点，与发达国家在赶超发展阶段所实际采用的演化发展经济政策并不一致。发展中国家在遵循国际著作权闭合制度最低保护标准的基础上，应积极开拓符合自身国情的著作权保护思路，不应盲目追从发达国家。第四章通过对著作财产权的反思与体系重构，来间接阐释个人使用的著作权法定位问题，纾解数字环境下的个人使用困境。从抽象物、知识产品以及自由信息等三个层面分析，作品分别具有非物质性、非稀缺性及非竞争性、有益外部性与互动性等自然公共属性。著作财产权的工具性作用在于效率、激励与必要回报，其创设目的及政策内涵旨在实现作品在文化参与、民主政治等层面上的社会福利最大化，并不能简单视同于建立在“个人效用”基础上的市场利益最大化。著作财产权的权利作用“焦点”结构表明，著作财产权的支配权能并非指向被独占的作品，而是限制他人对作品的某些使用行为。著作财产权是支配作品某些使用方式并获取经济利益的“法律之力”。就著作财产权的权利体系而言，以复制权为基础的传统理论应在数字困境中予以重构。体系简化后的“大传播权”设计，既能较合理、清晰地划定著作财产权的权利边界，以明确著作权人通过支配何种使用行为来实现自身的财产利益，同时还有助于消弭公众因误解著作财产权而产生的逆反心理，对公众逐渐认同、接受和遵守著作权法起到积极的引导作用。就著作财产权体系的权利限制设计而言，应避免当下欧美各自适用合理使用原则和三步检验法时出现的“闭合”趋势，设置一种真正意义上的开放式“安全阀”。互联网环境下，随着分散式P2P（peer to peer）技术的不断发展，特别是比特流技术的普及，使用者的下载行为构成一种个人复制与传播的并合态势，即所有的P2P用户都可能被认定为非法传播作品的侵权主体。从欧美法律实践的发展态势来看，著作权人和立法者正逐渐将侵权责任主体的重心从可能承担间接责任的网络服务提供商转移到个人使用者身上，这点从美国托马斯案与法国HADOPI法可见一斑。作为一种利益配置机制，著作权法应以协调多元参与性主体之间利益的合理、公平分配作为政策衡量的基础，故应以各参与性主体之间的“合作关系”作为利益实现的落足点。通过综合运用“强制许可”补偿金机制、“自愿集体许可”机制、“批量许可”商业模式以及其他方式，P2P网络环境下的个人使用困境才有可能从排异性的“零和”博弈现状转变成一种互利共赢的合作局面。第五章是对个人使用的著作权法未来进行重构。在著作权法的观念层面上，工具主义的法定权利说仅解释了著作权的“术”现象，并未确立其“道”本质。应强调以“道”驭“术”，构建著作权最终指向“公共福利”社会责任的道德哲学基础。同时，“使用者权”是宪法人权在著作权法中的具体化，著作权法既是包括作者在内的著作权人的法律，更是关涉使用者的法律，故著作权和使用者权应看作一个整体的有机组成部分。另外，著作权法应秉持“技术中立”原则，既充分体现技术自身的发展规律和特性，同时要求符合人类社会可持续发展的价值准则，使技术朝着符合人性的、有利于科学文化事业进步的方向发展，这就需要将市场行为和伦理责任结合起来考察，既关注经济价值，还应充分考量公共福利、民主政治、自由文化、技术创新等多元社会价值。在著作权法的制度层面上，应合理界定使用行为的“商业性”和“公/私性”，对反技术规避规则的相关缺陷以及著作权私力救济滥用问题进行必要的立法完善与制度健全。由于数字互联网环境与实体环境之间存在差异，有必要采用著作权法的“双轨”治理模式，在数字互联网环境下应淡化著作权尤其是复制权的财产专有权属性，实现著作权保护的侧重点由“控制”（或支配）权能到“收益”权能、由“财产规则”向“补偿责任规则”的渐进转变，重新配置著作权在互联网环境下“补偿责任规则—财产规则”并存的二元结构体系。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the appearance of copyright law, we have been trying to define the boundaries ofeconomic rights in copyright and search for the focal point of copyright functions byregulating use of works. In traditional theories and social practice of copyright, economicinterests of copyright owners are mainly realized by regulating works exploitation ofcompetitors. Commerciality and public-private distinction of works behaviors should beregarded as highly important criteria of copyright infringements. This can not only make theripple effect on creation of works and further cultural boom, but also accelerate freedissemination of culture, knowledge acquisition and self-development of users by reservingindispensable space for the public. As a result, it can keep interests balance between copyrightowners and the public. From the negative perspective of copyright protection, that is what arenot protected by copyright law, personal use serves as a focal point in drawing the boundariesof economic rights in copyright.With the development of digital technologies, especially that of the Internet technology,so-called negative impact of personal use on copyright owners is exaggerated. Personal usehas become the most controversial field of copyright law nowadays. However, theindispensable space and legality of personal use tend to decline because expanding copyrightis squeezing the limited space where users have access to and share information freely. Thisconsequence is not aroused by the development of technology, but the closed copyrightsystem propelled by human factors. We can understand this by means of political economics.Faced with the dilemma in personal use, we should not only find free egress for personal useissues, but also reshape theoretical vision of copyright protection in the digital age.The paperfalls into five chapters with more than180,000words besides the preface.ChapterⅠis about the introduction and definition of personal use. Part one discusses thelegislative situation and historical development of personal use in copyright by examiningstatutory details about personal use in international conventions, international model laws, ECDirective and domestic laws of representative countries. Part two analyses public value andprivate value of personal use by means of axiology of social relations. In public politics ofJurgen Habermas, Public Sphere does not only relate to public negotiations concerningpolitical affairs, but also to the collective shaping of citizens’ cultural life. The private sphere of personal use intensifies the ripple effect on works and promotes cultural boom. Both publicvalue and private value exist in personal use. When analyzing the value of personal use, wecan not disregard the relationship of copyright parties. Copyright owners and users areparticipants of the ecological relationship of copyright. When copyright owners are going toachieve their economic interests, they ought to consider interests of others and the public. Inthe ecological relationship of copyright, the overexpansion of copyright owners’ interests isunreasonable. After making a distinction between personal use