技术发展与版权扩张

详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文

作者：易健雄 论文级别：博士 学科专业名称：民商法学 中文关键词：版权 ; 技术 ; 版权扩张 ; 《安妮法》 ; 文学产权 ; 数字版权 英文关键词：copyright ; technology ; the expanding of copyright ; the Statute of Anne ; literary property ; digital copyright 学位年度：2008 导师：张玉敏 学科代码：030105 学位授予单位：西南政法大学 论文提交日期：2008-03-01

摘要

版权制度是科学技术的产物,并随着技术的发展而不断扩张。然而,迄今为止,尚未见有对技术发展是如何推动版权扩张的系统论述。对版权来说,这恰恰是一重要论题:其中隐藏着作品、作者、独创性、思想/表达二分法、复制等版权基本观念、理论产生、演变的秘密。揭开这一秘密对于把握版权理论、体系的内在机理、认识版权的未来走向、指导中国的版权实践有着不可忽视的意义。本文所做的,正在于跳出版权自身的界限,在历史大背景之中,勾勒出技术发展的推动之下,版权基本观念、理论的产生、演变过程;借此勾勒,实现本文的目的:获得对版权基本理论的历史把握,确定对版权未来走向的基本立场,也弥补国内对这一论题研究的不足——如果可能的话。
     全文除引言外,共八章,凡十七万言。第一章至第三章以早期英国为重心,论述在印刷术的刺激下,现代版权观念的孕育、产生过程,包括作品、作者、独创性、思想/表达二分法的发生以及对版权性质的争论等。第四章至第七章以早期英国为开端,过渡到以美国为重心,兼及版权保护的国际化趋势。该部分论述版权观念制度化以后,在模拟技术与数字技术的推动下的扩张过程,包括从复制权到表演权、改编权的延伸,美国对英国版权观念与制度的继受与发展,以及版权基本理论、权能体系、作品种类等在照相机、留声机、自动钢琴、电影、磁带录音机、无线电发射机、家用收音机、机械电视机、有线电视、静电复印机、家庭录像机、电子计算机、互联网等新技术的推动下的演变与扩张过程。第八章为全文的落脚点。该部分引述了人们对新技术背景下版权的适应能力的疑惑与思考,对技术发展推动下版权的扩张进行了归纳总结并在此基础上确定了本文对版权的基本立场:版权能够适应新技术的发展,在可以预见的未来也不会“死亡”;但须遏制版权目前的扩张势头。
     各章内容简述如下:
     第一章印刷特权与书商版权。自威廉·凯克斯顿.(William Caxton)于1476年将印刷机引入英国后,英国政府视印刷业为“朝阳产业”予以鼓励并采取措施吸引外国的印刷及图书销售人才。但印刷出版业的繁荣使“宗教异端思想、煽动叛乱的言论”也得以更便捷地流传。为了控制这些“异端邪说”,英国统治者启用了始于兰开斯特王朝亨利四世时代(1399—1413)的审查制度。印刷特权也从鼓励印刷业发展的措施演化成控制“异端邪说”的工具。1546年,英王亨利八世建立了印刷控制的新框架,为某种已经存在的、具备一定条件的控制机构登场提供了机会。玛丽女王对印刷控制体制的延续让具备条件的书商公会登上了历史舞台。随后的伊丽莎白一世加大了对书商公会的支持力度,1566年《星室法院法令》的出台标志着英国政府与书商公会合作的开始。书商公会对印刷出版业的管理得到了星室法院的支持。凭借已获得的权力及已建立的图书印刷登记制度,书商公会创造了“书商版权”(Stationers'Copyright)——公会成员对非特权书籍所享有的印刷出版专有权。书商版权被视为现代版权的前身。1695年,替代《星室法院法令》的1662年《许可法》最终失效。这宣告了政府与书商公会合作机制的解体,开启了印刷自由的新时代。书商公会苦心经营的书商版权处于风雨飘摇的境况。为了维持自己的垄断地位,书商公会开始了新一轮的奋斗。
     第二章《安妮法》。除了利用“康吉体系”(the conger system)维持自己的垄断利益外,书商公会还在公会内部继续推行图书登记制度,力图用习惯的力量维持书商版权的效力。在原有的登记用语“booke or copie”(图书或原稿)基础上,书商公会于1701年发展出了“copy right”这一登记用语。伦敦书商这一做法的本意是想强化自己对非特权书籍的专有印刷权。连他们自己都没明确意识到的是,他们其实已模模糊糊地感受到了:在原稿之中存在着一种不同于原稿的东西,对于这种东西享有的权利,也应该不同于原稿所有权。这种权利被当时的书商称作“copyright”(“原稿权”)。“copy right”的提出是版权史上的重要事件,它是自“书商版权”提出后版权史又一重大观念变迁的开始。书商公会应对1662年《许可法》失效的直接措施则是向议会请愿,希图再次恢复1662年《许可法》的效力。经历了多次失败以后,书商公会受丹尼尔·笛福(Daniel Defoe)启发,看到了当时还是“写者”的作者对于维护自己利益的价值,他们将“原稿权”改称为“文学产权”(literaryproperty)并以“保护作者、促进知识”的新理由继续请愿。终于在1710年,英国议会回应了书商公会的请愿,通过了《安妮法》。作为各种利益妥协的结果,《安妮法》容纳了三种“类版权”:印刷特权;书商版权;制定法版权。其真实用意是多重的:遏制书商公会垄断地位,规范图书交易秩序;保护作者,鼓励创作,促进知识;协调各方利益,维持社会稳定,等等。后人对《安妮法》有各种评价。19世纪半叶开始出现“《安妮法》是世界上第一部版权法”的观念。其实,《安妮法》制定之时,版权观念还没出现,版权的对象——法律上的作品还没有诞生,抽象的作品观念还没有从中分离出来。《安妮法》也没有使用“版权”(copytight)一词。“《安妮法》是世界上第一部版权法”的论断不过是后人将自己的版权观念强加给《安妮法》的结果。不过,《安妮法》中作者的亮相、促进知识的提出,仍是版权史上的重大事件。
     第三章从文学产权到版权。在《安妮法》的影响下,雕版画艺术家郝伽斯(William Hogarth)等向英国议会请愿,要求对雕版画提供像图书那样的保护。他们宣称,印刷物的价值不在于普通的物理纸张,而在于艺术家施于纸张之上的、刻画特定对象的勤劳与技巧。这一声明中,有体物与无体物、作品与载体的的区分已初露端倪。艺术家们还宣称,即使针对同一对象,不同的艺术家所刻画的作品(work)也是完全不同的:风格、轮廓、架构等都不一样。每一位艺术家的作品都是独一无二的,就象人的笔迹一样,很容易彼此区别。这一论点蕴含着深刻的独创性观念,也隐含着版权的正当化基础。议会接受了艺术家的要求与理由,于1735年通过了《雕工法》。《雕工法》完全由艺术家推动的事实表明,作者开始成为一个独立的利益群体,越来越依靠自己的“技艺”生活,对自己的经济利益越来越关注,他们所提出的理由也较书商提出的“经济刺激论”更具说服力。正是因为《雕工法》蕴含着如此多的现代版权观念的因子,英国版权法学者迪兹里教授认为:“随着《雕工法》的通过,一场革命已悄然发生。在这部法律中,我们今天所理解、接受的版权已初具雏形。”“版权”(copyright)一词于这一年首次出现可为佐证。
     《雕工法》对《安妮法》的攀比也使人们意识到,《安妮法》已经到期。书商公会在请求延长《安妮法》时受阻,“文学产权”也遭到严重质疑,被认为纯属子虚乌有。书商公会宣称“文学产权”是一种普通法权利,并不以制定法为基础:知识的田野就像大地一样,谁都可以在其中耕耘、收获,但绝不能允许懒惰者窃据他人的劳动果实。谁耕耘,谁收获乃普通法精神的应有之义。图书即是作者在知识的田野中耕耘之后收获的劳动果实,根据普通法精神,作者对其图书享有当然的财产权,这种财产权就是文学产权。制定法版权不过是为已经存在的文学产权提供一种补充保护手段而已。关于文学产权的辩论开始被挑起,作者投入到图书中的劳动与技巧成为书商公会的主要论据。但作者与书商之间的矛盾也因作者独立意识的觉醒而开始凸显,蒲柏(Alexander Pope)甚至设计阻拦《安妮法》的延长。对议会失望的书商公会放弃了立法层面的努力,专心于在司法实践中创造他们想要的“永久性普通法权利”。
     作者与伦敦书商的矛盾也延伸到了司法层面。在1741年的蒲柏诉科尔(Curl)案中,哈德威克(Hardwicke)大法官认定蒲柏对其所写信件文字享有权利,即使科尔享有蒲柏所写书信的所有权,也不得印刷、出版这些书信。美国版权法学者罗斯教授认为:“这是作者概念的转折关头,这是知识产权概念诞生的关键时刻。”文本(text)已从纸张、墨水等物质实体中抽离出来,代替图书(book)而成为文学产权关注的对象:作者也不再只是事实上的“写者”,更是文学产权的主体;实体物——原稿的转手不再意味着文学产权的同时转手,也不意味着作者身份的就此丧失。现代版权观念中的作品、作者概念开始浮出水面。
     1743年,伦敦书商将汉弥尔顿(Hamilton)、波伏尔(Balfour)等苏格兰书商诉至苏格兰最高民事法院,文学产权大辩论正式爆发。苏格兰书商坚持“无实体即无财产”的古训,认为无实体的文本不可能成为财产。为了正当化文学产权,1747年,沃柏桐(William Warburton)在《作者就文学产权问题写给议员的信》中,对财产进行了一系列的“二分”,试图以脑力产品类比体力产品,再类比体力产品毫无争议的财产地位,完成脑力产品也能成为财产的正当化论述。为了与具有期限限制的专利特权划清界线,沃柏桐又把发明看作是体力与脑力劳动的混合产物,没有纯粹脑力劳动产物的学说或思想那样高贵;故以发明为对象的专利特权可以有时间限制,而以学说或思想为对象的文学产权则不应有时间限制。沃柏桐的论述明显受到洛克“财产权劳动理论”的影响,并在哈德威克大法官的基础上,将文学产权的对象进一步抽象到“思想”或“学说”的地步。沃柏桐试图另寻文学产权的正当化基础,但没有解决文学产权的划界问题,对发明与“作品”的区分也颇为勉强。
     当时的个人主义思潮及英国文学中开始出现的浪漫主义色彩为文学产权提供了更有力的正当化理由。“original”(独创的)一词在这一时期渐渐发生了转义,从“最初就已存在的”转化为“无来源的、独立的、第一手的”。作家扬格(EdwardYoung)在1759年发表的《试论独创性作品》一文更是高扬独创性作品的价值,宣称独创性作品是“从天才(genius)的命根子自然地生长出来,是长成的,不是做成的”。在扬格这里,文本与人格融合在了一起,作品与作者之间的联系变得不可分割:独创性成为作品的价值之所在,而这一价值直接源于作者的独特个性、“天才的命根子”。扬格的独创性理论与洛克的财产权劳动理论基点——“每个人都对他自已的人身享有一种所有权”——遥相呼应,二者巧妙地结合起来,共同构筑了文学产权的正当化基础。现代版权观念中的独创性理论也奠基于此。不过,文学产权的划界问题仍未解决。
     1761年Tonson v.Collins案是伦敦书商在普通法法院提起的第一件文学产权纠纷案件,文学产权大辩论第一次在普通法法庭上全面展开。尽管该案后因查明系原、被告事先串通好的共谋案件而被法官拒绝继续审理,但其在版权史上的重要意义仍不可忽视。担任伦敦书商代理人的英国著名法律家布莱克斯顿(William Blackstone)在该案中对图书进行了“三分”:作为物理实体的图书(physical book),体现在图书中的思想(ideas),作品(composition)——作者给其思想披上的语词外衣。“文字不过是语词的符号,语词不过是思想情感的载体,思想情感才是图书的价值所在、利益之源”。在该案审理期间,一本名为“为作者对自己作品的专有权利申辩”的小册子发展了布莱克斯顿“三分”图书的思想,主张一本图书可划分为“学说的作品”(a doctrinal composition)与“机械的作品”(a mechanical composition)两个层次;机械的作品由纸张之上可见的永久性文字组成,学说的作品则可再分为其包含的思想与作者表达这些思想的语言两部分。图书出版后,机械的作品与学说的作品所包含的思想即对读者自由开放,作者所保留的,仅仅是其对思想的特有表达方式。印刷者关注的是“机械的作品”,作者关注的,则是学说的作品,读者最关注的,则是学说作品所包含的思想。机器等发明仅仅与机械的作品相似,学说的作品则是图书所特有的。通过这种划分,图书与机器等发明就更好地区分开来。该文对图书层次颇为新奇的划分在当时具有强大的解释力,几乎化解了文学产权反对者的所有质疑。在这里,我们也看到了现代版权观念中“思想与表达”二分法的影子。
