一个维基百科人心目中的著作权法

作者:Shizhao

来源:http://shizhao.org/2010/03/wikipedian-and-copyright-law/

版权:知识共享署名-相同方式共享 3.0 Unported许可协议

File:Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg
(自由文化作品标志)

看到张抗抗关于加大著作权保护力度的提案,我不由得想要是我也能提案,将会希望有一个怎样的著作权法呢?

浸淫维基百科多年,维基百科秉承自由软件的理念,对版权要求极为严格,也一直致力于自由文化的推广。那么一个维基百科人将会希望有一个怎样的著作权法呢?

以下是我希望看到的中国著作权法:

“第五条 本法不适用于”应该加上中国人民共和国政府机关及其工作人员在职务期间的作品不受本法保护。(看看NASA,那么多漂亮的照片都是公有领域的呀。)或者学学人家巴西政府,所有政府作品都采用cc-by协议发表。

“第二十条 作者的署名权、修改权、保护作品完整权的保护期不受限制。”这一条款可能会与GPL等开源协议有冲突,虽然这一点上还有争论,但是至少应该加上除非作者声明放弃这些全部/部分权利。否则严格意义上,例如计算机软件,及时版权过期,对源代码可能仍然不能随意使用,因为会破坏作品完整权。尤其是GPL协议的软件,允许用户修改,从而可能与该条款冲突,也就是说,不知道GPL协议在中国是否能够完全合法?

“第二十一条:…电影作品和以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品、摄影作品,其发表权、本法第十条第一款第(五)项至第(十七)项规定的权利的保护期为五十年,截止于作品首次发表后第五十年的12月31日,但作品自创作完成后五十年内未发表的,本法不再保护”。张抗抗的提案要求变成死后50年,这过于保护作者的权利,而忽视使用者的权利,尤其是电影,照片等存放如此长时间后,别人再利用的价值已经很低,而且由于介质关系,可能已经无法使用。同样,关于计算机软件,据说中国的著作权是保护50年,我建议25年就好,50年前的计算机软件还有什么用呢?

此外,应该在著作权法或专利法中明确说明专利说明书的著作权性质,到底有没有著作权?在美国,专利说明书的著作权是不受保护的。

附:最新修订的中华人民共和国著作权法

李宏晨诉北极冰公司案

民事判决书

朝民初字第17848号

原告李宏晨,男,1980年 11月8日出生,汉族,中国网通集团河北省通讯公司承德分公司职员,住河北省承德市双桥区小佟沟教委家属楼1单元901号。
被告北京北极冰科技发展有限公司,住所地朝阳区高原街2号。
法定代表人赵利杰,执行董事。
委托代理人邱治国,男,1977年2月12日出生,汉族,北京北极冰科技发展有限公司副总经理,住西城区粉子胡同2号。
委托代理人胡刚,男,1963年6月16日出生,汉族,北京北极冰科技发展有限公司法律顾问,住海淀区阜成路北三街7号院2楼1308号。

原告李宏晨与被告北京北极冰科技发展有限公司娱乐服务合同纠纷一案,本院受理后,依法组成合议庭,公开开庭进行了审理。原告李宏晨、被告北京北极冰科技发展有限公司的委托代理人邱治国、胡刚到庭参加了诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

原告诉称,我是大型多人在线收费网络游戏”红月”的玩家之一,被告是该游戏的经营者。原、被告之间是消费者与经营者的关系。我通过购买多种被告发行的游戏卡进入游戏获得游戏时间及一些虚拟装备。 继续阅读李宏晨诉北极冰公司案

检方披露百度员工删帖受贿案:私自外放删帖权或判5年

http://finance.cnr.cn/gundong/201209/t20120918_510937989.shtml

作者:王思远

来源:中国广播网

摘要:网络有偿删帖这两年一直是互联网业备受诟病的灰色地带。 海淀检方日前披露了一起百度员工私自删帖涉嫌受贿的案件:半个月内,涉案人员通过内外勾结,外放删帖权的方式,非法获利6.74万元。目前,涉案人员已经被正式批捕,并可能面临五年以下有期徒刑。

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

Creative Commons Licensed

by John Perry Barlow <barlow@eff.org>

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don’t exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

