技术发展与版权扩张

【作者】 易健雄；

【导师】 张玉敏；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 版权制度是科学技术的产物,并随着技术的发展而不断扩张。然而,迄今为止,尚未见有对技术发展是如何推动版权扩张的系统论述。对版权来说,这恰恰是一重要论题:其中隐藏着作品、作者、独创性、思想/表达二分法、复制等版权基本观念、理论产生、演变的秘密。揭开这一秘密对于把握版权理论、体系的内在机理、认识版权的未来走向、指导中国的版权实践有着不可忽视的意义。本文所做的,正在于跳出版权自身的界限,在历史大背景之中,勾勒出技术发展的推动之下,版权基本观念、理论的产生、演变过程;借此勾勒,实现本文的目的:获得对版权基本理论的历史把握,确定对版权未来走向的基本立场,也弥补国内对这一论题研究的不足——如果可能的话。全文除引言外,共八章,凡十七万言。第一章至第三章以早期英国为重心,论述在印刷术的刺激下,现代版权观念的孕育、产生过程,包括作品、作者、独创性、思想/表达二分法的发生以及对版权性质的争论等。第四章至第七章以早期英国为开端,过渡到以美国为重心,兼及版权保护的国际化趋势。该部分论述版权观念制度化以后,在模拟技术与数字技术的推动下的扩张过程,包括从复制权到表演权、改编权的延伸,美国对英国版权观念与制度的继受与发展,以及版权基本理论、权能体系、作品种类等在照相机、留声机、自动钢琴、电影、磁带录音机、无线电发射机、家用收音机、机械电视机、有线电视、静电复印机、家庭录像机、电子计算机、互联网等新技术的推动下的演变与扩张过程。第八章为全文的落脚点。该部分引述了人们对新技术背景下版权的适应能力的疑惑与思考,对技术发展推动下版权的扩张进行了归纳总结并在此基础上确定了本文对版权的基本立场:版权能够适应新技术的发展,在可以预见的未来也不会“死亡”;但须遏制版权目前的扩张势头。各章内容简述如下:第一章印刷特权与书商版权。自威廉·凯克斯顿.(William Caxton)于1476年将印刷机引入英国后,英国政府视印刷业为“朝阳产业”予以鼓励并采取措施吸引外国的印刷及图书销售人才。但印刷出版业的繁荣使“宗教异端思想、煽动叛乱的言论”也得以更便捷地流传。为了控制这些“异端邪说”,英国统治者启用了始于兰开斯特王朝亨利四世时代(1399—1413)的审查制度。印刷特权也从鼓励印刷业发展的措施演化成控制“异端邪说”的工具。1546年,英王亨利八世建立了印刷控制的新框架,为某种已经存在的、具备一定条件的控制机构登场提供了机会。玛丽女王对印刷控制体制的延续让具备条件的书商公会登上了历史舞台。随后的伊丽莎白一世加大了对书商公会的支持力度,1566年《星室法院法令》的出台标志着英国政府与书商公会合作的开始。书商公会对印刷出版业的管理得到了星室法院的支持。凭借已获得的权力及已建立的图书印刷登记制度,书商公会创造了“书商版权”(Stationers’Copyright)——公会成员对非特权书籍所享有的印刷出版专有权。书商版权被视为现代版权的前身。1695年,替代《星室法院法令》的1662年《许可法》最终失效。这宣告了政府与书商公会合作机制的解体,开启了印刷自由的新时代。书商公会苦心经营的书商版权处于风雨飘摇的境况。为了维持自己的垄断地位,书商公会开始了新一轮的奋斗。第二章《安妮法》。除了利用“康吉体系”(the conger system)维持自己的垄断利益外,书商公会还在公会内部继续推行图书登记制度,力图用习惯的力量维持书商版权的效力。在原有的登记用语“booke or copie”(图书或原稿)基础上,书商公会于1701年发展出了“copy right”这一登记用语。伦敦书商这一做法的本意是想强化自己对非特权书籍的专有印刷权。连他们自己都没明确意识到的是,他们其实已模模糊糊地感受到了:在原稿之中存在着一种不同于原稿的东西,对于这种东西享有的权利,也应该不同于原稿所有权。这种权利被当时的书商称作“copyright”(“原稿权”)。“copy right”的提出是版权史上的重要事件,它是自“书商版权”提出后版权史又一重大观念变迁的开始。书商公会应对1662年《许可法》失效的直接措施则是向议会请愿,希图再次恢复1662年《许可法》的效力。经历了多次失败以后,书商公会受丹尼尔·笛福(Daniel Defoe)启发,看到了当时还是“写者”的作者对于维护自己利益的价值,他们将“原稿权”改称为“文学产权”(literaryproperty)并以“保护作者、促进知识”的新理由继续请愿。终于在1710年,英国议会回应了书商公会的请愿,通过了《安妮法》。作为各种利益妥协的结果,《安妮法》容纳了三种“类版权”:印刷特权;书商版权;制定法版权。其真实用意是多重的:遏制书商公会垄断地位,规范图书交易秩序;保护作者,鼓励创作,促进知识;协调各方利益,维持社会稳定,等等。后人对《安妮法》有各种评价。19世纪半叶开始出现“《安妮法》是世界上第一部版权法”的观念。其实,《安妮法》制定之时,版权观念还没出现,版权的对象——法律上的作品还没有诞生,抽象的作品观念还没有从中分离出来。《安妮法》也没有使用“版权”(copytight)一词。“《安妮法》是世界上第一部版权法”的论断不过是后人将自己的版权观念强加给《安妮法》的结果。不过,《安妮法》中作者的亮相、促进知识的提出,仍是版权史上的重大事件。第三章从文学产权到版权。在《安妮法》的影响下,雕版画艺术家郝伽斯(William Hogarth)等向英国议会请愿,要求对雕版画提供像图书那样的保护。他们宣称,印刷物的价值不在于普通的物理纸张,而在于艺术家施于纸张之上的、刻画特定对象的勤劳与技巧。这一声明中,有体物与无体物、作品与载体的的区分已初露端倪。艺术家们还宣称,即使针对同一对象,不同的艺术家所刻画的作品(work)也是完全不同的:风格、轮廓、架构等都不一样。每一位艺术家的作品都是独一无二的,就象人的笔迹一样,很容易彼此区别。这一论点蕴含着深刻的独创性观念,也隐含着版权的正当化基础。议会接受了艺术家的要求与理由,于1735年通过了《雕工法》。《雕工法》完全由艺术家推动的事实表明,作者开始成为一个独立的利益群体,越来越依靠自己的“技艺”生活,对自己的经济利益越来越关注,他们所提出的理由也较书商提出的“经济刺激论”更具说服力。正是因为《雕工法》蕴含着如此多的现代版权观念的因子,英国版权法学者迪兹里教授认为:“随着《雕工法》的通过,一场革命已悄然发生。在这部法律中,我们今天所理解、接受的版权已初具雏形。”“版权”(copyright)一词于这一年首次出现可为佐证。《雕工法》对《安妮法》的攀比也使人们意识到,《安妮法》已经到期。书商公会在请求延长《安妮法》时受阻,“文学产权”也遭到严重质疑,被认为纯属子虚乌有。书商公会宣称“文学产权”是一种普通法权利,并不以制定法为基础:知识的田野就像大地一样,谁都可以在其中耕耘、收获,但绝不能允许懒惰者窃据他人的劳动果实。谁耕耘,谁收获乃普通法精神的应有之义。图书即是作者在知识的田野中耕耘之后收获的劳动果实,根据普通法精神,作者对其图书享有当然的财产权,这种财产权就是文学产权。制定法版权不过是为已经存在的文学产权提供一种补充保护手段而已。关于文学产权的辩论开始被挑起,作者投入到图书中的劳动与技巧成为书商公会的主要论据。但作者与书商之间的矛盾也因作者独立意识的觉醒而开始凸显,蒲柏(Alexander Pope)甚至设计阻拦《安妮法》的延长。对议会失望的书商公会放弃了立法层面的努力,专心于在司法实践中创造他们想要的“永久性普通法权利”。作者与伦敦书商的矛盾也延伸到了司法层面。在1741年的蒲柏诉科尔(Curl)案中,哈德威克(Hardwicke)大法官认定蒲柏对其所写信件文字享有权利,即使科尔享有蒲柏所写书信的所有权,也不得印刷、出版这些书信。美国版权法学者罗斯教授认为:“这是作者概念的转折关头,这是知识产权概念诞生的关键时刻。”文本(text)已从纸张、墨水等物质实体中抽离出来,代替图书(book)而成为文学产权关注的对象:作者也不再只是事实上的“写者”,更是文学产权的主体;实体物——原稿的转手不再意味着文学产权的同时转手,也不意味着作者身份的就此丧失。现代版权观念中的作品、作者概念开始浮出水面。1743年,伦敦书商将汉弥尔顿(Hamilton)、波伏尔(Balfour)等苏格兰书商诉至苏格兰最高民事法院,文学产权大辩论正式爆发。苏格兰书商坚持“无实体即无财产”的古训,认为无实体的文本不可能成为财产。为了正当化文学产权,1747年,沃柏桐(William Warburton)在《作者就文学产权问题写给议员的信》中,对财产进行了一系列的“二分”,试图以脑力产品类比体力产品,再类比体力产品毫无争议的财产地位,完成脑力产品也能成为财产的正当化论述。为了与具有期限限制的专利特权划清界线,沃柏桐又把发明看作是体力与脑力劳动的混合产物,没有纯粹脑力劳动产物的学说或思想那样高贵;故以发明为对象的专利特权可以有时间限制,而以学说或思想为对象的文学产权则不应有时间限制。