     在1769年Millar v.Taylor案中,曼斯菲尔德勋爵(Lord Mansfield)等与叶茨(Yates)法官经过激烈论争后,王座法院以3:1的多数作出了支持文学产权的判决。1774年Donaldson v.Becket案对Millar v.Taylor案的结论进行了重新审查。贝克特的一位代理人哈格雷夫(Francis Hargrave)在《文学产权答辩理由》一文中总结了前人的理论成果,几乎对文学产权问题作了全面论述,对反对文学产权的理由也作了回应。哈格雷夫不仅吸收了杨格的独创性理论,还进一步发展了《为作者对自己作品的专有权利申辩》一文提出的关于思想与表达二分的理论。哈格雷夫首先赞同思想是公共产品的观点,之后,哈格雷夫又对思想的表达作了解释:表达不仅是包裹思想的语言,更是组合语言的方式或风格,或说思想见诸文字的方法。这种方法的独特性又源于每个人自身的独特个性。这样,哈格雷夫既回避了反对者关于文学产权垄断思想的指责,给公共利益让出了地盘,又给文学产权的对象披上了“语言的外衣”,驳斥了反对者关于文学产权对象乃“虚幻的幽灵”的嘲弄,还突破了文学产权对象仅仅是表面语言的局限,为版权权能的扩张预留了空间。此外,哈格雷夫还对反对者关于文学产权无从侵害的诘难给予了回击。哈格雷夫提出,如果某人出售盗版的复制件,则权利人本来可以从权利行使中获得的利润就减少了,而这种出售盗版复制件的行为就是一种侵扰、侵权、损害行为,权利本身也就被侵害了。至此,对于反对者提出的各种质疑,文学产权支持者几乎——给予了合理回答——至少在表面上如此。但是,这些回答并没有打动上议院。因为,上议院的思维方式已不同于文学产权支持者。上议院认为如果确认作者及出版商享有永久性普通法权利将带来不可接受的社会后果,最后以22:11的多数支持了唐纳森,否认了作者享有永久性普通法上权利。就这样,上议院以“结果性思维方式”终结了持续多年的文学产权大辩论。
     回顾这场争论,我们可以看到,随着争论的不断深入,现代版权的面目也渐次清晰起来:“copyright”一词出现后逐渐取代了“copy”与“right”的其他组合用词,成为“版权”的专用名词:作者从伦敦书商的幌子转变为不可动摇的版权主体;作品从物理实体的图书中抽离出来成为版权的对象;作为正当化理由而提出的独创性理论从思想的公有领域中划出了一块“私有地盘”,为版权提供了最初的立足之地;“为虚幻的幽灵添上面容与四肢”而出现的“思想与表达”二分法为版权提供了最后的栖身之所;印刷与出版则在印刷技术条件下成为版权毫无争议的权利内容。罗斯教授认为:“到1774年,现代英美版权法的所有根本要素都已经到位了。”所有这些要素都是相伴而生,共同筑就了一个前所未有的权利类型——版权。虽然上议院否定了文学产权,但长年不断的争论,却使现代版权观念逐渐为人所习惯,并在不知不觉中为人所接受。一个看似奇怪的现象也就自然发生了:文学产权的“死亡”伴随着现代版权观念的“诞生”。
     第四章超越复制。版权产生以后,其最初的权能就是复制。19世纪初期,英国陷入经济困境,英国剧院也面临着财政危机,英国剧作家的收入也大为缩水,生活艰难。受法国的影响,英国剧作家要求对戏剧作品增加公开表演权,以便从其作品中获取更多收入。在戏剧作家、议员鲍威尔·李桐(Bulwer Lytton)的推动下,英国1833年通过了《戏剧版权法》,授予了戏剧作品以公开表演权。完成正当化后的版权将权能平静地延伸到了公开表演。英语流行起来以后,英国产生了保护境外本国作品的需要,同时代的法国等欧洲大陆国家也有此需要。各国于19世纪初期开始了版权保护的双边谈判。由于法国对翻译权的坚持,英国为了换取版权的互惠保护,最终承诺保护翻译权。为了履行版权保护的国际义务,英国于1852年修订《国际版权法》时,增加了关于翻译权的条款,翻译也就成为了版权的又一新权能。当版权的双边谈判发展到多边谈判时,翻译权首先在1886年《伯尔尼公约》中得到确认。1908年,《伯尔尼公约》在柏林进行修订时,以禁止“擅自间接占用”作品的形式,提到了改编权,并特别例示了“将小说、故事、诗歌转换成戏剧或者相反”的情形。在《伯尔尼公约》的压力与国内作者的推动之下,英国再次启动了改革国内版权立法的计划。1911年,英国通过了一般版权法,对独创性作了规定,并将表演权、翻译权、改编权明确授给了作者。版权体系得到初步扩张。
     第五章版权在美国。本章主要介绍美国对英国版权制度及理论的继受与发展。1787年美国宪法中的“知识产权条款”确立版权的目的是促进知识,增进公益。保护作者权利不过是促进公共利益的手段。1790年美国国会依据宪法通过了美国历史上一第一部联邦版权法。该法既弥漫着浓厚的《安妮法》气息,又表现出强烈的民族性:只保护美国公民或居民的作品,对外国人作品不提供任何保护。美国作者对这些法律的通过起了极大的促进作用。在1834年Wheaton v.Peters案中,美国联邦最高法院对版权的性质问题作出权威解释:版权在美国只是一种制定法上的特权。之后,美国法官在司法实践中继受并发展了独创性与思想/表达二分法的理论。在本土作品繁荣起来以后,做了一个多世纪版权海盗的美国于1891年通过了美国历史上的第一部《国际版权法》(即《切斯法》),开始在严格限定的条件下保护外国作品。由此,美国总算踏上了版权的国际保护之路。
     第六章模拟技术与版权扩张。本章主要论述模拟技术对版权基本理论、作品种类及权能体系的影响。摄影术提高了人们对独创性的认识,留声机、自动钢琴、磁带录音机、家庭录像机、静电复印机等促进了人们对复制权的思考。复制权能够成为版权基本权利类型的背后原因在这些技术的刺激下开始显露出来。传统印刷术在区分公、私领域方面的技术保障使复制权当然地成为了版权的基础性权利。当静电复印、家庭录像等新型复制技术打破了传统的界限时,人们对复制权的理解出现了分歧,版权的权利基础开始动摇。电影、无线广播、收音机、电视机、有线电视等的出现则极大地扩张了公开表演权的范围,表演权的扩张使传统的复制权相形见绌。美国还针对这些新的传播技术另设了新权利:展览权。在这种扩张过程中,相关利益各方互相斗争又达成妥协,公众利益却因缺乏谈判代表而逐渐被遗忘。在20世纪80年代成为世界上最大的作品输出国后,美国开始在国际社会上极力强调提高版权保护的重要性,并于1988年加入了《伯尔尼公约》。其时,距《伯尔尼公约》的缔结已过100年。版权保护的国际化趋势早已不可逆转。
     第七章数字版权。本章主要论述数字技术对版权基本理论、作品种类及权能体系的影响。与模拟技术相比,数字技术对版权的影响是全面而深刻的。在介绍计算机软件及数据库保护的问题之后,本章重点引述了美国版权对互联网环境的应对措施。美国自1993年宣布实施“民建民有民享”的信息高速公路计划之后,即设立了由美国商务部部长助理兼专利商标局局长布鲁斯·吕曼(Bruce Lehman)负责的知识产权工作小组,以研究与信息高速公路计划相关的知识产权问题。吕曼成为了版权利益集团的代理人,吕曼工作小组的研究报告白皮书极大地扩张了版权人的权利,如将临时复制纳入复制权的范围、建议取消首次销售原则在网络环境的适用,采用技术措施控制对作品的接触与利用并禁止他人以任何理由规避技术措施、保护权利管理信息,等等。报告激起人们的极大反感。在国内暂时受阻后,吕曼又转战国际社会。在WCT、WPPT缔结以后,吕曼又催促美国于1998年制定了WCT、WPPT的国内实施法:《数字千年版权法》(DMCA)。除增加了一些严格限制外,DMCA几乎就是白皮书的翻版。该法将版权的扩张几乎推到了极致。在法官实施该法的司法实践中,公众感受到了版权对自己生活的限制。DMCA不得民心。2005年索尼BMG公司“Rootkit”事件的爆发终于激怒了公众。人们开始反思如何限制技术措施的问题。DMCA也对公众作出了让步,在2006年11月的新豁免规定中增加了对技术措施的限制。
     第八章版权的未来。本章首先回顾了版权扩张的历史,总结出以下几点:1.利益斗争是版权产生、扩张的原动力,版权理论不过是利益正当化的工具:2.版权基本理论隐含着深刻的内在矛盾;3.版权是法定权利,而不是自然权利:4.版权的扩张主要由立法推动,司法则保持相对克制;5.版权的扩张主要利用类比、拟制等技巧来实现;6.版权扩张使版权体系越来越杂乱,版权理论越来越贫弱;7.版权的扩张越来越依赖于技术措施;8.版权在扩张过程中正从创作中心转向投资中心;9.版权在扩张过程中逐渐偏离了其原有目的。接下来,本章介绍了目前关于版权的几种观点:有认为现有版权制度已不适应网络时代,有认为现有版权制度能适应网络时代,还有人进行了更深入的思考,提出了重构版权制度的设想,大致有以下几种:1.“激励机制”模式;2.“商业利用权”模式;3.“接触控制权”模式;4.“传播权或利用权”模式。
     在评析以上各种模式之后,本章最后表明了笔者的观点:1.遏制版权目前的扩张趋势。在回答了为什么要遏制版权目前的扩张趋势之后,本文在考虑如何遏制的问题时,认为自由软件、“开源”运动及其所发散出来的开放精神对于遏制版权扩张,维持版权领域的“生态平衡”有着不可低估的作用。此外,还需坚持版权法定主义的原则,对相关的国际条约,在达到国际义务标准的前提下应作严格解释;在司法层面则应坚持“司法机关自我限制”原则,对目前中国法官的“造法”冲动保持警惕。2.适当调整目前的版权体系,包括:取消复制权在版权体系中的基础地位:确立传播权在网络环境中的基础地位;采取切实措施遏制技术措施对公共领域的圈禁。
     本文相信,经过调整,传统版权与数字版权制度将融合成一个有机整体,这一有机整体能够适用新技术的挑战。在开放精神的制约、共存之下,版权将与技术、市场、伦理等其他元素相互配合、各司其职,很好地促进知识,增进公共利益。未来的版权将更谦和,版权的未来会更好。
As the result of science and technology, Copyright has been kept expanding with the development of technology. However, no systematic examination on the process that technological development forces the expanding of copyright can be found up to now. To copyright, the process is just an important topic, in which the secret of the produce and change of basic theories such as work, author, originality, idea/expression dichotomy and reproduction is concealed. To disclose the secret is vital not only for grasping the theories and system of copyright but also for predicting the future of copyright as well as directing Chinese practice on copyright. What this dissertation deals with is just disclosing the process on the large historical background after breaking through the limitation of copyright itself, then realize the end of this dissertation: understanding copyright's basic theories from the angle of history, deciding the position on how to guide the future of copyright and if any, overcoming the lack on this topic at home.
