出租与深度链接他人作品行为之刑法评价  

Criminal Law Evaluation of Renting and Deeply Linking Other People's Works

作　　者：程红[1] 李克强 Cheng Hong;Li Keqiang(College of Criminal Justice,Zhongnan University of Economics and Law,Wuhan Hubei430000)

机构地区：[1]中南财经政法大学刑事司法学院,湖北武汉430000

出　　处：《沈阳师范大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第4期39-49,共11页Journal of Shenyang Normal University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：中南财经政法大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助(202110716)。

摘　　要：《刑法修正案(十一)》虽部分解决了侵犯著作权罪与其前置法的冲突,但仍遗留了旧矛盾且产生了新冲突。虽然关于“前置法对刑法具有限制功能”的观点已在学界获得广泛认同,但存在关于“前提性知识”的认识不一致的危机,而破局之关键就在于类型化分析具体罪名与其前置法之间的关系。侵犯著作权罪与其前置法仅存在量的差异,故基于文义解释及规范保护之目的,该罪并不规制出租行为。不过,侵犯著作权罪并非唯刑法之从属性是从,其独立性体现在学界对于如何理解前置法规定存在争议时,刑法应依文义解释之界限与规范保护之目的来选择具体的立场。因此,刑法对于深度链接他人作品的行为需要进行类型化处理。Although the Criminal Law Amendment(11)partially solves the conflict between the crime of copyright infringement and its pre-law,it still leaves old contradictions and new conflicts.Although the view that“prepositional law has restrictive function on criminal law”has been widely recognized in the academic circles,there is a crisis of inconsistent understanding of“premise knowledge”,and the key to breaking the situation lies in the typed analysis of the relationship between specific charges and prepositional law.The illegal essence of the crime of infringement of copyright lies in“violation of the provisions of the copyright law”,which is only different from its pre-law in quantity.Therefore,for the purpose of textual interpretation and normative protection,the crime of infringement of copyright does not regulate the rental behavior.However,the crime of copyright infringement is not only subordinate to the criminal law.Its independence is reflected in the controversy in the academic circles on how to understand the provisions of the pre-law.The criminal law should choose a specific position according to the boundary of textual interpretation and the purpose of normative protection.Therefore,the criminal law needs to analyze the specific problems of the act of deeply linking other people's works:if the linked object is an illegal work,it should be punished as an accomplice in the crime of copyright infringement;If the chained object is a legal work,but there are no technical protection measures,it will not constitute a crime;If the chained object is a legal work and technical protection measures have been set,it will constitute the principal offender of copyright infringement.

关 键 词：侵犯著作权罪 法秩序统一原理 出租权 深度链接 

分 类 号：D923.41[政治法律—民商法学]