沃柏桐的论述明显受到洛克“财产权劳动理论”的影响,并在哈德威克大法官的基础上,将文学产权的对象进一步抽象到“思想”或“学说”的地步。沃柏桐试图另寻文学产权的正当化基础,但没有解决文学产权的划界问题,对发明与“作品”的区分也颇为勉强。当时的个人主义思潮及英国文学中开始出现的浪漫主义色彩为文学产权提供了更有力的正当化理由。“original”(独创的)一词在这一时期渐渐发生了转义,从“最初就已存在的”转化为“无来源的、独立的、第一手的”。作家扬格(EdwardYoung)在1759年发表的《试论独创性作品》一文更是高扬独创性作品的价值,宣称独创性作品是“从天才(genius)的命根子自然地生长出来,是长成的,不是做成的”。在扬格这里,文本与人格融合在了一起,作品与作者之间的联系变得不可分割:独创性成为作品的价值之所在,而这一价值直接源于作者的独特个性、“天才的命根子”。扬格的独创性理论与洛克的财产权劳动理论基点——“每个人都对他自已的人身享有一种所有权”——遥相呼应,二者巧妙地结合起来,共同构筑了文学产权的正当化基础。现代版权观念中的独创性理论也奠基于此。不过,文学产权的划界问题仍未解决。1761年Tonson v.Collins案是伦敦书商在普通法法院提起的第一件文学产权纠纷案件,文学产权大辩论第一次在普通法法庭上全面展开。尽管该案后因查明系原、被告事先串通好的共谋案件而被法官拒绝继续审理,但其在版权史上的重要意义仍不可忽视。担任伦敦书商代理人的英国著名法律家布莱克斯顿(William Blackstone)在该案中对图书进行了“三分”:作为物理实体的图书(physical book),体现在图书中的思想(ideas),作品(composition)——作者给其思想披上的语词外衣。“文字不过是语词的符号,语词不过是思想情感的载体,思想情感才是图书的价值所在、利益之源”。在该案审理期间,一本名为“为作者对自己作品的专有权利申辩”的小册子发展了布莱克斯顿“三分”图书的思想,主张一本图书可划分为“学说的作品”(a doctrinal composition)与“机械的作品”(a mechanical composition)两个层次;机械的作品由纸张之上可见的永久性文字组成,学说的作品则可再分为其包含的思想与作者表达这些思想的语言两部分。图书出版后,机械的作品与学说的作品所包含的思想即对读者自由开放,作者所保留的,仅仅是其对思想的特有表达方式。印刷者关注的是“机械的作品”,作者关注的,则是学说的作品,读者最关注的,则是学说作品所包含的思想。机器等发明仅仅与机械的作品相似,学说的作品则是图书所特有的。通过这种划分,图书与机器等发明就更好地区分开来。该文对图书层次颇为新奇的划分在当时具有强大的解释力,几乎化解了文学产权反对者的所有质疑。在这里,我们也看到了现代版权观念中“思想与表达”二分法的影子。在1769年Millar v.Taylor案中,曼斯菲尔德勋爵(Lord Mansfield)等与叶茨(Yates)法官经过激烈论争后,王座法院以3:1的多数作出了支持文学产权的判决。1774年Donaldson v.Becket案对Millar v.Taylor案的结论进行了重新审查。贝克特的一位代理人哈格雷夫(Francis Hargrave)在《文学产权答辩理由》一文中总结了前人的理论成果,几乎对文学产权问题作了全面论述,对反对文学产权的理由也作了回应。哈格雷夫不仅吸收了杨格的独创性理论,还进一步发展了《为作者对自己作品的专有权利申辩》一文提出的关于思想与表达二分的理论。哈格雷夫首先赞同思想是公共产品的观点,之后,哈格雷夫又对思想的表达作了解释:表达不仅是包裹思想的语言,更是组合语言的方式或风格,或说思想见诸文字的方法。这种方法的独特性又源于每个人自身的独特个性。这样,哈格雷夫既回避了反对者关于文学产权垄断思想的指责,给公共利益让出了地盘,又给文学产权的对象披上了“语言的外衣”,驳斥了反对者关于文学产权对象乃“虚幻的幽灵”的嘲弄,还突破了文学产权对象仅仅是表面语言的局限,为版权权能的扩张预留了空间。此外,哈格雷夫还对反对者关于文学产权无从侵害的诘难给予了回击。哈格雷夫提出,如果某人出售盗版的复制件,则权利人本来可以从权利行使中获得的利润就减少了,而这种出售盗版复制件的行为就是一种侵扰、侵权、损害行为,权利本身也就被侵害了。至此,对于反对者提出的各种质疑,文学产权支持者几乎——给予了合理回答——至少在表面上如此。但是,这些回答并没有打动上议院。因为,上议院的思维方式已不同于文学产权支持者。上议院认为如果确认作者及出版商享有永久性普通法权利将带来不可接受的社会后果,最后以22:11的多数支持了唐纳森,否认了作者享有永久性普通法上权利。就这样,上议院以“结果性思维方式”终结了持续多年的文学产权大辩论。回顾这场争论,我们可以看到,随着争论的不断深入,现代版权的面目也渐次清晰起来:“copyright”一词出现后逐渐取代了“copy”与“right”的其他组合用词,成为“版权”的专用名词:作者从伦敦书商的幌子转变为不可动摇的版权主体;作品从物理实体的图书中抽离出来成为版权的对象;作为正当化理由而提出的独创性理论从思想的公有领域中划出了一块“私有地盘”,为版权提供了最初的立足之地;“为虚幻的幽灵添上面容与四肢”而出现的“思想与表达”二分法为版权提供了最后的栖身之所;印刷与出版则在印刷技术条件下成为版权毫无争议的权利内容。罗斯教授认为:“到1774年,现代英美版权法的所有根本要素都已经到位了。”所有这些要素都是相伴而生,共同筑就了一个前所未有的权利类型——版权。虽然上议院否定了文学产权,但长年不断的争论,却使现代版权观念逐渐为人所习惯,并在不知不觉中为人所接受。一个看似奇怪的现象也就自然发生了:文学产权的“死亡”伴随着现代版权观念的“诞生”。第四章超越复制。版权产生以后,其最初的权能就是复制。19世纪初期,英国陷入经济困境,英国剧院也面临着财政危机,英国剧作家的收入也大为缩水,生活艰难。受法国的影响,英国剧作家要求对戏剧作品增加公开表演权,以便从其作品中获取更多收入。在戏剧作家、议员鲍威尔·李桐(Bulwer Lytton)的推动下,英国1833年通过了《戏剧版权法》,授予了戏剧作品以公开表演权。完成正当化后的版权将权能平静地延伸到了公开表演。英语流行起来以后,英国产生了保护境外本国作品的需要,同时代的法国等欧洲大陆国家也有此需要。各国于19世纪初期开始了版权保护的双边谈判。由于法国对翻译权的坚持,英国为了换取版权的互惠保护,最终承诺保护翻译权。为了履行版权保护的国际义务,英国于1852年修订《国际版权法》时,增加了关于翻译权的条款,翻译也就成为了版权的又一新权能。当版权的双边谈判发展到多边谈判时,翻译权首先在1886年《伯尔尼公约》中得到确认。1908年,《伯尔尼公约》在柏林进行修订时,以禁止“擅自间接占用”作品的形式,提到了改编权,并特别例示了“将小说、故事、诗歌转换成戏剧或者相反”的情形。在《伯尔尼公约》的压力与国内作者的推动之下,英国再次启动了改革国内版权立法的计划。1911年,英国通过了一般版权法,对独创性作了规定,并将表演权、翻译权、改编权明确授给了作者。版权体系得到初步扩张。第五章版权在美国。本章主要介绍美国对英国版权制度及理论的继受与发展。1787年美国宪法中的“知识产权条款”确立版权的目的是促进知识,增进公益。保护作者权利不过是促进公共利益的手段。1790年美国国会依据宪法通过了美国历史上一第一部联邦版权法。该法既弥漫着浓厚的《安妮法》气息,又表现出强烈的民族性:只保护美国公民或居民的作品,对外国人作品不提供任何保护。美国作者对这些法律的通过起了极大的促进作用。在1834年Wheaton v.Peters案中,美国联邦最高法院对版权的性质问题作出权威解释:版权在美国只是一种制定法上的特权。之后,美国法官在司法实践中继受并发展了独创性与思想/表达二分法的理论。在本土作品繁荣起来以后,做了一个多世纪版权海盗的美国于1891年通过了美国历史上的第一部《国际版权法》(即《切斯法》),开始在严格限定的条件下保护外国作品。由此,美国总算踏上了版权的国际保护之路。第六章模拟技术与版权扩张。本章主要论述模拟技术对版权基本理论、作品种类及权能体系的影响。摄影术提高了人们对独创性的认识,留声机、自动钢琴、磁带录音机、家庭录像机、静电复印机等促进了人们对复制权的思考。复制权能够成为版权基本权利类型的背后原因在这些技术的刺激下开始显露出来。传统印刷术在区分公、私领域方面的技术保障使复制权当然地成为了版权的基础性权利。当静电复印、家庭录像等新型复制技术打破了传统的界限时,人们对复制权的理解出现了分歧,版权的权利基础开始动摇。电影、无线广播、收音机、电视机、有线电视等的出现则极大地扩张了公开表演权的范围,表演权的扩张使传统的复制权相形见绌。美国还针对这些新的传播技术另设了新权利:展览权。在这种扩张过程中,相关利益各方互相斗争又达成妥协,公众利益却因缺乏谈判代表而逐渐被遗忘。在20世纪80年代成为世界上最大的作品输出国后,美国开始在国际社会上极力强调提高版权保护的重要性,并于1988年加入了《伯尔尼公约》。其时,距《伯尔尼公约》的缔结已过100年。