     The dissertation, calculated 170,000 words, consists of eight chapters besides a preface. From Chapter One to Chapter Three, the author focuses on United Kingdom, examines the formation of the idea of modern copyright by the stimulation of press technology, including the produce of work, author, originality, idea/expression dichotomy and debates over the nature of copyright. From Chapter Four to Chapter Seven, taking early England as the beginning, then focusing on the United States as well as the trend of internationalization of copyright protection, the author examines how the analog technology and digital technology force the expanding of copyright after the realization of the idea of copyright, including the style of right extending from reproduction right to public perform right and adaptation right, the succession and development of British institution and idea on copyright in the United States, and the process of expanding and change of the basic theories of copyright, the style of right as well as the kind of work driven by new technology like photography, phonograph, piano roll, motion picture, broadcast, radio, TV set, xerography, home video-recorder, computer, internet and so on. Chapter Eight is the end of this dissertation. In this Chapter, the author depicts the puzzlement and thinking on the adaptability of copyright to new technology, sums up the expanding of copyright driven by technology and then determines the basic disposition to copyright: copyright has the adaptability to new technology and won't "die" in the foreseen future, but the trend of expanding of copyright today must be stemmed.
     Content of each chapter is summarized as follows:
     Chapter One: Printing Privilege and Stationers' Copyright. After William Caxton introduced the printing press in England in 1476, the government of England regarded the printing industry as emerging industry and took measures to encourage its development. However, the flourish of the printing and publishing industry made the dissemination of seditious and heretical material more convenient. For the purpose of controlling the printing of seditious and heretical material, the British rulers renewed censorship regulations originated from era of Henry IV(1399—1413) in House of Lancaster. In 1546, HenryⅧestablished a new frame of censorship, which made it possible that some entity already existed, which met certain conditions, boards the stage of history. The Stationers' Company, which met said conditions, boarded the stage of history in era of Queen Mary who continued the censorship. Subsequently Elizabeth I supported the Stationers' Company with greater intensity. The Star Chamber Decree of 1566 marked the beginning of the corporation between the British rulers and the Stationers' Company. Since then, the Star Chamber had been supported the management over the printing and publishing industry by the Stationers' Company. Resorting to the power already gained and the printing register regulations already established, the Stationers' Company created "Stationers' Copyright", an exclusive right of printing and publishing to non-privilege books, enjoyed by numbers of the Stationers' Company. Stationers' Copyright has been regarded as the former of modern copyright. The final lapse of the Licensing Act of 1662 in 1695 not only marked the end of the corporation between the British rulers and the Stationers' Company but also opened a new era of free printing. In order to maintain the monopoly status, the Stationers' Company tried another struggle.
     Chapter Two: the Statute of Anne. Besides making use of "the conger system" to maintain the monopoly status, the Stationers' Company continued to force the printing register regulation inside the company so as to maintain the effect of the Stationers' Copyright. Based on the primary term "booke or copie", the Stationers' Company created an new term "copy right" in 1701, through which emphasized the exclusive printing right to non-privilege books enjoyed by numbers of the Stationers' Company. In fact, booksellers had felt indistinctly that something existed in manuscripts is different from manuscripts and the right to it, which was called "copy right", should differ from the ownership to manuscripts. That "copy right" was introducing is an important event in the history of copyright. This means a new beginning of important change of idea since the introduction of "Stationers' Copyright" in the history of copyright. The direct measure aimed for the lapse of the Licensing Act of 1662 taken by the Stationers' Company was petition to the parliament for recover the Act. After many failures, the Stationers' Company understood the value of authors inspired by Daniel Defoe and replaced "copy right" with "literary property". Then, the Stationers' Company went ahead to petition to the parliament with the new excuse "for the encouragement of learning". Finally, in 1710, the parliament responded the petition of the Stationers' Company, passed the Statute of Anne. As a result of compromise, the Statute of Anne contains three kinds of "quasi copyright": Printing Privilege, Stationers' Copyright and Statutory Copyright. The true end of the Act is complicated: striking down the monopoly status of Stationers' Company and regulating the book trade order; protecting authors, encouraging writing and promoting the progress of learning; harmonizing all sorts of benefits, maintain the stability of the society and so on. There are lots of comments over the Act. In early 19~(th) century, the opinion that the Statute of Anne is the first copyright act in the world was found. However, the idea of copyright has not been formed when the statute of Anne was introduced. What's more, the objection of copyright, i.e., work under the law, has not been produced. Besides, the Statute of Anne didn't use the term "copyright". The predication that the Statute of Anne is the first copyright act in the world is just the result that someone imposes the idea of copyright himself on the Statute of Anne. Yet, the providing about author and the encouragement of learning in the Statute of Anne is of vital in the history of copyright.
     Chapter Three: from Literary Property to Copyright. Affected by the Statute of Anne, William Hogarth, an engraver, with other artists petitioned the House of Commons for protection against the unauthorized copying of their engraved prints. In 1735, the Engravers Act was passed. The fact that it was artists that asked for legislation proved that authors have become an independent group, who earned their livelihood by their own skill and labor. They paid more and more attention to their own economic interest. Implied so many materials about idea of modern copyright, professor Deazley said, "With the passing of the Engravers Act a silent revolution had taken place. In this legislation, copyright, as we understand and appreciate it today, first began to take embryonic form." The emergence of the term "copyright" in this year can be seen as an evidence for the opinion of Deazley. The Engravers Act also reminded people that the Statute of Anne had been lapsed. When petitioning to renew the Statute of Anne, the Stationers' Company was frustrated. At the same time, literary property was seriously questioned—it was treated as forgery. On the contrary, the Stationers' Company argued that literary property was a common-law right, not on a statutory basis. The debates on literary property were provoked. Skill and labor which authors devoted into books was the central reason with which the Stationers' Company argued for the opinion.
     In Pope v. Curl, Chancellor Hardwicke decreed that Pope has right to letters he wrote. Curl has no right to print or publish these letters even if he owns them. Professor Rose believed that this is the critical moment of the birth of copyright. Having been abstracted from its physical basis in ink and paper, text substituted for book and became the object of literary property. An author is not merely a writer but more the subject of literary property. Transfers of manuscript not only have nothing to do with literary property but also have no effect to authorship. Here, the concept in modem copyright such as work and author began to take embryonic form.
     In 1743, booksellers of London sued booksellers of Scotland like Hamilton, Balfour to the Court of Session in Scotland. Debates on literary property broke out. In 1747, William Warburton published A letter from an Author to a member of Parliament Concerning Literary Property, a pamphlet that discussed the author's common-law right and provided the first theoretical treatment of literary property. In 1759, Edward Young published Conjectures on Original Composition, an essay that put forward the theory of originality, which connecting with Locke's theory of labor justified literary property. In Tonson v. Collins( 1761), problems on literary property were discussed sufficiently. Opened for the plaintiff, Blackstone divided a book into three parts: physical book, ideas or sentiments in a physical book and words. "Characters are but the signs of words, and words are the vehicle of sentiments. The sentiments therefore is the thing of value, from which the profit must arise." A pamphlet named A Vindication of the Exclusive Right of Authors, to their own works developed Blackstone's theory, and established the basis of idea/expression dichotomy. In Millar v. Tayor(1769), the Court of King's Bench, by a majority of three to one, ruled in favour of common law literary property. But in Donaldson v. Becket (1774), the House of Lords, on the basis of a different style of reasoning—the consequential modes of argument, reached the opposite conclusion to that of the King's Bench in Millar v. Tayor. Donaldson v. Becket was taking as marking the end of debates on literary property. It is worth mentioning that during the hearing of Donaldson v. Becket, Francis Hargrave, a lawyer for Becket, published An Argument in Defence of Literary Property. In this pamphlet, Hargrave conducted a comprehensive exposition on literary property, almost answered all of the opponents' questions—at least it seemed so on the surface. Nevertheless, the House of Lords did not accept his views.
