著作权“间接侵权”之理论反思与制度重述  

Reflection and Restatement on “Indirect Infringement” of Copyright

作　　者：刘平 

出　　处：《电子知识产权》2017年第12期39-53,共15页Electronics Intellectual Property

摘　　要：援引英美、日本判例所塑造的著作权"间接侵权"理论在概念上难以自足,将著作权侵权硬生生地分割为直接侵权和间接侵权两类,却没有阐释二者在行为类型、归责原则和责任性质方面的异同性,也没有证成这种二元侵权结构在司法实践中的独特适用优势,更缺乏与《侵权责任法》关于共同侵权制度之间的沟通与缝合机制,故而不具备在中国生长的制度情景。在我国日趋完善的民事共同侵权制度之下,著作权"间接侵权"并无共存的必要和平台,其内容完全可经由著作权共同侵权的法理来阐明。实体层面,直接侵权的预备行为可由消除危险请求权和诉前保全措施予以解决;扩大侵权损害后果的行为属于共同侵权的范畴;辅助侵权可由帮助型共同侵权取代,引诱侵权可由教唆型共同侵权来实现。程序层面,判断某一行为是否构成对著作权的侵害应遵循"先单独侵权、后共同侵权"的次序认定规则。The ＂Indirect Infringement＂ of copyright introduced from Britain, America and Japan fails to explain its content clearly. It constructs two models of infringement for copyright： direct infringement and indirect infringement. But the same point or difference about the constitutive requirements and legal effects of the two models has not been elaborated. Moreover, it does not show its advantage in our judicial adjudication, in contrast, it deviates from the system of Joint Infringement in our Tort Liability Law. Therefore, to make it sinicization is inappropriate. In Chinese traditional civil law, ＂Indirect Infringement＂ in copyright can＇t and needn＇t coexist with the theory of joint infringement. Preparatory acts of direct infringement can be tackled by the right of claim to eliminate danger and the Pre-litigation preservation measures. The expansion of the damage consequences belongs to the joint infringement. The function of Contributory Infringement and Inducement Infringement can also be displaced by the joint infringement. For the procedure, when judging whether an act constitutes infringement of copyright or not, we should follow the rule of ＂first separate infringement, then joint infringement＂.

关 键 词：间接侵权 辅助侵权 替代责任 引诱侵权 共同侵权 

分 类 号：D923.41[政治法律—民商法学]