版权保护的国际化趋势早已不可逆转。第七章数字版权。本章主要论述数字技术对版权基本理论、作品种类及权能体系的影响。与模拟技术相比,数字技术对版权的影响是全面而深刻的。在介绍计算机软件及数据库保护的问题之后,本章重点引述了美国版权对互联网环境的应对措施。美国自1993年宣布实施“民建民有民享”的信息高速公路计划之后,即设立了由美国商务部部长助理兼专利商标局局长布鲁斯·吕曼(Bruce Lehman)负责的知识产权工作小组,以研究与信息高速公路计划相关的知识产权问题。吕曼成为了版权利益集团的代理人,吕曼工作小组的研究报告白皮书极大地扩张了版权人的权利,如将临时复制纳入复制权的范围、建议取消首次销售原则在网络环境的适用,采用技术措施控制对作品的接触与利用并禁止他人以任何理由规避技术措施、保护权利管理信息,等等。报告激起人们的极大反感。在国内暂时受阻后,吕曼又转战国际社会。在WCT、WPPT缔结以后,吕曼又催促美国于1998年制定了WCT、WPPT的国内实施法:《数字千年版权法》(DMCA)。除增加了一些严格限制外,DMCA几乎就是白皮书的翻版。该法将版权的扩张几乎推到了极致。在法官实施该法的司法实践中,公众感受到了版权对自己生活的限制。DMCA不得民心。2005年索尼BMG公司“Rootkit”事件的爆发终于激怒了公众。人们开始反思如何限制技术措施的问题。DMCA也对公众作出了让步,在2006年11月的新豁免规定中增加了对技术措施的限制。第八章版权的未来。本章首先回顾了版权扩张的历史,总结出以下几点:1.利益斗争是版权产生、扩张的原动力,版权理论不过是利益正当化的工具:2.版权基本理论隐含着深刻的内在矛盾;3.版权是法定权利,而不是自然权利:4.版权的扩张主要由立法推动,司法则保持相对克制;5.版权的扩张主要利用类比、拟制等技巧来实现;6.版权扩张使版权体系越来越杂乱,版权理论越来越贫弱;7.版权的扩张越来越依赖于技术措施;8.版权在扩张过程中正从创作中心转向投资中心;9.版权在扩张过程中逐渐偏离了其原有目的。接下来,本章介绍了目前关于版权的几种观点:有认为现有版权制度已不适应网络时代,有认为现有版权制度能适应网络时代,还有人进行了更深入的思考,提出了重构版权制度的设想,大致有以下几种:1.“激励机制”模式;2.“商业利用权”模式;3.“接触控制权”模式;4.“传播权或利用权”模式。在评析以上各种模式之后,本章最后表明了笔者的观点:1.遏制版权目前的扩张趋势。在回答了为什么要遏制版权目前的扩张趋势之后,本文在考虑如何遏制的问题时,认为自由软件、“开源”运动及其所发散出来的开放精神对于遏制版权扩张,维持版权领域的“生态平衡”有着不可低估的作用。此外,还需坚持版权法定主义的原则,对相关的国际条约,在达到国际义务标准的前提下应作严格解释;在司法层面则应坚持“司法机关自我限制”原则,对目前中国法官的“造法”冲动保持警惕。2.适当调整目前的版权体系,包括:取消复制权在版权体系中的基础地位:确立传播权在网络环境中的基础地位;采取切实措施遏制技术措施对公共领域的圈禁。本文相信,经过调整,传统版权与数字版权制度将融合成一个有机整体,这一有机整体能够适用新技术的挑战。在开放精神的制约、共存之下,版权将与技术、市场、伦理等其他元素相互配合、各司其职,很好地促进知识,增进公共利益。未来的版权将更谦和,版权的未来会更好。更多还原

【Abstract】 As the result of science and technology, Copyright has been kept expanding with the development of technology. However, no systematic examination on the process that technological development forces the expanding of copyright can be found up to now. To copyright, the process is just an important topic, in which the secret of the produce and change of basic theories such as work, author, originality, idea/expression dichotomy and reproduction is concealed. To disclose the secret is vital not only for grasping the theories and system of copyright but also for predicting the future of copyright as well as directing Chinese practice on copyright. What this dissertation deals with is just disclosing the process on the large historical background after breaking through the limitation of copyright itself, then realize the end of this dissertation: understanding copyright’s basic theories from the angle of history, deciding the position on how to guide the future of copyright and if any, overcoming the lack on this topic at home.The dissertation, calculated 170,000 words, consists of eight chapters besides a preface. From Chapter One to Chapter Three, the author focuses on United Kingdom, examines the formation of the idea of modern copyright by the stimulation of press technology, including the produce of work, author, originality, idea/expression dichotomy and debates over the nature of copyright. From Chapter Four to Chapter Seven, taking early England as the beginning, then focusing on the United States as well as the trend of internationalization of copyright protection, the author examines how the analog technology and digital technology force the expanding of copyright after the realization of the idea of copyright, including the style of right extending from reproduction right to public perform right and adaptation right, the succession and development of British institution and idea on copyright in the United States, and the process of expanding and change of the basic theories of copyright, the style of right as well as the kind of work driven by new technology like photography, phonograph, piano roll, motion picture, broadcast, radio, TV set, xerography, home video-recorder, computer, internet and so on. Chapter Eight is the end of this dissertation. In this Chapter, the author depicts the puzzlement and thinking on the adaptability of copyright to new technology, sums