     Looking back on this argument, we can see that by 1774, all the essential elements of modern copyright including the subject author, the object work, the content printing and publishing and the basic theories originality and idea/expression dichotomy, were in place. The death of literary property was along with the birth of modern copyright.
     Chapter Four: Beyond reproduction. The initial right of copyright is reproduction. In early 19~(th) century, the United Kingdom fell into financial difficulty; British theatres were also faced with a financial crisis. Accordingly, British playwrights' income has been greatly diminished, which made playwrights have a difficult life. Affected by what had done in France, British playwrights called for vesting them with public performance rights to their works so as to improve conditions of their living. Driven by Bulwer Lytton, a peer and also a playwright, the Dramatic Copyright Act was passed in 1833. Playwrights were vested with the public performance. After English became popular, it was necessary for the United Kingdom to protect its own works overseas. Continental European countries, such as France, also have such a need. In the early 19~(th) century States began to hold bilateral negotiations on copyright protection. Because of the insistence of France, the United Kingdom promised to protect the right of translation. In 1852 the International Copyright Act of the United Kingdom provided for the right of translation while amended. So translating has become an important right of copyright. When bilateral negotiations on copyright protection developed into multilateral negotiations, the right of translation was primarily firmed in the Berne Convention in 1886. When the Berne Convention was revised in Berlin in 1908, the right of adaptation was provided in the fashion of forbidding the "unauthorised indirect appropriation" of works and especially took adaptation, musical arrangements, transformations of a novel, tale or piece of poetry into a dramatic piece and vice versa as examples. Driven by the Berne Convention and authors at home, the United Kingdom passed Copyright Act 1911, which provided for the originality, explicitly vested authors with the right of public performance, the right of translation and the right of adaptation. The system of copyright was expanded primarily.
     Chapter Five: Copyright in the Untied States. In this chapter, the author mainly introduces how the United States succeeded and developed the regime and theories of copyright. The intellectual-property clause in the United States Constitution of 1787 provides that the purpose of copyright is to promote knowledge and enhance public welfare; the protection of the rights of author is just a means of promoting the interests of the public. According to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress, in 1790, passed the first federal Copyright Act, which not merely deeply affected by the Statute of Anne but also have a strong character of the national: it only protected works of the United States citizens or residents and didn't protect works of foreigners at all. Authors of the United States played a great role in passing these acts. In Wheaton v. Peters(1834), the Supreme Court of U.S. made an authoritative interpretation on the nature of the copyright: copyright is merely a privilege in statute in the United States. Later, U.S. judges succeeded and developed the theories originality and idea/expression dichotomy in judicial practice. After works at home boomed, the United States, which had been a pirate printer for more than one century, passed the first International Copyright Act, i.e., the Chace Act, began to protect foreigners' works under strict limited conditions. From then on, the United States has stepped forward the international protection of copyright.
     Chapter Six: Analog Technology and Copyright Expanding. In this chapter, the author mainly deals with the effect of analog technology to the basic theories, kinds of works and the right regime of copyright. Photography makes people understand originality of works on a higher level. Phonograph, piano roll, tape-recorder, home video-recorder, xerography etc. promote our thinking about the right of reproduction. The reason that makes the right of reproduction become the basic right of copyright was disclosed by the stimulation of said technology. The emergence of motion picture, broadcast, radio, TV set, cable television etc. greatly expanded the realm of the right of public performance, which lowered the degree of importance of the right of production. What's more, responding new technology, the United States created new right of copyright: the display right. In this process of expanding, all kinds of stakeholders struggled and compromised each other, but public interests were gradually forgotten because of lacking negotiating representatives. Being the world's largest exporter of copyrighted works since 1980's, the United States began to greatly emphasize the importance of enhance the protection of copyright and joined the Berne Convention in 1988. By then, it had been more than 100 years since the conclusion of the Berne Convention. The international trend of protection of copyright has been irreversible.
     Chapter Seven: Digital Copyright. In this chapter, the author mainly examines the effect of digital technology to the basic theories, kinds of works and the right regime of copyright. Compared with the influence of analog technology, the influence of digital technology to copyright is overall and deep. After introducing the protection of software and database, the author focuses on the measures taken by copyright regime of the United States against the internet environment. Since declared the plan of Information Superhighway, the United States appointed a Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights chaired by Patent Commissioner Bruce Lehman, whose task was to study problems on intellectual property concerning the plan of Information Superhighway. Lehman was submerged the agent of copyright group. As the final report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, the White Paper greatly extended copyright. According to the White Paper, for example, temporary copy is within the realm of the right of reproduction, the first-sale doctrine shall not be applied in the internet environment, technical protection measures should be taken to control access to or use of works, not reason can be justified circumvention of technical protection measures, rights management information should be protected, and so on. The White Paper was resisted by all kinds of social stratums. After the conclusion of WCT and WPPT, Lehman forced the United States passed the implementation act of WCT and WPPT: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Except some strict limitation, DMCA is almost the clone of the White Paper. In the judicial practice implementing DMCA, the public felt inconvenience resulted from DMCA, which never receives the support from the public. The explosion of the "magnificent disaster" of the Sony-BMG rootkit incident incensed public finally. People began to rethinking the problem of technical protection measures. DMCA had to concede to the public. In November, 2006, new limitation of technical protection measures was provided in Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies.
     Chapter Eight: the Future of Copyright. In this chapter, the author firstly reviews the history of the expanding of copyright and draws some conclusions as follows: 1. The conflicts of interests are the motive force by which copyright produces and expands; copyright theories were just the tool of justification of stakeholders. 2. Inside the basic theories lies a deep contradiction. 3. Copyright is not a natural right but a statutory right. 4. The expanding of copyright is mainly driven by legislation; courts then usually keep the doctrine of Judicial Restraint. 5. The expanding of copyright is realized mainly by analogy and fictions. 6. Because of the expanding of copyright, the system of copyright is becoming more and more promiscuous and theories of copyright are becoming more and more weak. 7. Copyright's expanding is more and more depending on technical protection measures. 8. During the period of expanding, copyright is changing direction from creation to investment. 9. Copyright gradually deviated from its original purpose during the period of expanding. Secondly, the author introduces several opinions about copyright: 1.The existing copyright system can not adapt internet environment. 2. The existing copyright system can adapt internet environment. 3. It is necessary to reconstruct the copyright system. There are four designed mode for reconstructing the copyright system now: (1) mode of incentive-based; (2) mode of right of commercial exploitation; (3) right to control access or access right; (4) mod of right to disseminate or exploit.
     Finally, the author expresses his own opinion: 1. Prevent copyright from further expanding currently. To realize this, the movement of free software and open source and the open spirit embodied in it is of vital. Moreover, it is necessary to insist the numberus clauses of copyright. As to international treaties related, strictly interpretation should be insisted as international obligations would be fulfilled. As to judicial practice, the doctrine of Judicial Restraint should be carried out. As to the abuse of judicial discretion in some courts in China, we must keep vigilance. 2. Adjust current copyright system appropriately: cancel the foundation position of the right of reproduction in the copyright system; establish the foundation position of the right to disseminate in internet environment; take powerful measures to prohibit the invasion to public domain by technical protection measures.
     The author expects that, after adjusting, traditional copyright system and digital copyright system will be turned into an organic whole, which will adapt to the challenge of new technology. Restricted by and coexisted with the open spirit, copyright will encourage knowledge and promote public welfare excellently by matching with other elements such as technology, market and ethic. Future copyright will be more humble; copyright of the future will be better.

引文

1 《马克思恩格斯全集》第1卷,北京:人民出版社,1956年版,第82页。
    2 New York Trust Co.v.Eisner,256 U.S.345(1921).
    3 See,for example,Turkewitz,"Authors' Rights are Dead," Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA,vol.38;(1990),p.41;David Nimmer,"The End of Copyright," Vanderbilt Law Review,vol.48,(October 1995),p.1420;John Perry Barlow,"The Economy of Ideas:Everything You Know about Intellectual Property Is Wrong," in Adam D.Moore,eds.Intellectual Property:Moral,Legal,and International Dilemmas,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.,1997,p.349;Siva Vaidhyanathan,Copyrights and Copywrongs:The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity,New York University,2001,p.149;Glynn S.Lunney,"The Death of Copyright:Digital Technology,Private Copying,and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act," Virginia Law Review,vol.87,(September 2001),p.813.
    4 可参见张平、马骁:《共享智慧——开源软件知识产权问题解析》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005年版;张平:“开源软件——对知识产权制度的批判与兼容”,沈仁干主编:《数字技术与著作权:观念、规范与实例》,北京:法律出版社,2004年版,第61-71页;Siva Vaidhyanathan,Copyrights and Copywrongs:The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity,New York University,2001;[美]劳伦斯·莱斯格:《思想的未来》,李旭译,北京:中信出版社,2004年版;[美]劳伦斯·莱斯格:《代码》,李旭等译,北京:中信出版社,2004年版;http://www.gnu.org,等等。
    5 段瑞林:《知识产权法概论》,北京:光明日报出版社,1988年版,第28页.转引自吴汉东:《著作权合理使用制度研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996年版,第223页。
    6[英]R·F·沃尔等:“版权与现代技术”,王捷译,《国外法学》,1984年第6期,第17页。
    7 如,薛虹:“因特网上的版权及有关权保护”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第1卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第1—224页;袁泳:“数字版权”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第2卷,北京:中国政法 大学出版社,1999年版,第1—140页。最近的相关博士学位论文见朱理:“著作权的边界——信息社会著作权的限制与例外研究”,北京大学博士学位论文,2066年4月;张晓秦:“论信息化时代著作权的演进与法律保护”,对外经济贸易大学博士学位论文,2007年3月。
    8 See,for example,Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001;Simon Stokes,Digital Copyright:Law and Practice,LexisNexis Butterworths,2002.
    9 Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure,The Digital Dilemma:Intellectual Property in the Information Age,The National Academy Press,2000.
    10 郭禾:“信息技术对著作权制度的影响”,《著作权》,1996年第3期,第29页。
    11 有关介绍与评论可参见崔国斌:“知识产权法官造法批判”,《中国法学》,2006年第1期,第144-164页。
    12 除非必要,本文不涉及以法国、德国为代表的作者权体系的著作权问题。
    13 杨念群:《中层理论——东西方思想会通下的中国历史研究》,南昌:江西教育出版社,2001年版,自序。转引自李雨峰:《枪口下的法律:中国版权史研究》,北京:知识产权出版社,2006年版,第13页。
    14 郑成思:《版权法》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990年版,第8页。
    15 段瑞林:《知识产权法概论》,北京:光明日报出版社,1988年版,第28页。转引自吴汉东:《著作权合理使用制度研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996年版,第223页。
    16[法]弗雷德里克·巴比耶:《书籍的历史》,刘阳等译,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005年版,第23页。
    17[法]弗雷德里克·巴比耶:《书籍的历史》,刘阳等译,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005年版,第98-99页。
    18[日]富田彻男:《市场竞争中的知识产权》,廖正衡等译,北京:商务印书馆,2000年版,第11页。
    19 Ferando Zapata Lopez,"The Right of Reproduction,Publishing Contracts and Protection Measures in the Digital Environment," EUESCO Copyright Bulletin,vol.ⅩⅩⅩⅥ,No.3,(July-September 2002).
