数字环境下版权保护的 挑战及对策 Challenge and Countermeasure of Copyright Protection in Digital Environment :
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.
被告仍然是作为“搜索与链接服务提供者”承担责任的。与其是否同时提供了P2P软件，或该软件是否使用P2P技术毫无关系
Defendant shall bear the corresponding liability as an “Provider of searching and linked service”, which has not relationship whether or not it offers the P2P software or apply the P2P technology.
《著作权法》第10条第1款第12项： “信息网络传播权，即以有线或者无线方式向公众提供作品，使公众可以在其个人选定的时间和地点获得作品的权利”
The 12th term of the 1st subparagraph of article 1 of Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China provided that “the right of communication of information on networks, that is, the right to communicate to the public a work, by wire or wireless means in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them”.
《信息网络传播权保护条例》第26条： “信息网络传播权，是指以有线或者无线方式向公众提供作品、表演或者录音录像制品，使公众可以在其个人选定的时间和地点获得作品、表演或者录音录像制品的权利” 。
The article 26th of Order of the State Council of the People's Republic of China provided that: “right to network dissemination of information" refers to the right to provide the works, performance and audio-visual products to the general public in a wire or wireless manner so that the general public may get access to the works, performance and audio-visual products at the time and place that the relevant owner has chosen”.
在欧盟，三类涉及P2P技术的侵权问题均已出现。
Three types of copyright infringement related with P2P technology has appeared in EU.
对于第二类问题（网络服务商同时提供被搜索到的影视、音乐等作品的目录），欧盟的立法与司法实践与中国相同。
As for the second types of problem (network provider provides the content of searching film and music at the same time), the legislation and jurisdiction practice of EU is the same with China.
对于第三类问题（P2P软件个人用户“分享”作品），欧盟各国不但普遍认为构成侵权，而且部分欧盟各国还对其进行刑事制裁。
As for the third type of problem (the private user of P2P software “share” the works), countries in EU held that it constitutes the infringement of copyright, and part of EU countries will prosecute the criminal sanction.
对于第一类问题（单纯提供P2P服务），欧盟在立法和司法实践中出现了两种趋势：
As for the fist type problem (offering the simple P2P service), there are two tendencies in the legislation and jurisdiction practice:
认定P2P服务提供者引诱他人侵权，严重者可构成犯罪（法国）
The provider of P2P service seduces the infringement behavior of the others and constitutes a crime in serious cases.
要求P2P服务商采取过滤措施：比利时Scarlet案：布鲁塞尔地方法院（2007年）：
Ask the P2P dealer to take the relevant filtering measure: Scarlet case of Belgium：magistrate‘s court of Brussels（２００７）
比利时作者、作曲家和出版商协会（SABAM）要求网络接入服务商Scarlet采取过滤措施，以防止用户使用P2P软件非法交换音乐作品。法院对Scarlet下达禁令，要求其在6个月内安装Audible Magic系统，以过滤侵权音乐。
The Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SABAM) asked the website to access the Scarlet network and apply the filtering measure for preventing the illegal behavior of music exchanging of user through P2P software. The court bans the Scarlet and orders it to install the Audible Magic system within 6 months for filtering the infringement music.
《著作权法》第44条：“ 广播电台、电视台有权禁止未经其许可的下列行为： （一）将其播放的广播、电视转播 ； （二）将其播放的广播、电视录制在音像载体上以及复制音像载体。 ”
The article 44 of Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China provided that “A radio station or television station shall have the right to prohibit the following acts without authorization therefrom:
(1) to rebroadcast its broadcast radio or television program; and
(2) to fix its broadcast radio or television program on a sound recording or video recording carrier and to reproduce the sound recording or video recording carrier”.
法条没有对“广播电台”、“电视台”和“转播”等术语进行定义。对其只能根据《罗马公约》和Trips协议进行解释。
The regulation does not define the concept of “rebroadcast station”, “TV station” and “rebroadcast”, which may be interpreted according to the terms of “Rome Convention” and “Trips agreement”.