up the expanding of copyright driven by technology and then determines the basic disposition to copyright: copyright has the adaptability to new technology and won’t "die" in the foreseen future, but the trend of expanding of copyright today must be stemmed.Content of each chapter is summarized as follows:Chapter One: Printing Privilege and Stationers’ Copyright. After William Caxton introduced the printing press in England in 1476, the government of England regarded the printing industry as emerging industry and took measures to encourage its development. However, the flourish of the printing and publishing industry made the dissemination of seditious and heretical material more convenient. For the purpose of controlling the printing of seditious and heretical material, the British rulers renewed censorship regulations originated from era of Henry IV（1399—1413） in House of Lancaster. In 1546, HenryⅧestablished a new frame of censorship, which made it possible that some entity already existed, which met certain conditions, boards the stage of history. The Stationers’ Company, which met said conditions, boarded the stage of history in era of Queen Mary who continued the censorship. Subsequently Elizabeth I supported the Stationers’ Company with greater intensity. The Star Chamber Decree of 1566 marked the beginning of the corporation between the British rulers and the Stationers’ Company. Since then, the Star Chamber had been supported the management over the printing and publishing industry by the Stationers’ Company. Resorting to the power already gained and the printing register regulations already established, the Stationers’ Company created "Stationers’ Copyright", an exclusive right of printing and publishing to non-privilege books, enjoyed by numbers of the Stationers’ Company. Stationers’ Copyright has been regarded as the former of modern copyright. The final lapse of the Licensing Act of 1662 in 1695 not only marked the end of the corporation between the British rulers and the Stationers’ Company but also opened a new era of free printing. In order to maintain the monopoly status, the Stationers’ Company tried another struggle.Chapter Two: the Statute of Anne. Besides making use of "the conger system" to maintain the monopoly status, the Stationers’ Company continued to force the printing register regulation inside the company so as to maintain the effect of the Stationers’ Copyright. Based on the primary term "booke or copie", the Stationers’ Company created an new term "copy right" in 1701, through which emphasized the exclusive printing right to non-privilege books enjoyed by numbers of the Stationers’ Company. In fact, booksellers had felt indistinctly that something existed in manuscripts is different from manuscripts and the right to it, which was called "copy right", should differ from the ownership to manuscripts. That "copy right" was introducing is an important event in the history of copyright. This means a new beginning of important change of idea since the introduction of "Stationers’ Copyright" in the history of copyright. The direct measure aimed for the lapse of the Licensing Act of 1662 taken by the Stationers’ Company was petition to the parliament for recover the Act. After many failures, the Stationers’ Company understood the value of authors inspired by Daniel Defoe and replaced "copy right" with "literary property". Then, the Stationers’ Company went ahead to petition to the parliament with the new excuse "for the encouragement of learning". Finally, in 1710, the parliament responded the petition of the Stationers’ Company, passed the Statute of Anne. As a result of compromise, the Statute of Anne contains three kinds of "quasi copyright": Printing Privilege, Stationers’ Copyright and Statutory Copyright. The true end of the Act is complicated: striking down the monopoly status of Stationers’ Company and regulating the book trade order; protecting authors, encouraging writing and promoting the progress of learning; harmonizing all sorts of benefits, maintain the stability of the society and so on. There are lots of comments over the Act. In early 19^th century, the opinion that the Statute of Anne is the first copyright act in the world was found. However, the idea of copyright has not been formed when the statute of Anne was introduced. What’s more, the objection of copyright, i.e., work under the law, has not been produced. Besides, the Statute of Anne didn’t use the term "copyright". The predication that the Statute of Anne is the first copyright act in the world is just the result that someone imposes the idea of copyright himself on the Statute of Anne. Yet, the providing about author and the encouragement of learning in the Statute of Anne is of vital in the history of copyright.Chapter Three: from Literary Property to Copyright. Affected by the Statute of Anne, William Hogarth, an engraver, with other artists petitioned the House of Commons for protection against the unauthorized copying of their engraved prints. In 1735, the Engravers Act was passed. The fact that it was artists that asked for legislation proved that authors have become an independent group, who earned their livelihood by their own skill and labor. They paid more and more attention to their own economic interest. Implied so many materials about idea of modern copyright, professor Deazley said, "With the passing of the Engravers Act a silent revolution had taken place. In this legislation, copyright, as we understand and appreciate it today, first began to take embryonic form." The emergence of the term "copyright" in this year can be seen as an evidence for the opinion of Deazley. The Engravers Act also reminded people that the Statute of Anne had been lapsed. When petitioning to renew the Statute of Anne, the Stationers’ Company was frustrated. At the same time, literary property was seriously questioned—it was treated as forgery. On the contrary, the Stationers’ Company argued that literary property was a common-law right, not on a statutory basis. The debates on literary property were provoked. Skill and labor which authors devoted into books was the central reason with which the Stationers’ Company argued for the opinion.In Pope v. Curl, Chancellor Hardwicke decreed that Pope has right to letters he wrote. Curl has no right to print or publish these letters even if he owns them. Professor Rose believed that this is the critical moment of the birth of copyright. Having been abstracted from its physical basis in ink and paper, text substituted for book and became the object of literary property. An author is not merely a writer but more the subject of literary property. Transfers of manuscript not only have nothing to do with literary property but also have no effect to authorship. Here, the concept in modem copyright such as work and author began to take embryonic form.In 1743, booksellers of London sued booksellers of Scotland like Hamilton, Balfour to the Court of Session in Scotland. Debates on literary property broke out. In 1747, William Warburton published A letter from an Author to a member of Parliament Concerning Literary Property, a pamphlet that discussed the author’s common-law right and provided the first theoretical treatment of literary property. In 1759, Edward Young published Conjectures on Original Composition, an essay that put forward the theory of originality, which connecting with Locke’s theory of labor justified literary property. In Tonson v. Collins（ 1761）, problems on literary property were discussed sufficiently. Opened for the plaintiff, Blackstone divided a book into three parts: physical book, ideas or sentiments