and private use andcommenting on several viewpoints on personal use, Part three tries to define personal usefrom four aspects,namely, subject, range, motivation and types of behaviors. In terms of typesof behaviors, we should distinguish personal use in social practice from personal use incopyright law. In copyright law, personal use refers to the reproduction, translation, adaptationor other transformative use of copyrighted works in family and other private spheres similarto family for a natural person’s own personal and private use.Chapter Ⅱanalyzes the dilemma of personal use in digital technology age and therelationship between technological development and the dilemma of personal use. Thedevelopment of digital technology, especially that of the Internet, can promote the free flow ofinformation in public. On the other hand, because of their development, copyrightinfringements are changing from professional to non-professional and becoming popular. Thejudgment of behaviors of works as copyright infringements shouldn’t exaggerate the negativeinfluence of personal use on interests of copyright owners in the digital environment. In fact,illegal dissemination of works has a substantial influence on interests of copyright owners. Onthe contrary, the digital technology unprecedentedly controlled by human beings has beenimpeding the free flow of information. Under the structural control system including digitaltechnology, the abuse of autonomy of will and the expansion of copyright, the limited sphereof personal use is squeezed severely. If we ignore individual incidents only for verifying therule of history, haphazards in history will become rules. As far as the relationship betweentechnological development and dilemma of personal use is concerned, we should eschew theoverreliance on technological determinism and absolutization of historical rules. Otherwise,we may reach the absurd conclusion that personal use ought to be squeezed with thedevelopment of digital technologies. It is high time that we discard the narrative style of epicstory. After recognizing the causal connection between developing technology and dilemmaof personal use, we should introspect the value bias and negative influences brought by technology and copyright system due to human behaviors.Chapter Ⅲ, by means of international political economics, discusses causes behind theclosed copyright system resulting in the dilemma of personal use. The squeezed personal usesis not an inevitable result of technological development, but a consequence of the closedcopyright system dominated by Euramerican developed countries.This part explains the viewfrom the following aspects. First, Neoliberalism Economics such as the Chicago SchoolEconomics has dominated in western economics and caught on around the world since1980s.It leads developed countries to place extra emphasis on the economic role of copyrightregimes and causes the overemphasis of protective idea of copyright on Market Determinismof Neoliberalism Economics. However, there are inherent limitations in the ideas ofNeoliberalism Economics. It can hasten extreme self-interested actions in laissez-faire marketmechanism and violate the primary purpose of copyright law, namely, to realize the greatestwellbeing of most people. For that, the ideology of Adam Smith changed from marketliberalism to virtue constructivism in his old age. It is clear that in his old age Adam Smithcame to realize the inconsistency between self-interest and public interest. Second, copyrightpolicy-making in Euramerican developed countries is also an compression implementationprocess from top to bottom under the influence of private interest groups’ strategic actionespecially those of monopoly enterprises, which is another cause behind the closed copyrightsystem resulting in the dilemma of personal use. Because the bargaining power of socialgroups such as users group is different from the monopoly enterprises in groups politics, usersgroup is difficult to take part in the policy-making of copyright. Copyright policy-making inreshaping international conventions system is also difficult, which can be explained by thePublic Choice Theory of Mancur Olson. Third, one-dimensional discourse system composedof Metaphorical symbols and Post Hoc propaganda has been advertising misleadingly thathigh protection of copyright is helpful to developed countries and more beneficial todeveloping countries. This viewpoint, based on Neoliberalism Economics, is different fromevolution economics theory adopted by these developed countries in their economic-overtakeperiod. Therefore, abiding by the minimum standard of copyright protection, developingcountries such as China ought to explore actively