“网播组织”并不受保护；“转播”也仅限于以传统的无线方式转播。
“Organization of broadcasting on Internet” is not protected by the law; “rebroadcast” is also limited to the pattern of traditional wireless rebroadcast.
欧盟《信息社会版权指令》赋予了广播组织对其广播的“交互式传播权”（相当于我国的“信息网络传播权”），但却没有赋予广播组织一项广义的“向公众传播权”。
The “directive of information society copyright” of EU has endowed the broadcast organization the “authorization of interactive transmission” (equal to the authorization of information network), but does not endowed the “authorization of transmission to the general public” to the broadcast organization.
由于欧盟《信息社会版权指令》承认“临时复制”也属于复制行为，而广播组织对其广播又享有“复制权”，因此未经许可通过网络转播广播组织的节目可以构成对“复制权”的侵权。
The “directive of information society copyright” of EU recognized that the “temporary duplication” belongs to the action of duplication. However, the broadcast organization is also has the “duplication right”. Therefore, the program of broadcast organization on Internet without permission may constitutes the infringement of “duplication right”.
对平台提供者侵权责任的认定
Definition of the infringement liability of the provider of platform
直接上传侵权内容的是用户，而非平台提供者，因此平台提供者并不构成直接侵权。但如其明知或应知用户上传了侵权内容，而不及时加以删除，则构成间接侵权。
Users is the person which directly upload the infringement content, not the platform provider. Therefore, the platform provider does not constitute the direct infringement. However, when the platform provider is fully aware or should be aware that the users upload the infringement content and does not cancel it in time, the platform provider shall constitutes indirect infringement.
符合《信息网络传播权保护条例》要求的通知能够证明平台提供者“明知”侵权内容的存在；
Notification complied with the regulation of “Regulations for the Protection of Information Network Transmission Right” may prove that the platform provider is “fully aware” the existence of the infringement content.
权利人不发通知，或通知不符合要求，法院同样有可能认定平台提供者“应知”侵权内容的存在。
If the rightful owner does not issue the notification or the notification does not meet the relevant requirements, the court may determine that the platform provider should be aware the existence of the infringement content.
《信息网络传播权保护条例》第22条： 网络服务提供者为服务对象提供信息存储空间，供服务对象通过信息网络向公众提供作品、表演、录音录像制品，并具备下列条件的，不承担赔偿责任： …… （三）不知道也没有合理的理由应当知道服务对象提供的作品、表演、录音录像制品侵权； …… （五）在接到权利人的通知书后，根据本条例规定删除权利人认为侵权的作品、表演、录音录像制品。
Article 22 of “Regulations for the Protection of Information Network Transmission Right” provided that Where a network service provider provides information memory space to its service objects, or provides the works, performance and audio-visual products to the general public through the information network and in case the following requirements are satisfied, he is not required to assume the liabilities of compensation:
….
(3) Having no knowledge of and being justifiable reason to know the infringement of the works, performance and audio-visual products;
….
(5) After receiving a notice from the owner, deleting those works, performance and audio-visual products that the owner regards as infringing ones according to the present Ordinance.
新传在线诉土豆网（上海市高级人民法院，2008年）：
Nubb.com Appeals to Tudou.com (Shanghai People’s court, 2008) 上诉人（原审被告）特意将“原创”作品与其他“娱乐”“影视”“音乐”等作品分设不同频道的行为本身，说明上诉人除了对广大网络用户将自拍的家庭生活或娱乐片断等原创作品上传之外，还可能将其他未经许可的热门电影和电视剧等上传至网站从而招致可能的侵权风险的情况是知晓的；
Appellant (defendant) which purposely arranges the “original” works and the other “entertainment”, “video files” and “music” in a different channel shows except the family living or amusement video that uploaded by the general network user, the appellant may fully aware the rise of infringement for uploading the other popular film or TV play to the website. 根据常理可知，目前没有任何一家中外著名电影制片公司许可过任何网站或个人免费提供其摄制的热门电影供网络用户下载。上诉人作为一家专门从事包含影视、音乐等在内的多媒体娱乐视频共享平台的专业网站，在日常网站维护中，应当知晓当时在大陆热播的电影作品之一的《疯狂的石头》的上传是未经许可的。
Generally, no well known film production corporation may authorize any website or individual to offering the download resource of popular film in free. As a special website engaging in the sharing platform of multi-media of film and music, it shall fully aware in daily maintenance that the uploading of popular film production of “Crazy Stone” of mainland in China is unauthorized.