in a physical book and words. "Characters are but the signs of words, and words are the vehicle of sentiments. The sentiments therefore is the thing of value, from which the profit must arise." A pamphlet named A Vindication of the Exclusive Right of Authors, to their own works developed Blackstone’s theory, and established the basis of idea/expression dichotomy. In Millar v. Tayor（1769）, the Court of King’s Bench, by a majority of three to one, ruled in favour of common law literary property. But in Donaldson v. Becket （1774）, the House of Lords, on the basis of a different style of reasoning—the consequential modes of argument, reached the opposite conclusion to that of the King’s Bench in Millar v. Tayor. Donaldson v. Becket was taking as marking the end of debates on literary property. It is worth mentioning that during the hearing of Donaldson v. Becket, Francis Hargrave, a lawyer for Becket, published An Argument in Defence of Literary Property. In this pamphlet, Hargrave conducted a comprehensive exposition on literary property, almost answered all of the opponents’ questions—at least it seemed so on the surface. Nevertheless, the House of Lords did not accept his views.Looking back on this argument, we can see that by 1774, all the essential elements of modern copyright including the subject author, the object work, the content printing and publishing and the basic theories originality and idea/expression dichotomy, were in place. The death of literary property was along with the birth of modern copyright.Chapter Four: Beyond reproduction. The initial right of copyright is reproduction. In early 19^th century, the United Kingdom fell into financial difficulty; British theatres were also faced with a financial crisis. Accordingly, British playwrights’ income has been greatly diminished, which made playwrights have a difficult life. Affected by what had done in France, British playwrights called for vesting them with public performance rights to their works so as to improve conditions of their living. Driven by Bulwer Lytton, a peer and also a playwright, the Dramatic Copyright Act was passed in 1833. Playwrights were vested with the public performance. After English became popular, it was necessary for the United Kingdom to protect its own works overseas. Continental European countries, such as France, also have such a need. In the early 19^th century States began to hold bilateral negotiations on copyright protection. Because of the insistence of France, the United Kingdom promised to protect the right of translation. In 1852 the International Copyright Act of the United Kingdom provided for the right of translation while amended. So translating has become an important right of copyright. When bilateral negotiations on copyright protection developed into multilateral negotiations, the right of translation was primarily firmed in the Berne Convention in 1886. When the Berne Convention was revised in Berlin in 1908, the right of adaptation was provided in the fashion of forbidding the "unauthorised indirect appropriation" of works and especially took adaptation, musical arrangements, transformations of a novel, tale or piece of poetry into a dramatic piece and vice versa as examples. Driven by the Berne Convention and authors at home, the United Kingdom passed Copyright Act 1911, which provided for the originality, explicitly vested authors with the right of public performance, the right of translation and the right of adaptation. The system of copyright was expanded primarily.Chapter Five: Copyright in the Untied States. In this chapter, the author mainly introduces how the United States succeeded and developed the regime and theories of copyright. The intellectual-property clause in the United States Constitution of 1787 provides that the purpose of copyright is to