数字环境下的限制翻译-中英对照
：私人复制问题 Restriction and Exception in Digital Environment: the Problem of Private Copy
华东政法大学 王迁
East China University of Political Science and Law Wang Qian
个人从网络中下载盗版作品是否构成侵权？
Whether behavior of individuals downloading pirated works from the network is an infringement or not?
《著作权法》第22条： 在下列情况下使用作品，可以不经著作权人许可，不向其支付报酬，但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称，并且不得侵犯著作权人依照本法享有的其他权利： （一）为个人学习、研究或者欣赏，使用他人已经发表的作品。
“Copyright Law” Clause 22: In the following cases, a work may be exploited without permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work shall be mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law shall not be prejudiced:
(l) use of a published work for the purposes of the user's own private study, research or self-entertainment;
Trips协议第13条：“全体成员均应将专有权利的限制或例外局限于一定特例中，该特例不能与作品的正常利用相冲突，也不能不合理地损害权利人的合法利益”。
Trips Agreement Clause 13: “All members should limit restriction or exception of exclusive rights to some special case that neither impacts the normal use nor unreasonably prejudices legitimate interests of the obligee”.
信息网络传播权保护条例（草案）第9条 ：（合理使用）在下列情况下使用作品，可以不经著作权人许可，不向其支付报酬，但应当根据情况指明作者姓名、作品名称，并且不得侵犯著作权人依法享有的其他权利：
Ordinance on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information (draft) Clause 9: (logical use) in the following circumstances, the use of works without permission of the copyright owner and without any remuneration is available, but the author's name, the name of works should be specified and it is not allowed to violate other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner in accordance with this law:
（一）为个人阅览、学习或者研究，以电子形式复制通过信息网络向公众传播的作品，非免费、共享软件除外。
(I) The works that are duplicated in an electronic form and propagated to the public through information network for individual read, study or research, except for software that are not free or shared.
“泛亚诉张伟及百度”（2006）：
Pan-Asia Appeals to Zhang Wei and Baidu (2006) 泛亚发现张伟在杭州一网吧下载其享有权利的5首歌曲，认为其侵犯版权，要求其为每首歌赔偿2角，共1元人民币。
Pan-Asia found that Zhang Wei downloaded five songs with rights enjoyed by itself in a cyber bar, who considered he infringed its copyright and requested him to compensate two Jiao for each song, with a total amount of one Yuan.
“环球唱片公司诉百度”（2008）
Universal Music Group Appeals to Baidu (2008)
原告的诉因之一是百度“引诱”用户侵权。这意味着要求法院认定用户下载盗版音乐是直接侵权。
One of the reasons for the plaintiff to appeal is that Baidu “seduces” users into infringement, which means requesting the court to assert that downloading pirated music by clients is a direct infringement.
Napster案（美国第九巡回上诉法院2001年）：用户使用P2P软件下载盗版音乐不构成合理使用：
Napster Case (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001): the behaviors that users use P2P software to download pirated music do not constitute fair use:
1．使用的目的和性质：“反复以复制方式利用版权作品的价值之所以会被认定为商业性使用，是因为它节省了购买授权复制件的花费”。
1. Purpose and nature of application: “the repeated application of copyright works by duplicating is regarded as commercial use, because it saves the cost of purchasing authorized hard copies”.
2. 使用作品的性质：具有创造性的作品比描述事实的作品受到更大程度的版权保护。
2. Properties of applied works: creative works are subjected to more copyright protection than works that describes fact.
3．使用的量和重要性：“大批量地复制版权作品” 不易成立合理使用。
3. Quantity and importance of application: “large quantities of duplicated copyright works ” are not easy to constitute fair use.
4. 该使用对于市场的影响：大量下载减少了音乐CD在大学生中的销售量，另外还为原告进入音乐在线下载市场设置了障碍。即使被告对原告现有市场产生了正面的影响，也不能否认被告直接复制了原告版权作品的行为将对原告的未来市场产生损害。
4. Influence of this application on market: a large quantity of download reduces sales of music CD among university students and also sets up obstacles for the plaintiff to enter into music online download. Even if the defendant contributes positive effect on current market of the plaintiff, the behaviors that the defendant directly duplicates copyright works of the plaintiff can not be denied, which do harm to future market of the plaintiff.
BMG等唱片公司诉塞西莉亚（美国第七巡回上诉法院，2005）被告塞西莉亚使用P2P软件在几周时间内下载并保存了超过1370首由原告BMG等唱片公司享有版权的歌曲。塞西莉亚首先认为：她下载的目的是试听，以便挑出喜欢的歌曲后再去购买正版。对于歌曲版权人能够起到很好的广告宣传的效应、提高歌曲的销量。
BMG and other record companies appeals to Cecilia (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005) Cecilia, the defendant made use of P2P software to download and save more than 1370 songs in few weeks with copyright enjoyed by BMG, the plaintiff and other record companies. Cecilia firstly considers: she tries to download music for a listening test so as to select out favorite songs and then to buy legal copy. It has a good advertising effect on copyright owner of song, improving sales volume of songs as well.
法院指出：免费从网上下载歌曲会对正版歌曲产生市场替代效应，很导致正版唱片销量下降。同时，即使是那些能够刺激作品销量的作品使用行为，也是需要经过版权人许可的。如广播电台、电视台播放歌曲都是需要支付许可费的。塞西莉亚本来可以通过合法途径对歌曲进行试听，或通过在网上免费收听歌曲片断而决定是否购买。塞西莉亚的观点等同于说一个小偷顺手牵羊拿走了30盘唱片，打算先拿回去听，再购买她喜欢的歌曲，显然是不合法的。
The court points out: downloading songs from the Internet for free will produce substitution effect, which causes sales volume of legal copy to decrease. Meanwhile, even if those behaviors are able to simulate sales volume of works which should be permitted by the copyright owner. For example, the broadcasting stations and TV stations must pay permission fee for playing songs. Cecilia is able to have a listening test for songs through the legal approach or listen to the music via the Internet for free to decide whether to buy it. Cecili’s point of view can be understood that a thief walked away with 30 records and he planed to listen to them at home, and then to buy them. It is illegal by all appearances.
欧盟2001年《信息社会版权指令》：成员国可以制定私人复制例外，但以权利人获得合理补偿为条件。
“Copyright Directive of the Information Society” issued by the European Union in 2001: except that member countries are able to establish private copies, it takes obligee to acquire reasonable compensation as a condition.
德国修改后的《著作权法》：“私人复制例外”不适用于来源明显非法的作品。
“Copyright Law" revised by Germany: “except for private copies”, it is not applicable for illegal works with obvious origins.
欧盟一些成员国已出现了要求P2P用户就其未经许可分享作品的行为（既包括上传，也包括下载）承担责任的现象。
Some member countries have required P2P users to undertake responsibility for behaviors (including unload and download) of sharing works without permission.
对于用户大量下载明显是盗版的音乐、电影等作品的行为：
As for behaviors that users excessively download pirated works as music and films, etc. are:
认定其行为不属于私人复制例外，而是构成侵权，会使大量个人用户沦为侵权者，从公共政策角度来看并不适宜；
Make an exception for behaviors asserted not to be private copy, it constitutes infringement and a lot of individual users will fall into infringers, being unsuitable from view of public policy;
认定其行为属于私人复制例外则有可能违反三步检验标准。
Make an exception for behaviors asserted to be private copy, which may violate the Three Step Test.
至少在目前，应通过制度设计避免直接追究个人下载者的责任。
Currently, the system design should be applied to avoid directly investigating and affixing the responsibility for individuals who download.
谢谢！ Thanks!
2013.6.19