    20 特权(privilege)出自拉丁文Privus(特殊)和Lex(法律),意指“为某一个人或几个人制订的法律”。参见[西]德利娅·利普希克:《著作权和邻接权》,联合国教科文组织译,中国对外翻译出版公司,2000年版,第15页。此处特权是指由世俗或教会权威给予个人印刷者的专有保护形式,有行业垄断的意味。参见John Feather,Publishing.Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain.Mansell Publishing Limited.1994,p.10.
    21[德]M·雷炳德:《著作权法》,张恩民译,北京:法律出版社2005年版,第16页。
    22[法]弗雷德里克·巴比耶:《书籍的历史》,刘阳等译,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005年版,第112页。
    23 Paul F.Crendler,"The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press 1540-1605," Modern History,1975.pp.47-48.
    24 黄仁字:《资本主义与二十一世纪》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997年版,第84-87页。
    25 B.Zorina Khan,Intellectual Property and Economic Development:lessons from American and European History,http://www.iprcommission.ore/nepers/pdfs/study_papers/spla_khan_study.pdf,2006年9月2日访问。关于法国特许权制度的论述,参见Elizabeth Armstrong,Before Copyright:The French Book-Privilege System,1498-1526,Cambridge University Press,1990.法国大革命时期于1791、1793年颁布法令取消了印刷特权制度。
    26 此处的英国仅指英格兰,还不是“联合王国”。1707年5月1日,苏格兰王国跟英格兰王国正式完成合并,“联 合王国”成为英国的正式国名。考虑到知识产权法学界目前的习惯用法,本文此处亦以“英国”指代“英格兰”,后文在无需严格区分“联合王国”与英格兰之处,也以“英国”指代“英格兰”,不再一一注明。
    27 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,pp.20-22.
    28 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.81,
    29 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp.11-12.
    30 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.23.
    31 E Cobham Brewer,"Evil May Day," Dictionary of Phrase and Fable(1894),http://www.factmonster.com/dictionary/brewers/evil-may-day.html.2006年9月3日访问。
    32 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.23.
    33 Harry Ransom,The First Copyright Statute,Univcasity of Texas Press,1956,pp.25-26.John Feather认为letters patent首见于1563年托马斯·库帕(Thomas Cooper)所获得的印刷一本拉丁词典修订版的特权(参见John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp.12.)。笔者以为这一见解值得商榷:早在1557年玛丽女王授权组建Stationers'Company的特许状中,就出现了对letters patent的记述(参见Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press。1968,p.32.).在专利特许证之前,授予印刷特权的方式称为“授权令”(warrant)通过授权令获得的印刷特权期限较短,且仅限于印刷商本人享有。后期,专利特许状所授“rights”与授权令所授权“pdvilege”的区别已趋于模糊,被统称为印刷特权(printing privilege)。
    34 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.23.
    35 高岱编著:《英国通史纲要》,合肥:安徽人民出版社,2002年版,第186页。
    36 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.12.
    37 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.29.
    38 Cyprian Blagden,The Stationers' Company:A History,1403-1959,Harvard University Press,1960,pp.21-23.
    39 对于Stationers'Company,学界有不同译法,如“出版商公司”、“书籍出版业公会”、“印刷同业公会”、“印刷公会”、“出版商公会”、“皇家出版公司”、“出版者行会”、“书商公司”、“出版商同业公会”、“出版业公会”等。从其成员看,Stationers'Company包括印刷商、售书商、图书装订工、绘图师等与图书交易有关的人。开始时并无独立的出版商,印刷商自产自销,兼任图书的出版发行工作,后分工逐渐细化,到17世纪才出现了专门的publisher—出版商(可参见Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.46.).故将Stationers译为出版商、印刷商、出版者等难谓周全。正文已指出,当时的Stationers实指与图书交易有关的人。要涵盖所有这些人并保持用语的简捷,大概只有“书商”一词勉强能当。从其渊源看,Stationers'Company系由行会(guild)合并而来。行会的合并在英国14—16世纪是普遍现象。合并的行会称为Company。到16世纪末,英国所有的行会都加入了Company.故Company不宜再被称为“行会”。当时的Company与现代公司有一定的渊源,但还不是现代意义上的公司.其实质为行会集团,具有强大的行业控制能力,非一般的现代公司所能比.为不与现代公司相混淆,最好不将Company译为“公司”。在史学界,类似语境中的Company被译为“同业公会”,简称公会(可参见赵文洪:《私人财产权利体系的发展-西方市场经济和资本主义的起源问题研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第192—194页)。笔者以为,史学界的译法值得尊重;考虑到用语以简捷为要,此处的Company似可译为“公会”。另外,对行会、公会,习惯上从行业人员的角度,而不是从行业本身的角度来称呼,如鱼商行会、杂货商行会、丝绸商公会、盐商公会、铁商公会等。“书籍出版业公会”、“印刷同业公会”、“出版业公会”等译法并不合于用语习惯。综合考虑,本文以为将Stationers'Company译为“书商公会”较为妥当,故采之。
    40 理事庭由公会会长(Master)1名、监察(Warden)2名、书记(Clerk)1名组成。它有权制定、发布规则、条例,以规制“copy”的所有与印刷出版,还有权处理公会成员之间因图书交易而引起的纠纷。
    41 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.36.
    42 对于Star Chamber的背景介绍及译法,可参考张锡盛:“英国星室法院存废年代考”,《云南大学人文社会科学学报》,2000年第3期,第123-125页。
    43 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,pp.36-40.
    44 Edward Arber,ed.A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London:1554-1640,1967,p.114.转引自Craig W.Dallon,"The Problem with Congress and Copyright:Forgetting the Past and Ignoring the Public Interest,"Santa Clara Law Review,vol.44,(2004),http://homepages.law.asu.edu/～dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/DallonProblemWithCongressSantaC laraLRev2004.htm,2006年9月7日访问.
    45 英王授予印刷特权的动机往往是多重的:促进本国商业发展以增强国力、加强印刷控制以压制异端、增加王室收入以提高支付能力等。直至印刷特权制度终结莫不如此,只是不同时期的英王在考虑时有其不同的侧重点。伊丽莎白时期,增加王室收入往往成为英王授权印刷特权的直接原因。因为“国王靠自己的收入过活”(the King Should Live on His Own.)直至都铎王朝仍是重要的封建原则。英王必须象其他封建主一样,以自己的收入支付王室和政府的各项开支。英王的财政往往入不敷出,至伊丽莎白时更是如此,为增加王室的收入,伊丽莎白授予了大量的印刷特权。她死时尚负债40万镑。参见黄仁宇:《资本主义与二十一世纪》,北京:三联书店,1997年版,第142、147页。
    46 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.12.
    47 此时尚无现代意义上的版权,且受合法权力保护的,只有印刷特权。此处借用“盗版”一词,指代没有印刷特权、却印刷特权书籍的行为。这种行为侵害了印刷特权人的利益,有损王室权威,也扰乱了既有的行业秩序。
    48 具体事例可参见Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.109.
    49 英语股份公司是书商公会组建的第一个、也是最重要的一个股份公司。此外,公会还组建了拉丁语股份公司(the Latin Stock)、爱尔兰语股份公司(the Irish Stock)等不同语种的股份公司,但因市场太小,所涉印刷特权不多,这些股份公司很难获利、影响也小,存续时间较短。只有英语股份公司因其需求市场大,所涉印刷特权多、获利能力强而成为书商公会存续时间最长、影响最大的股份公司。
    50 Sheila Lambert,"Journeymen and Master Printers in the early seventeenth century," Journal of the Printing Historical Society,vol.21,(1992),p.14.
    51 根据Patterson的解释,当时的“copy”即是原稿(manuscript)之意(参见Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.52.)。从当时的登记来看,“copy”应该仅指原稿。“copy”的另一层含义,即“复制原稿权”(the right to makc copies of a manuscript)之意应是后期发展起来的。后文还将论及。
    52 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,pp.52-53.
    53 Edward Arber,ed.A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers,1554-1640 A.D.,1894,pp.771,772.转引自Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.64.
    54 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.25.
    55 Rebecca Moore Howard,Some Events and Ideas in the History of Authorship in the West,http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/Handouts/ChronAuth.html.2006年9月7日访问。
    56 当时常用的登记表述例示如下:"Entred for his eopie under the hands of Master Roger le Strange and Master Luke Fawne warden a booke or copie intituled Birinthea,a Romance written by J.B." Eye & Rivington,ed.A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers,1640-1708 A.D.,1914,p.331.转引自Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbiit University Press,1968,p.54.
    57 W·Gregg,"Entrance,License and Publication," The Library,4~(th) ser.,ⅩⅩⅤ(1944),pp.1,7.转引自Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.54.
    58 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.27.
    59 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.47.
    60 John Feather,Publishing Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.34.
    61 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.106.
    62[法]F·基佐:《一六四○年英国革命史》,伍光健译,北京:商务印书馆,1985年版,第134页。
    63 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.39.
    64 Cyprian Blagden,The Stationers' Company:A History,1403-1959,Harvard University Press,1960,p.148.
    65 Stationers' Company v.Patentees of Roll's Abridgements(Michaelmas Term,18 Charles Ⅱ) reported at Carter 89-92.转引自John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.46.
    66 Cyprian Blagden,The Stationers' Company:A History,1403-1959,Harvard University Press,1960,pp.172-173.
    67[英]安东尼·阿巴拉斯特:《西方自由主义的兴衰》,曹海军等译,长春:吉林人民出版社,2004年版,第219-219页。
    68 B Rand,ed.The Correspondence of John Locke and Edawrd Clarke,Clarendon Press,1927,p.366.转引自Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain (1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.3.
    69 King,The Life and Letters of John Locke,Garland Publishers,1972,pp.208-209.转引自Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.33.
    70 11 H.C.Jour.306,(1695) 转引自Craig W.Dallon,"The Problem with Congress and Copyright:Forgetting the Past and Ignoring the Public Interest," Santa Clara Law Review,vol.44,(2004),http://homepages.law.asu.edu/～dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/DallonProblemWithCongressSantaC laraLRev2004.htm,2006年9月7日访问.