one new path for copyright protection inline with their own national conditions and not blindly follow developed countries.Chapter Ⅳindirectly discusses the orientation of copyright law by introspecting andreconstructing the copyright protection system with the view to relieving the dilemma of personal use in the digital environment. Through analyzing from three perspective ofabstraction, intellectual products and free information, works have public goods propertiessuch as intangibility, absent scarcity, non-excludability, positive externality and interactivity.The instrumental roles of copyright system is manifested in efficiency, incentive and limitedreturn. The legislative purpose and policy connotation of copyright law is to realize themaximization of social value rather than the maximization of market value in works based onindividual utility. The focal-point structure of copyright functions indicates that the exclusivepower of copyright is directed to some behaviors of works rather than works themselves. Asfar as economic rights system of copyright is concerned, we should reshape the theoreticalfoundation of copyright from traditional copy right centricity to dissemination right centricity.The dissemination right centricity of copyright system can more clearly draw the boundariesof economic rights in copyright and establish behavioral norms for realizing the propertyinterests of copyright owners. On the other hand, it can eliminate reverse psychology of thepublic due to their misunderstanding of copyright law and lead the public to acknowledge,accept and obey copyright law. In terms of copyright restrictions system, we should avoid theclosed trend in Euramerican developed countries resulting from their respective fair useprinciple and three-step test and design a real "open safety valve". With the development ofP2P technologies, especially that of Bit Torrent technology, downloading of users constitutesa combinative behavior between personal copying and dissemination in network environment.Therefore, all end users of P2P could be copyright infringers who disseminate copyrightedworks without permit. Judging from the tendency of legal practice in Euramerican developedcountries,, the focal point of liability subjects have been changing from networkintermediaries to personal users, which can be seen in Capitol Records, Inc. v. JammieThomas in U.S.A and HADOPI of France. As an interests allocation mechanism, copyrightlaw ought to emphasize the partnership among all subjects involved and be based on therational allocation and harmonization of all parties’ interests. By synthesizing compulsorylicensing, voluntary collective licensing, mass licensing and so on, the digital dilemma ofpersonal use in P2P technological environment can possibly turn into a reciprocal cooperationsituation from a zero-sum game.Chapter Ⅴtries to reconstruct copyright law in order to relieve the dilemma of personaluse. At the conceptual level of copyright law, statutory right theory of instrumentalism istechnique phenomenon rather than the intrinsic spirit of copyright. In line with the intrinsic spirit of copyright, copyright law should construct the moral philosophy foundation of socialresponsibility for public welfare. Meanwhile, users’ rights are the concretization ofconstitutional basic rights in copyright law. Copyright law should be regarded as the law ofcopyright owners and the law of users. Both economic interests of copyright owners andusers’ rights are important parts of the ecological relationship of copyright. Furthermore, weshould uphold the principle of technology neutrality that requires us to observe the law ofdevelopment and interior characters of technology, to integrate market behaviors with ethicalresponsibility and to pay close attention to polynary social values such as public welfare,democratic politics, cultural freedom and technological innovation in order to developtechnology in a direction that enhance cultural boom and meet human needs. At theinstitutional level of copyright law, we should define the commerciality and public-privatedistinction of works behaviors reasonably. Moreover, it is necessary to eliminate legislativedefects in anti-circumvention rules so as to reduce misuse of self-help remedy. Due to thedistinction between digital condition and analog environment, it is helpful to adopt thedouble-track administrative structure. We ought to weaken the exclusive functions ofcopyright especially as reproduction right and rearrange the dual structure of property andliability rules in digital environment by gradually changing the focal point of copyrightprotection from possession power to gains purpose and from property rules to liability rules.更多还原