欢迎访问南华大学学报社科版

快速检索			高级检索

IPTV著作权案件司法认定的分歧与解决路径

Differences and Solutions in Judicial Determination of IPTV Copyright Cases

投稿时间：2024-12-12 修订日期：2025-02-19

DOI：

English Keywords:IPTV copyright infringement judicial differences basic stance specific path

Fund Project:

作者	单位	邮编
张传磊^*	中国社会科学院大学	100720

摘要点击次数: 51

全文下载次数: 0

中文摘要:

IPTV著作权案件,司法实践中逐渐形成了两种典型的观点,一种为电信企业与广电播出机构因分工合作而构成共同侵权的观点,另外一种为电信企业系提供技术服务而不构成侵权的观点,形成司法分歧,并引起争议。本文认为电信企业责任的认定需要正确理解著作权保护与落实国家IPTV政策之间的有机统一关系,在具体路径上选择以行为而非身份作为评价的基础,在认定共同侵权中“意思联络”要件时应秉持合理的标准,不能苛求电信企业需要就特定涉案作品的提供与广电播出机构存在意思联络,只要二者有共同合作以提供作品的意图即可。

English Summary:

落实国家“三网融合”政策的《专网及定向传播视听节目服务管理规定》第十八条第三款就明确规定：“专网及定向传播视听节目服务单位应当遵守著作权法律、行政法规的规定,采取著作权保护措施,保护著作权人的合法权益”。在咪咕公司与优酷公司著作权纠纷案件 _{北京市海淀区人民法院(}₂₀₁₇_)京₀₁₀₈_民初₃₄₃₀₅_{民事判决书。}[ 参考文献 ]_[₁_{]　邹璐璐,杨辉．浅谈}_IPTV_与_{OTT TV}_业务[_J_{]．江西通信科技,}₂₀₂₁₍₂_)．_[₂_{]　谷默．三网融合背景下}_IPTV_{发展分析[}_J_{]．信息通信,}₂₀₂₀₍₄_)．_[₃_{]　曾爱华,刘捷,冼进．}_IPTV_{系统架构及主要技术[}_J_{]．通信技术,}₂₀₁₀₍₃_)．_[₄_{]　袁芳,陈绍玲．}_IPTV_{服务中媒体传输平台的侵权责任[}_J_{]．绍兴文理学院学报(哲学社会科学),}₂₀₁₇₍₁_)．_[₅_{]　曹丽萍．视频著作权纠纷实务要点与案例评析[}_M_{]．北京：中国法制出版社,}₂₀₂₂_．_[₆_{]　国家版权局．}₂₀₂₁_{年度中国网络版权保护报告[}_EB/OL_]．(_2023-02-28₎_[_2024-11-10_]．_{https://www.ncac.gov.cn/chinacopyright/contents/12756/357401.shtml}_．_[₇_{]　熊文聪．从身份到行为：}_IPTV_{语境下视听节目侵权主体探析[}_J_{]．版权理论与实务,}₂₀₂₂₍₈_)．_[₈_{]　祝建军．}_IPTV_{的共同经营主体需对侵权行为承担共同侵权责任[}_J_{]．人民司法,}₂₀₁₄₍₂₄_)．_[₉_{]　周辉．著作权视域下网盘服务提供者的平台责任[}_J_{]．暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),}₂₀₂₃₍₇_)．_[₁₀_{]　祝建军．“三网融合”著作权案件梳理与问题分析[}_J_{]．电子知识产权,}₂₀₁₆₍₁_)．_[₁₁_{]　楼婕．}_IPTV_{回看服务的版权侵权问题研究[}_J_{]．传播与版权,}₂₀₁₆₍₈_)．_[₁₂_{]　胡智海．三网融合下的广电、电信和互联网企业竞合分析[}_J_{]．信息网络,}₂₀₁₀₍_Z1_)．_[₁₃_{]　苏志甫．网络著作权保护法律适用问题研究——以法院相关判例为切入点[}_J_{]．知识产权,}₂₀₁₅₍₆_)．_[₁₄_{]　冯刚．涉}_IPTV_{侵害著作权纠纷问题研究[}_J_{]．版权理论与实务,}₂₀₂₂₍₁_)．_[₁₅_{]　孔祥俊．网络著作权保护法律理念与裁判方法[}_M_{]．北京：中国法制出版社,}₂₀₁₅_．_[₁₆_{]　陶乾．新《著作权法》下}_IPTV_{版权侵权问题的重新审视[}_J_{]．电视研究,}₂₀₂₁₍₁₂_)．_[₁₇_{]　杜娟．}_IPTV_{监管政策探析[}_J_{]．现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),}₂₀₀₇₍₃_)．Differences and Solutions in Judicial Determination of IPTV Copyright Cases——From the perspective of identifying the responsibility of telecommunications companiesZHANG Chuanlei₍_{School of Law}_,_{University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences}_,_Beijing_{, China}₁₀₀₇₂₀₎: In the judicial practice of IPTV copyright cases, two typical views have gradually formed: one is that telecom enterprises and broadcasting institutions jointly infringe due to division of labor and cooperation, and the other is that telecom enterprises provide technical services without infringement, which has caused judicial differences and controversies. This article believes that the determination of the responsibility of telecommunications companies requires a correct understanding of the organic and unified relationship between copyright protection and the implementation of national IPTV policies. In the specific path, behavior rather than identity should be chosen as the basis for evaluation. When determining the element of “intention connection” in joint infringement, reasonable standards should be adhered to, and telecommunications companies should not be required to have intention connection with broadcasting institutions regarding the provision of specific works involved. As long as both parties have the intention to cooperate to provide works, it is sufficient.Keywords: IPTV copyright infringement; judicial differences; basic stance; specific path【责任编辑】中,法院亦指出“国家相关政策规定必然是在现行著作权法体系下以尊重他人知识产权为基本前提和原则,被告经营涉案应用符合当前国家政策导向、相关行政机关行政许可和主体身份资质规定是其在现阶段正常开展市场经营活动的基本行为要求,但不能以其行为符合行政管理要求即直接认定作为民事主体的被告实施的经营行为亦满足民事法律行为的合法性要求”。

查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器

关闭