promote knowledge and enhance public welfare; the protection of the rights of author is just a means of promoting the interests of the public. According to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress, in 1790, passed the first federal Copyright Act, which not merely deeply affected by the Statute of Anne but also have a strong character of the national: it only protected works of the United States citizens or residents and didn’t protect works of foreigners at all. Authors of the United States played a great role in passing these acts. In Wheaton v. Peters（1834）, the Supreme Court of U.S. made an authoritative interpretation on the nature of the copyright: copyright is merely a privilege in statute in the United States. Later, U.S. judges succeeded and developed the theories originality and idea/expression dichotomy in judicial practice. After works at home boomed, the United States, which had been a pirate printer for more than one century, passed the first International Copyright Act, i.e., the Chace Act, began to protect foreigners’ works under strict limited conditions. From then on, the United States has stepped forward the international protection of copyright.Chapter Six: Analog Technology and Copyright Expanding. In this chapter, the author mainly deals with the effect of analog technology to the basic theories, kinds of works and the right regime of copyright. Photography makes people understand originality of works on a higher level. Phonograph, piano roll, tape-recorder, home video-recorder, xerography etc. promote our thinking about the right of reproduction. The reason that makes the right of reproduction become the basic right of copyright was disclosed by the stimulation of said technology. The emergence of motion picture, broadcast, radio, TV set, cable television etc. greatly expanded the realm of the right of public performance, which lowered the degree of importance of the right of production. What’s more, responding new technology, the United States created new right of copyright: the display right. In this process of expanding, all kinds of stakeholders struggled and compromised each other, but public interests were gradually forgotten because of lacking negotiating representatives. Being the world’s largest exporter of copyrighted works since 1980’s, the United States began to greatly emphasize the importance of enhance the protection of copyright and joined the Berne Convention in 1988. By then, it had been more than 100 years since the conclusion of the Berne Convention. The international trend of protection of copyright has been irreversible.Chapter Seven: Digital Copyright. In this chapter, the author mainly examines the effect of digital technology to the basic theories, kinds of works and the right regime of copyright. Compared with the influence of analog technology, the influence of digital technology to copyright is overall and deep. After introducing the protection of software and database, the author focuses on the measures taken by copyright regime of the United States against the internet environment. Since declared the plan of Information Superhighway, the United States appointed a Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights chaired by Patent Commissioner Bruce Lehman, whose task was to study problems on intellectual property concerning the plan of Information Superhighway. Lehman was submerged the agent of copyright group. As the final report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, the White Paper greatly extended copyright. According to the White Paper, for example, temporary copy is within the realm of the right of reproduction, the first-sale doctrine shall not be applied in the internet environment, technical protection measures should be taken to control access to or use of works, not reason can be