    71 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.5.
    72 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.50.
    73 John Feather,The Provincial Book Trade in Eighteen-century England,Cambridge University Press,1985,pp.44-68.
    74 康吉鳗(conger).一种凶猛的肉食性鱼类。
    75 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.65.
    76 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.58;Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective.Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.4.Patterson在与Lindberg合著的The Nature of Copyright 一书中,又提出copy right这一术语最早出现于1670年代的书商登记簿中,但未作任何说明。参见Patterson &Lindberg,The Nature of Copyright,the University of Georgia Press,1991,p.22.
    77 作名词使用的“copy”在后期的语义演变中,已只剩下“复制本”之意,“原稿”则专用“manuscript”来形容了。观念的变迁有时能将语言符号的最初含义完全隐没,这一现象在版权史研究中不能不引起注意。
    78 曼斯菲尔德法官曾说:“多年以来,Copy一词即指专有印刷出版靠文字传播的智力性事物的无体权利,我正是在这一专门意义上使用Copy一词.”参见Millar v.Taylor(1769)68 Eng.Rep.251.
    79 Patterson & Lindberg,The Nature of Copyright,the University of Georgia Press,1991,pp.22,85.
    80 “Right to Copy”用语中的“Copy”是动词“复制”之意义。“Riight to Copy”明确指出了,所谓的“原稿权”就是(专有)复制权。
    81 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.58.
    82 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.9.
    83 Daniel Defoe,"An Essay on the Regulation of the Press",reprinted by the Luttrell Society,1957,p.27.转引自Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.31.
    84 具体例子可参见John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.29.
    85 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.27.
    86 Ronald V.Bettig,Copyright Culture-The Polictical Economy of Intellectual Property,Westview Press,1996,p.18.
    87 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,pp.17-18.
    88 对于“literary property”,学界有不同译法,如:“文学产权”、“文学财产”(金海军)、“文字财产权”(叶茂林)、“文艺产权”(李祖明)、“文学作品财产权”(《元照英美法词典》)等。《布莱克法律词典》(第7版)对“literary property”的解释为:“1.The physical property in which an intellectual production is embodied,such as a book,screenplay,or lecture.2.An owner's exclusive right to possess,use,and dispose of such a production.”(See:Bryan A.Garner,ed.Black's Law Dictionary(Seventh Edition),West Group,1999,p.944.)对于版权史来说,“literary property”是一个极为重要而又含混不清的词语,要简要而准确地译出其原义,殊为不易。本文从大陆目前习惯译法,以“文学产权”译之。
    89 吴汉东:《著作权合理使用制度研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996年版,第1页。
    90 Ronald V.Bettig,Copyright Culture-The Polictical Economy of Intellectual Property,Westview Press,1996,pp.15-19.
    91 李雨峰:“从写者到作者——对著作权制度的一种功能主义解释”,《政法论坛》,2006年第6期,第89-98页。
    92 议案的标题原文为"A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof".参见Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.42.
    93 修改后的标题为“A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors,or Purchasers,of such copies".参见Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,pp.43,46.
    94 参见John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp.56-62;Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,pp.42-47;Lyman·Ray ·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.142;Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,pp.35-37.
    95 对于“the statute of Anne”,学界有不同译法,如《安娜法》、《安娜法令》、《安娜女王法》《安娜女王法令》、 《安妮法》、《安妮女王法》等。就女王称呼来说,按习惯译法,“安娜”对应的英文为“Anna”,“安妮”则对应“Anne”,史学界亦如此(可参考黄仁宇、高岱等学者的译法)。就立法性质而言,“the Statute of Anne”乃经严格立法程序,由上、下议院与女王一致同意的议会立法,属“Act”(可直接称“法”),而不是那种未经上下两院和英王一致同意、仅由其中一方或两方同意而制定的“Ordinance”。因这种“Ordinance”通译为“法令”,为与这种“法令”相区别,似以“法”来称呼“the Statute of Anne”为宜。另,“安妮”似较“安妮女王”更简洁,“the Statute of Anne”本为一长名制定法的简称,翻译时似也应以简洁为要。综上,以《安妮法》译“the Statute of Anne”较为妥贴,本文从之。对于《安妮法》的时间,有称“1709年《安妮法》”,有称“1710年《安妮法》”,其实,有关《安妮法》的议案第一次向议会提交的时间、三读、御准、生效时间等,都发生在1710年1月11日以后(具体时间见正文)。之所以又有“1709年《安妮法》”一说,是因为当时的英格兰仍在使用旧历,即“儒略历”(the Julian Calendar,公元前46年恺撒颁布)。按旧历,新年从3月25日起算,而不是1月1日。而有关《安妮法》的议案向议会提交的时间为1710年1月11日,按旧历则仍属1709年,故议案通过以后的法又被称为“1709年《安妮法》”。1752年以后,英格兰改用新历,即格里高利历(the Gregorian Calendar,俗称“阳历”,1582年罗马教皇格里高利十三世颁布)。之后,为与新历“接轨”,学者们开始以新历时间换算旧历之下法律文件的时间。“1709年《安妮法》”就改称“1710年《安妮法》”了。中国无英国旧历背景,最好不使用“1709年《安妮法》”这一说法,以免发生似是而非的背景错位。关于《安妮法》的原文,可见于History of Copyright:Statute of Anne,1710,http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html中文翻译可参考刘波林译:“安妮法”,《中国版权》,2005年第2期,第58-59页。
    96 《安妮法》的英文全称为"An Act for the Encouragement of Learning,by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies,during the Times therein mentioned".
    97 《安妮法》9段原文为"Provided,that nothing in this Act contained shall extend or be construed to extend,either to prejudice or confirm any right that the said University or any of them,or any person or persons have or claim to have,to the printing or reprinting any book or copy already printed,or hereafter to be printed."
    98 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.149
    99 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.47..
    100 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Polities—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.51.
    101 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Pros,1968,p.143,150.
    102 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.147.
    103 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.46.
    104 此处借用“类”字表示与现代版权有关,但又不是版权的三种“权利”。
    105 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics-An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.64.
    106 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.p.43.
    107 Edward Ploman and L.Clark Hamilton,Copyright:Intellectual Property in the Information Age,London:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1980,p.13.
    108 Dennis W.K.Khong,“The Historical Law and Economics of the First Copyright Act,” Erasmus Law and Economics Review 2,no.1(March 2006):p.35.
    109 Craig W.Dallon,"The Problem with Congress and Copyright:Forgetting the Past and Ignoring the Public Interest,"Santa Clara Law Review,vol.44,(2004),http://homepages.law.asu.edu/～dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/DallonProblemWithCongressSantaC laraLRev2004.htm,2006年9月7日访问.
    110 Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.208.
    111 Benjamin Kaplan,An Unhurried View of Copyright,Columbia University Press,1967,p.9..
    112 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.67.
    113 Daniel Defoe,A Review,2 February 1710.转引自Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,pp.49.
    114 Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.207.
    115 Cd,vol.22,p.364.转引自John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politic—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.70.
    116 该法的全称是"An Act for the Encouragement of the Arts of Designing,Engraving and Etching Historical and Other Prints,by Vesting the Properties thereof in Inventors and Engravers during the Time therein Mentioned".“《雕工法》”的翻译参考了金海军博士的译法。
    117 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,pp.94.
    118 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,pp.53-54.
    119 关于“copyright”一词的形式演变,请见本文第一章“印刷特权与书商版权”、第二章“《安妮法》”相关部分。
    120 该法英文全称为"An Act for the Prohibiting the Importation of Books reprinted abroad and first composed or written and printed in Great Britain and for limiting the Prices of Books".
    121 对该案的评论可参见Renan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,pp.60-66.
    122 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.153.
    123 参见Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.63.
    124 98 Eng.Rep.608.转引自Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.64.
    125 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,pp.152-153.
    126 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.116.
    127 A.Birrell,Seven Essays on the Law and History of Copyright in Books,Cassel and Co.,1899,p.121.转引自Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.9.
    128 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.71.
    129[英]洛克:《政府论》(下篇),叶启芳等译,北京:商务印书馆,1964年版,第19页。
    130 A.S.Collins,Authorship in the Days of Johnson—Being a study of the relation between author,patren,publisher and public,1726-1780.Robert Holden,1927,pp.114-212.
    131 R.M.Howard,Some Events and Ideas in the History of Authorship in the West,http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/Handouts/ChronAuth.html,2006年9月20日访问。
    132[美]伊恩.P.瓦特:《小说的兴起》,高原等译,北京:三联书店,1992年版,第7页。
    133[英]爱德华·扬格:《试论独创性作品》,袁可嘉译,北京:人民文学出版社,1998年版,第82-130页。
    134 该法院于14世纪末成为英国普通法法院,1873年并入英国高等法院成为其组成部分,现常译作高等法院王座庭。
    135 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.138.
    136 98 Eng.Rep.181.转引自Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.77.
    137 98 Eng.Rep.185.转引自Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.77.
    138 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.145.
    139 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.160.
    140 该案子1767年6月30日进行了第一次法庭辩论,由约翰·丹宁(John Dunning)担任原告代理人,余楼担任被告代理人。1768年6月7日,该案进行了第二次法庭辩论,由布莱克斯顿担任原告代理人,阿余·墨菲(Arthur Murphy)担任被告代理人。法庭在辩论结束后决定延期判决。但考虑到原告米勒的健康状况并经原、被告双方同意,案件的判决将被视为于当天作出。1768年6月8日,米勒去世。1769年4月20日,法庭就该案作出判决,但根据先前的决定,1768年6月7日被视为案件的判决日期。参见Ronan Dcazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy —Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.175.
    141 98 Eng.Rep.201,224.转引自Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.170.
    142 98 Eng.Rep.201,252.转引自Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.170-171.
    143 Millar v.Taylor(1769) 98 Eng.Rep.230.转引自 Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.19.
    144 Millar v.Taylor(1769) 98 Eng.Rep.246.转引自Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.27.
    145 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.p.48.
    146 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.89.
    147 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.195.
    148 对于法官意见的统计,因当时的6份记录资料并不一致而存在分歧。另外,对第1个问题,有的法官认为系针对物理实体的“原稿或图书”而言,有的法官则认为系针对抽象的“作品”而言,这也影响到了对法官真正意见的统计。本文采信Deazley的分析结果。详细分析参见Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,pp.196-205.
    149 F.Hargrave,An Argument in Defence of Literary Property,Otridge,1774,p.4.
    150 F.Hargrave,An Argument in Defence of Literary Property,Otridge,1774,pp.16-17.
    151 F.Hargrave,An Argument in Defence of Literary Property,Otridge,1774,pp.19.
    152 “Science”在18世纪时与“Knowledge”、“Learning”系同义用语,往往泛指所有能增强人类对世界的意识的精神产物,包括文学、艺术、科学等,并不只是今天的“科学”之义。“知识”一词似可与当时的“Science”、“Learning”等词勉强对译。可参见Patterson & Lindberg,The Nature of Copyright,the University of Georgia Press,1991,p.48;Julie E.Cohen et al,Copyright in a Global Information Economy,Aspen Law & Business Publishers,2002,p.28.