Davos, Switzerland

February 8, 1996

译文在此

王路诉雅虎网页快照案二审判决

北京市高级人民法院民事判决书

(2007)高民终字第1729号

上诉人(原审原告)王路,男,汉族,1955年2月15日出生,清华大学人文学院职工,住中华人民共和国北京市东城区后拐棒胡同甲2号。

委托代理人孟梅,女,汉族,1970年10月15日出生,无业,住中华人民共和国北京市东城区细管胡同3号。

被上诉人(原审被告)雅虎公司(Yahoo!Inc),住所地美利坚合众国加利福尼亚州94089,散尼维尔第一大道701。

法定代表人苏珊·迪克(SusanDecker),执行副总裁及财务总监。

上诉人王路因侵犯著作权纠纷一案,不服中华人民共和国北京市第一中级人民法院于2007年7月26日做出的(2005)一中民初字第5761号民事判决,向本院提起上诉。本院2007年10月22日受理后,依法组成合议庭,于2008年3月24日公开开庭审理了本案。上诉人王路的委托代理人孟梅,被上诉人雅虎公司的委托代理人李珺到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

北京市第一中级人民法院认定:《开放时代》2001年3月号刊登了《弗雷格和维特根斯坦:一个常常被忽略的问题》一文,《西南师范大学学报》哲学社会科学版1999年第2期刊登了《论我国的逻辑教学》一文,《中国青年报》2003年8月10日刊登了《从〈小逻辑〉到〈逻辑学〉》一文。上述三篇文章署名作者均为王路。中华人民共和国北京市公证处出具的(2005)京证经字第01940号公证书(以下简称第01940号公证书)显示:在http://www.yahoo.com网站“Searchtheweb”一栏中键入“王路逻辑”进行搜索,该搜索结果中包含有上述三篇文章的网页快照。

北京市第一中级人民法院认为:网页快照是搜索引擎提供的一种专项技术服务,搜索引擎在收录网页过程中,根据技术安排自动将被索引网站网页的HTML编码备份到缓存中。当用户点击搜索结果的“网页快照”或“快照”链接进行访问时,实际上访问的就是缓存页面。网页快照中通常有标题信息说明其存档时间,并提示用户这只是原网站网页页面的存档资料,是搜索引擎自动从原网站上抓取的快照。搜索引擎将根据原网站的更新速度设置网页快照更新周期,定期对网页快照进行更新。搜索引擎能否向用户提供某一网页的快照,取决于原网站是否上载有该网页及该网页是否被禁止快照这两个主要因素;网页快照的内容来源于上载网页的原网站,并受控于原网站,搜索引擎对网页快照的内容是否具有合法性并无预见性和识别性;搜索引擎根据技术安排自动对互联网中所有未被禁止快照的网页设置快照,对搜索引擎而言,其并不知晓为哪些网站的哪些网页设置了快照。王路提起诉讼之前雅虎公司并不知晓其为载有涉案作品的网页设置了快照,亦不知晓涉案网页快照的内容。且雅虎公司在其提供的载有涉案作品的网页快照上明确提示用户这只是原网站网页页面的存档资料,是搜索引擎自动从原网站上抓取的快照,尽到了告知义务。在王路提起本案诉讼后,雅虎公司已经在其网站上屏蔽了涉案作品的网页快照链接。因此,雅虎公司提供网页快照服务并没有侵犯王路著作权的主观过错。

由于互联网中的网页不计其数,网页快照和与之对应的原网页的内容因技术原因无法达到绝对同步,但两者间的刷新延时应在一个合理期限内。如果原网站中的某网页已被修改、删除或屏蔽多时,而搜索引擎怠于保持与原网站的同步,仍在提供该网页的快照,则网页快照已失去了其合理存在的基础,网页快照服务已经从一种技术服务转化成一种信息提供服务,网页快照提供者应当承担相应的法律责任。本案中,王路提交的证据仅显示雅虎公司提供了载有涉案作品网页的快照,但未反映出原网页此时的状况,无法证明雅虎公司提供涉案网页快照时原网站经营者已经修改了原网页的内容或删除、屏蔽了原网页,亦无法进一步从时间上证明雅虎公司提供网页快照已经超过了合理期限。故王路所提交的证据不足以证明雅虎公司在原网站已经修改、删除或屏蔽载有涉案作品网页的情况下,仍长期提供针对原网页的网页快照。 继续阅读王路诉雅虎网页快照案二审判决