justified circumvention of technical protection measures, rights management information should be protected, and so on. The White Paper was resisted by all kinds of social stratums. After the conclusion of WCT and WPPT, Lehman forced the United States passed the implementation act of WCT and WPPT: Digital Millennium Copyright Act （DMCA）. Except some strict limitation, DMCA is almost the clone of the White Paper. In the judicial practice implementing DMCA, the public felt inconvenience resulted from DMCA, which never receives the support from the public. The explosion of the "magnificent disaster" of the Sony-BMG rootkit incident incensed public finally. People began to rethinking the problem of technical protection measures. DMCA had to concede to the public. In November, 2006, new limitation of technical protection measures was provided in Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies.Chapter Eight: the Future of Copyright. In this chapter, the author firstly reviews the history of the expanding of copyright and draws some conclusions as follows: 1. The conflicts of interests are the motive force by which copyright produces and expands; copyright theories were just the tool of justification of stakeholders. 2. Inside the basic theories lies a deep contradiction. 3. Copyright is not a natural right but a statutory right. 4. The expanding of copyright is mainly driven by legislation; courts then usually keep the doctrine of Judicial Restraint. 5. The expanding of copyright is realized mainly by analogy and fictions. 6. Because of the expanding of copyright, the system of copyright is becoming more and more promiscuous and theories of copyright are becoming more and more weak. 7. Copyright’s expanding is more and more depending on technical protection measures. 8. During the period of expanding, copyright is changing direction from creation to investment. 9. Copyright gradually deviated from its original purpose during the period of expanding. Secondly, the author introduces several opinions about copyright: 1.The existing copyright system can not adapt internet environment. 2. The existing copyright system can adapt internet environment. 3. It is necessary to reconstruct the copyright system. There are four designed mode for reconstructing the copyright system now: （1） mode of incentive-based; （2） mode of right of commercial exploitation; （3） right to control access or access right; （4） mod of right to disseminate or exploit.Finally, the author expresses his own opinion: 1. Prevent copyright from further expanding currently. To realize this, the movement of free software and open source and the open spirit embodied in it is of vital. Moreover, it is necessary to insist the numberus clauses of copyright. As to international treaties related, strictly interpretation should be insisted as international obligations would be fulfilled. As to judicial practice, the doctrine of Judicial Restraint should be carried out. As to the abuse of judicial discretion in some courts in China, we must keep vigilance. 2. Adjust current copyright system appropriately: cancel the foundation position of the right of reproduction in the copyright system; establish the foundation position of the right to disseminate in internet environment; take powerful measures to prohibit the invasion to public domain by technical protection measures.The author expects that, after adjusting, traditional copyright system and digital copyright system will be turned into an organic whole, which will adapt to the challenge of new technology. Restricted by and coexisted with the open spirit, copyright will encourage knowledge and promote public welfare excellently by matching with other elements such as technology, market and ethic. Future copyright will be more humble; copyright of the future will be better.更多还原