    153 Donaldson v.Becket(1774),17 Parliamentary History eols.992-1002.转引自Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.206.
    154 Donaldson v.Becket(1774) 17 Parliamentary History col.997.转引自Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.25.
    155 Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.39.
    156 Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993,p.132.
    157 扬格所提出的独创性理论传到欧洲大陆后,经费希特(Fichte)的吸收改造,催生出了著作权体系的“思想/表达”二分法。详见Martha Woodmansee,"The Genius and the Copyright:Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the 'Author'," Eighteenth-Century Studies,vol.17(Summer 1984),pp.425-448.
    158 Mark.Rose:The Author as Proprietor,Clarendon Press,1994,pp.52-53.
    159 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.179.
    160 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.96.
    161 Copyright Act 1814,s.4.转引自W.R.Cornish,Intellectual Property:Patents,Copyright,Trade Marks and Allied Rights(Fourth Edition),Sweet & Maxwell,1999,p.342.
    162 Brander Matthews,"The Evolution of Copyright," Political Science Quarterly,vol.5(December.,1890),p.591.两年以后,法国才颁布《复制权法》,保护作者的复制权,保护期为作者终生及死后10年。之后,法国不断延长作者权利的保护期,直至作者终生及死后70年。
    163[法]德尼兹·加亚尔等:《欧洲史》,蔡鸿宾等译,海口:海南出版社,2000年版,第457-462页。
    164 Mona Mohajer,The London Theatre around 1800,http://www.math.grinnell.edu/～simpsone/Teaching/Romantics/mona.html,2006年10月19日访问.
    165 Charles B.Qualia,"French Dramatic Sources of Bulwer-Lytton's Richelieu," Publications of the Modern Language Association,vol.42(March,1927),pp.177-184.
    166 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.124.该法因系鲍威尔·李桐促成又被称为“鲍威尔·李桐法”(Bulwer-Lytton Act)。
    167 3 and 4 Wm.IV c.15.转引自Ferris v.Frohman,223 U.S.424(1912);The Encyclopeaedia Britannica,Inc.(1911),Copyright,http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Copyright,2007年4月21日访问。
    168 W.R.Cornish,Intellectual Property:Patents,Copyright,Trade Marks and Allied Rights(Fourth Edition),Sweet &Maxwell,1999,p.342-343.
    169 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.150.
    170 Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,p.23.
    171 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.152.
    172 Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,p.23.
    173 FO/27/55.转引自Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.112.
    174 Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,pp..111-112.
    175 枢密院君令指由国王或女王根据枢密院建议所发布的命令,也称“国王(女王)会同枢密院令。对于制定法明确授权国王或女王发布的枢密院君令,议会有权使之无效。
    176 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp155-157.
    177 Literary Copyright Act 1842,s.3.转引自W.R.Cornish,Intellectual Property:Patents,Copyright,Trade Marks and Allied Rights(Fourth Edition),Sweet & Maxwell,1999,p.342.
    178 参见Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,pp.114-118;John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain.Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp160-162;Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,p.22-24.
    179 Burnet v.Chetwood(1721) 2 Mer 441.转引自 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.56.
    180 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.106.
    181 D.Rae,Information for John Hinton(1773),18-19.转引自Brad.Sherman &Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999,p.34.
    182 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp 161-162.
    183[美]保罗·爱德华·盖勒:“版权的历史与未来:文化与版权的关系”,李祖明译,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第6卷,北京:中国方正出版社,2001年版,第265页。
    184 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p161.
    185 该法全称为"An Act to Enable Her Majesty to Carry into Effect a Convention with France on the Subject of Copyright,to Extend and Explain the International Copyright Acts,and to Explain the Acts relating to Copyright in Engravings".
    186 Brander Matthews,"The Evolution of Copyright," Political Science Quarterly,vol.5(December.,1890),p.599.
    187 Peter Burger,"The Berne Convention:Its History and its Key Role in the Future," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3(Winter,1988),p.11.
    188 Sam·Ricketson,Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886-1986,Sweet & Maxwell Ltd,1989,pp.48-80.
    189 Peter Burger,"The Berne Convention:Its History and its Key Role in the,Future," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3(Winter,1988),pp.12-15.
    190 John Feather,Publishing.Piracy and Politica—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp183-186.
    191 Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.106.
    192 Gyles v.Wilcox Ronan(1741) 35 Eng.Rep.1009.转引自Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,pp.82-84.
    193 Brander Matthews,"The Evolution of Copyright," Political Science Quarterly,vol.5(December.,1890),p.596
    194 Toole v.Young(1874) 9 LR(QB) 523.转引自Ronan Deazley,Rethinking Copyright—History,Theory,Language,Edawrd Elgar Publishing Limited,2006,p.155.
    195 WIPO,Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works(Paris Act,1971),WIPO Publication,1978,p.76.此处参考了刘波林先生的译文。
    196 Peter Burger,"The Berne Convention:Its History and its Key Role in the Future," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3(Winter,1988),pp.12-15.
    197 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,p.203.
    198 英国1911年版权法除扩张了版权的权能外,还扩大了版权的保护范围,将“所有独创的文学、戏剧、音乐、艺术作品”都纳入版权的保护范围。“唱片、钢琴卷(perforated rolls)及其他能够通过机械装置发声的发明物(contrivances)”也受到该法调整。另外,该法还将版权的保护期延长为作者终生及其死后50年。参见sectionl(2)a,3,19(1) of Copyright Act 1911.转引自Ronan Deazley,Rethinking Copyright—History,Theory,Language,Edawrd Elgar Publishing Limited,2006,p.145.
    199 英国的“Cambridge”通常意译为“剑桥”,美国的“Cambridge”则常音译为“坎布里奇”,以示区别。
    200 Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.146-147.
    201 Thomas Paine,Letter to the Abbe Raynal,Michael Foot & Isaac Kramnick,ed.The Thomas Paine Reader,Penguin,1987,p.148.转引自Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation,of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.154-155.
    202 第二届大陆会议(the Continental Congress)于1777年制定《邦联条例》(Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union),1781年该条例的生效正式宣告“美利坚合众国”(United States of America)的成立。
    203 Thorvald Solberg,2nd ed.Copyright Enactments of the United States 1783-1906,Copyright Office Bulletin,No.3,1906,p.11.转引自Hideaki Shirata,The Origin of Two American Copyright Theories—A Case of the Reception of English Law,http://orion.mt.tama.hosei.ac.jp/hideaki/twocopy.htm,2006年11月3日访问.
    204 其余12邦为:新罕布什尔、马萨诸塞、罗德岛、康涅狄格、纽约、新泽西、宾夕法尼亚、马里兰、弗吉尼亚、北卡罗来纳、南卡罗来纳、佐治亚。
    205 Howard B.Abrams,"The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," Wayne Law.Review.vol.29(Spring,1983),p.1119.
    206 有学者对此提出异议,认为实际上只有马萨诸塞、新罕布什尔、罗德岛三个邦以自然法理论作为版立法的理论基础,其他各邦都是以“制定法版权”作为立法基础。参见Hideaki Shirata,The Origin of Two American Copyright Thcorics—A Case of the Reception ofEnglish Law,http://orion.mt.tama.hosei.ac.jp/hideaki/twocopy.htm,2006年11月3日访问.
    207 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,p.190.
    208 关于制宪会议的有关情况,可参考[美]麦迪逊:《辩论:美国制宪会议记录》,尹宣译,沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2003年版。
    209 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,pp.192-193.
    210 Article I,Section 8,Paragraph 8 of the U.S.Constitution:"The Congress shall have power:…to promote the progress of science and useful arts,by seeming for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
    211 "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned.The eopyfight of authors has been solemnly adjudged,in Great Britain,to be a fight of common law.The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors."译文也可参见[美]汉密尔顿等:《联邦党人文集》,程建如等译,北京:商务印书馆,1980年版,第220页。
    212 该法英文全称为:"An act for the encouragement of learning,by securing the copies of maps,charts,and books,to the authors and proprietors of such copies,during the times therein mentioned".
    213 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,pp.197-198.
    214 该法英文全称为:"An act to amend the several acts respecting copyright,musical compositions,and cuts,in connection with prints and engravings".
    215 Lyman·Ray·Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968,pp.201-202.
    216 Wheaton v.Peters,33 U.S.591(1834).
    217 Wheaton v.Peters,29 Fed Cas.871(1832).
    218 该案诉讼过程繁复,迁延多时.在第二次上诉过程中,威桐与皮特斯相继过世。为了解决这场烦人的诉讼,皮特斯的继承人最后同意支持400美元给威桐的继承人。该案最终以和解方式结案。
    219 stowe v.Thomas,23 Fed.Cases 201(C.C.E.D.Pa.1853).
    220 Glynn S.Lunney,"Reexamine Copyright Incentive Access Paradigm",Vanderbiit Law Review,vol.41,(April,1996),pp.537-538
    221 Glynn S.Lunney,"Reexamine Copyright Incentive Access Paradigm",Vanderbilt Law Review,vol.41,(April,1996),p.656.
    222 Gray v.Russell,10 F.Cas.1035,No.5728(C.C.Mass,1839).
    223 Emerson v.Davies,8 F.Cas.620,No.4436(C.C.Mass,1845).
    224 Burrow-Giles Lithographic.Co.v.Sarony,111 U.S.60(1884).
    225 Bleistein v.Donaldson Lithographing Co.,188 U.S.250(1903).此处参考了金渝林先生的译文.参见金渝林:“论作品的独创性”,《法学研究》,1995年第4期,第56页。
    226 Sheldon v.Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.,81 F.2d 54.转引自:Paul Goldstein,Copyright:Principles,Law and Practice(Volume Ⅰ),Little,Brown & Company Limited,1989,p.63.
    227 Edward Samuels,"The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law",Tennessee Law Review,vol.56,(Winter,1989),p.327.
    228 关于法庭意见的中文翻译,可参考罗伯特等著:《新技术时代的知识产权法》,齐筠等译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003年版,第300-302页。
    229 Baker v.Selden,101 U.S.105(1879).
    230 Holmes v.Hurst,174 U.S.86(1899).此处参考了李雨峰先生的译文。参见李雨峰:“思想/表达二分法的检讨”,《北大法律评论》第8卷第2辑,北京:北京大学出版社,2007年版,第6页。
    231 Samuel G.Goodrich,Recollections of a Lifetimc(Vol.Ⅱ),Miller,Orton and Mulligan,1857,pp.388-391.转引自Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,p.156.有学者认为美国出版商重印英国作品的高峰期是1830—1840年代。参见John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain.Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp.157-158.