对于UGC平台提供者的间接侵权责任，欧盟2000年的《电子商务指令》规定的法律规则与中国完全相同。
As for the indirect liability of infringement for copyright of the provider of UGC platform, the regulation of EU “directive of E-commerce” in 2000 is the same with China.
欧盟一些成员国在司法实践中开始要求UGC平台提供者对内容进行过滤。
Some EU member states start to ask the provider of UGC platform to take the measure of content filtering.
德国Rapidshare案：杜塞尔多夫地方法院（2008年）：
German Rapidshare case: Dusseldorf magistrate's court
有一名为Rapidshare的文件共享网站。用户可自由上传文件，但每月只能免费下载有限数量的文件。只有付费用户才能无限量高速下载。同时该网站提供用于上传文件的软件，并对那些其上传的文件被大量下载的上传者加以奖励。该网站采取了以下防止侵权的措施：
There is a file sharing website named Rapidshare. The users may upload the file freely, but can only download a number of files in free per month. Users may pay to the website for infinite high-speed download. At the same time, the website offers the uploading software and rewards the uploading users which have a large download record. The infringement preventing measures applied by the website are as follows:
进行文件名关键词过滤；
Keyword filtering of file name;
侵权文件一旦被删除，无法以相同文件名再次上传；
When the infringement file is deleted, it shall not be uploaded again with the same file name.
使用Md5过滤系统，阻止用户以不同文件名上传相同内容的文件；
Applied the Md5 filtering system for preventing the user uploading the file of the same content with different file name.
成立专门的监控部门，愿意在收到权利人通知后立即删除被指称侵权的文件。
Establish the special supervision department; and delete the infringement document which claimed by the rightful owner.
法院认为：Rapidshare网站采用的过滤措施是不充分的，因为：
The court held that: the filtering measure of Rapidshare website is insufficient, the reasons are:
文件名关键词作用不大，因为可以使用不同的文件名上传相同的内容。用户可以使用作品名搜索到相同的文件。
The function of the keyword of file play a minor role, because people can use different file names to upload the same content. Users can search the same file with the name of the works.
Md5过滤系统仅能识别内容完全相同的文件，只要对内容稍作修改就能加以规避；
Md5 filtering system can only discern the files with exact content, however, slight modification can evade the verification of that software;
由于共享文件数量巨大， Rapidshare网站监控部门只能阻止少量侵权文件上传。
Because the quantity of the sharing files is enormous, the supervision department of Rapidshare website only stop a small number of uploaded infringement file.
法院还认为：Rapidshare网站的商业模式鼓励了大量上传，并从网站从中受益。因为用户付费的主要原因（即使不是唯一原因）是获取盗版作品
The court held that: the commercial modes of Rapidshare websites have been encouraged the behavior of large amount uploading, and benefited from the websites. The main reason for the users pay to (Even it is not the only reason) the website is to obtain the pirate works.
法院的结论： Rapidshare网站必须采取更加有效的过滤措施，即使该措施会导致其对用户的吸引力大幅降低。如果这些措施都无效， Rapidshare网站经营者甚至有义务关闭该网站。
The court conclusion: Rapidshare websites shall take more effective filtration measures, even these measures will largely reduce its appealing to the users. If these measures are all invalid, the operator of Rapidshare website has the obligation to close this website.
谢谢！ Thanks!
2012.11.2