版权保护的挑战及对策翻译-中英对照
Challenge and Countermeasure of Copyright Protection in Digital Environment :
华东政法大学 王迁
East China University of Political Science and Law Wang Qian
涉及P2P技术的侵权问题有三类：
Three major types of copyright infringement related with P2P technology:
网络服务商仅仅提供P2P软件或同时为P2P软件提供检索服务器（单纯的P2P服务）；
Network service provider only provide P2P software or access server for the P2P software (simple P2P service)；
网络服务商在提供P2P软件及为P2P软件提供检索服务器，还提供被搜索到的影视、音乐等作品的目录，供P2P用户点击下载或在线欣赏；
While providing the P2P software and access server for the P2P software, the network service providers also provide the catalogue of video and music for clicking download or enjoying online for the users：
P2P软件的用户未经许可“分享”作品是否构成侵权。
Whether the users of P2P software constitute copyright infringement for “sharing” the works without permission.
中国的现状Current Status in China
在中国目前出现的各类涉及P2P技术的服务均非单纯的P2P服务，而是同时涉及提供精心编制的作品目录，或提供信息存储空间，供P2P用户上传作品的链接。
Various service of P2P technology in China at present are not simple P2P service, but provides the content of relevant earnestly compiled works at the same time, or provide storage space for uploading linked service of P2P users.
《信息网络传播权保护条例》第22条和第23条明确规定：提供信息存储空间的网络服务商，以及提供搜索或链接的网络服务商，在明知或应知用户上传的内容侵权，或被链接的内容侵权，而不及时采取措施时，应当承担侵权责任。
Article 22 and article 23 of “Regulations for the Protection of Information Network Transmission Right” clearly stipulates : the Internet service provider for providing the storage space, and the internet service provider for providing the searching or linking who, is fully aware or should be aware that the content is infringed the copyright or the linked content and does no apply the relevant measure shall bear the responsibility for infringement. “步升音乐公司诉飞行网案”（北京市第二中级人民法院，2006年）
“Busheng Music Company Appeals to Kuro (Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, 2006)
“被告应当知道涉案歌曲的来源很可能是未经原告许可而上载的，且被告未举证证明其曾采取任何措施避免未经原告上海步升公司许可而上载的涉案53首歌曲利用Kuro酷乐软件在网上进行传播。因此，本院认定被告舶盛舫安公司的上述行为具有主观故意。”
Defendant shall fully aware of the source of songs involved in the case may be uploaded without permission of accuser, and the defendant does not prove to apply any measures to prevent the uploading behaviors of 53 songs without the permission of the Shanghai Busheng company involved in this case through Kure software. Therefore, the court held that the behaviors of Posheng Fangan Company shall be an act of subjective desire.
被告实际上是作为“搜索与链接服务提供者”承担间接侵权责任的。
Defendant shall bear the indirect liability of infringement for copyright as “provider of searching and linked service”.
“优度诉迅雷”：上海浦东新区人民法院（2008）
“51TV.com Appeals to Thunder”: the People’s Court of Pudong New Area of Shanghai (2008)
按照一般商业规则，制片公司及相应权利人不可能允许他人未经授权、不支付费用对影片进行毫无限制的开放式网络传播。作为一家专业提供下载服务的网络公司，被告应当了解这一常识，而且完全具备了解这一常识的能力。
In accordance with the normal business rules, the production company and the corresponding beneficiary has no right to implementing the unrestricted opening network communication of films without the authorization and payment. As a network company for offering the special downloading service, the defendant shall be fully aware of this knowledge and perfectly equip with the capacity for understanding this knowledge.
被告网站对该条目特别进行了相关编辑行为，附有影片《伤城》的描述性段落、下载速度以及内容的评价。在网友的评论列表中甚至有“是枪版的，来我这下吧，DVD版”、“但是画面太模糊，有高清版的吗”等可以判断下载资源合法性的评论性文字。
The defendant website has edited the content and attached with the description paragraph of the film of “Confession of Pain” and the comment of the downloading speed and content. The comment list of net friends even has the comment words of “ This film is a pirate file; come here for downloading; “DVD edition” and “the picture is too dim, do you have the edition of high definition ?”, etc., which may judge the legality of the downloading resource.
被告实际上是作为“搜索与链接服务提供者”承担间接侵权责任的。
Defendant shall bear the indirect liability of infringement for copyright as “the provider of searching and linked service”.
“广州中凯诉广州数联”(POCO案)：上海市第一中级人民法院（2007）：“众所周知，电影作品本身的性质决定了其制作完成需耗费大量的人力、物力、财力，电影作品的著作权人通常不会将电影作品无偿提供给社会公众欣赏，尤其是新片。就涉案电影作品而言，其于2004年9月在香港制作完成，2005年11月首次在香港公映，而该片在POCO网上发布的时间为2005年11月19日，与该片在香港的首映时间基本同步。因此从常理而言，著作权人不可能许可他人在网络上免费发布该部电影作品，这显然是网络用户擅自发布的行为。………在本案中，网络用户的侵权行为是显而易见的，被告却视而不见，放任侵权行为的扩大，其主观过错明显，应当承担相应的法律责任。”
“Guangzhou Zhongkai Appeals to Guangzhou Shulian (POCO): Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court (2007): “It is well known that the original natures of film production determine that the manufacture of the film works shall consume a large quantity of labor, material resources and finance, therefore, generally the copyright owner may not supply the film products to the general public in free, especially the new film. So far as the films of this case concerned, the manufacture of these films is completed in September of 2004 in Hong Kong; it was shown firstly in November of 2005 in Hong Kong; the date to publish to film on the POCO is 19th, November, 2005 and is the same date with the opening of the film. Therefore, in general the copyright owner may not allow the others publish the film works without authorization, and it is obviously an unauthorized action of network user. ….. In this cast, the copyright infringement of network user is self-evident. However, the defendant turns a blind eye to it, and permits the enlargement of infringement behavior, which has an obvious subject fault and shall bear the corresponding leangle liability.
2013.6.27