    232 据美国出版商统计,英国作者图书在美国图书市场中的比例为:1820年代70%左右,1830年代60%左右,1840年代45%左右,1850年代30%左右,到1856年则为20%左右。Samuel G.Goodrich,Recollections of a Lifetime(Vol.Ⅱ),Miller,Orton and Mulligan,1857,pp.388-391.转引自Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,p.156.
    233 John Tebbel,A History of Book Publishing in the United States(Vol.Ⅱ),Bowker,1975,p.23.
    234 Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,p.158.
    235 Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.160-163.
    236 孙林:“美国政府怎样支持铁路发展”,《中国改革》,2006年第3期,第36页。
    237 所谓“商业礼节”(trade courtesy),与当时美国出版界存在的“习惯法版权”(Customany Copyrights)有关。依“习惯法版权”这一业界惯例,一旦有某一出版商抢先出版了一本“盗版”的英国图书,其他同行会基于“礼貌”而不再就同一本英国图书而另外发行自己的版本,以维持某种业内秩序。此种“礼貌”即被称为“商业礼节”。
    238 Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.209-210.
    239 Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.201-205.
    240 Arthur Sedgwick,"Thc Copyright Negotiations"(1881-1882) 1 Century Magazine 667-671.转引自Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,p.217.
    241 Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.215-216.
    242 关于《伯尔尼公约》的签订过程,请见本文第四章“超越复制”相关部分。
    243 关于切斯议案的起草、修改、通过的详细过程,参见Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006,pp.221-247.
    244 刘咏梅:“美国版权制度概论”,《国外法学》,1987年第2期,第15页。
    245 Jessica Litman,"Copyright Legislation and Technological Change," Oregon Law Review,vol.68(1989),p.284.
    246 35 Star.1088(1909).Also see:Patterson & Lindberg,The Nature of Copyright,the University of Georgia Press,1991,p.85.
    247 35 Stat.1080(1909).
    248 35 Stat.1078(1909).
    249 张密生主编:《科学技术史》·武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005年版,第135、272页。
    250[英]R·F·沃尔等:“版权与现代技术”,王捷译,《国外法学》,1984年第6期,第17页。
    251[美]罗伯特等:《新技术时代的知识产权法》,齐筠等译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003年版,第275页。
    252 博言编著:《发明简史》,北京:中央编译出版社,2006年版,第143页。
    253 Lionel Bently & Brad.Sherman,Intellectual Properly Law,Oxford University Press,2001,p.82.
    254 Lionel Bently & Brad.Sherman,Intellectual Property Law,Oxford University Press,2001,p.80.
    255 关于独创性理论的提出,请见本文第三章“从文学产权到版权”相关部分。
    256 Walter v.Lane(1900) AC 539.
    257 University of London Press v.University Tutorial Press(1916) 2 Ch 601.
    258 袁晓东:“独创性理论研究与实证分析”,梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第16卷,香港:金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司,2000年版,第585、587页。
    259 J.Gaines,Contested Culture:The Image,the Voice and the law,University of North Carolina Press,1991,p.45
    260 Macmillan v.Cooper(1923) 93 L.J.P.C.113.
    261 Ladbroke v.William Hill(1964) 1 All ER 465,469.
    262 Alistair Abbott & Kevin Garnett,"Who Is the 'Author' of a Photograph," European Intellectual Property Review,vol.20,(June,1998),p.204.
    263 Patterson & Lindberg,The Nature of Copyright,the University of Georgia Press,1991,p.136.
    264 关于该案中米乐大法官对照片及独创性的分析及“独立完成”标准的含义,请见本文第五章“版权在美国”相关部分。
    265 Jewelers' Circular Pub.Co.v.Keystone Pub.Co.,274 F.932,934(D.C.N.Y.1921);281 F.83(2d Cir.1922).
    266 Paul Goldstein,Copyright:Principle,Law and Practice(Volume Ⅰ),Little,Brown & Company Limited,1989,p.63.
    267 Feist Publications,Inc.v.Rural Telephone Service Co.,Inc.,499 U.S.369(1991).
    268 Paul Goldstein,"Copyright and Author's Right in the Twenty-first Century",in WIPO & Ministry of Culture and Francophome of France,eds.WIPO Worldwide Symposium on the Future of Copyright and Neighboring Rights,Paris France,1994,p.264.转引自袁泳:“数字版权”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第2卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第30页。
    269 Lionel Bently & Brad.Sherman,Intellectual Property Law,Oxford University Press,2001,p.95.
    270 Kathy Bowrey,"Who's Writing Copyright's History," European Intellectual Property Review,vol.18,(June,1996),p.326.
    271 陈楠楠:“自动钢琴”,《钢琴艺术》,2003年第6期,第29页。
    272 钢琴卷又称为“音乐卷”(music roll),是一种把音乐用打孔的方式记录下来的纸卷,其功能类似于记录音乐的乐谱。人不能识别钢琴卷,但自动钢琴可用其自动再现音乐。
    273 White-Smith Music Publishing Co.v.Apollo Co.,209 U.S.15(1908)
    274 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.p.65.
    275 White-Smith Music Publishing Co.v.Apollo Co.,209 U.S.1(1908).
    276 爱迪生早在1877年即发明了留声机、唱片,但留声机、唱片取得完全市场优势,淘汰自动钢琴、钢琴卷发生在1930年代。参见陈楠楠:“自动钢琴”,《钢琴艺术》,2003年第6期,第30页。
    277 Ronan Deazley,Rethinking Copyright—History,Theory,Language,Edawrd Elgar Publishing Limited,2006,p.145.
    278 Act of Mar.4,1909,ch.320,35 Stat,1075(1909).
    279 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.pp.68-72.《伯尔尼公约》的处理模式有所不同。1908年柏林修订文本设立了录音权(recording right),该项权利内容包括机械录制与机械表演。1967年斯德哥尔摩修订文本以最低标准方式规定的复制权涵盖了有关机械录制的内容,录音权随即被删除,有关机械表演的内容被并入表演权范围。参见Peter Burger,“The Berne Convention:Its History and its Key Role in the Future,”Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3(Winter,1988),p.45.
    280[英]帕斯卡尔·卡米纳:《欧盟电影版权》,籍之伟等译,北京:中国电影出版社,2006年版,第37页。
    281[英]帕斯卡尔·卡米纳:《欧盟电影版权》,籍之伟等译,北京:中国电影出版社,2006年版,第7页。
    282 Edison v.Lubin,122 E 242(3d Cir.1903).
    283 Jessica Litman,"Copyright Legislation and Technological Change," Oregon Law Review,vol.68,(1989),p.285.
    284 Harper & Bros.v.Kalem Co.,169 F.61(2d Cir.1909).
    285 Kalem Co.,v.Harper Bros.,222 U.S.55(1911).
    286 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.pp.63-64.
    287 Jessica Litman,"Copyright Legislation and Technological Change," Oregon Law Review,vol.68,(1989),pp.288-289.
    288 Patterson & Lindberg,The Nature of Copyright,the University of Georgia Press,1991,p.136.
    289[英]帕斯卡尔·卡米纳:《欧盟电影版权》,籍之伟等译,北京:中国电影出版社,2006年版,第15-20页。
    290 王鸿生:《世界科学技术史》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001年第2版,第215-216页:吴国盛:《科学的历程(第二版)》,北京:北京大学出版社,2002年版,第423-424页。
    291 Ashby,"Legal Aspects of Radio Broadcasting," Air Law Review,vol.1,(1930),p.331.
    292 M.Witmark & Sons.v.L.Bamberger & Co.,291 F.776(D.N.J.1923).
    293 Jerome H.Remick & Co.v.American Auto.Accessories,5 F.2d 411(6th Cir.1925).
    294 Jerome H.Remick & Co.v.American Auto.Accessories,5 F.2d 412(6th Cir.1925).
    295 Jessiea Litman,"Copyright Legislation and Technological Change," Oregon Law Review,vol.68,(1989),p.293.
    296 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.pp.72-74.
    297 博言编著:《发明简史》,北京:中央编译出版社,2006年版,第143页;钟建国:“电视技术发展史话”,《厦门科技》1996年第2期,第33页。
    298 Julie E.Cohen et al,Copyright in a Global Information Economy,Aspen Law & Business Publishers,2002,p.34.
    299 钟建国:“电视技术发展史话”,《厦门科技》1996年第2期,第33页。
    300 Fortnightly Corp.v.United Artists Television Inc.,392 U.S.390(1968).
    301 Fortnightly Corp.v.United Artists Television Inc.,392 U.S.395-402(1968).
    302 钟建国:“电视技术发展史话”,《厦门科技》1996年第2期,第33页。
    303 Teleprompter Corp.v.Columbia Broadcasting Systera Inc.,415 U.S.394(1974).
    304 17 U.S.C.§101.
    305 17 U.S.C.§111.
    306 Jessica Litman,"Copyright Legislation and Technological Change," Oregon Law Review,vol.68,(1989),p.332.
    307 编辑部:“静电复印技术的故事”,《电子科技》,2001年第6期,第3-5页。
    308 Julie E.Cohen et al,Copyright in a Global Information Economy,Aspen Law & Business Publishers,2002,pp.32-33.
    309 U.S.Congress,Office of Technology Assessment,Copyright and Home Copying:Technology Challenges the Law,U.S.Government Printing Office,1989,pp.145-146;www.princeton.edu/～ota/disk1/1989/8910/891008.PDF,2007年10月2日访问.
    310 Julie E.Cohen et al,Copyright in a Global Information Economy,Aspen Law & Business Publishers,2002,p.33;博言编著:《发明简史》,北京:中央编译出版社,2006年版,第192-193页.
    311 Gillian Davies & Michele E.Hung,Music and Video Private Copying:An International Survey of the Problems and the Law,Sweet & Maxwell,1993,pp.28-29.
    312 彭学龙:“数字网络环境下的复制与复制权——兼论数字版权法的重构”,梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第32卷,北京:法律出版社2005年版,第118页。
    313 Jane C.Ginsburg,"Copyright and Control over New Technologies of Dissemination," Columbia Law Review,vol.101,(November 2001),p.1614.
    314 Williams & Wilkins Co.v.The United States,172 Ct.Cl.670(1972).
    315 Williams & Wilkins Co.v.The United States,203 Ct.Cl.95(1973);487 F.2d 1345(1973).
    316 Williams & Wilkins Co.v.The United States,420 U.S.376(1975).
    317 More details,see:Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.pp.78-128.
    318 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.p.92.
    319 Stephen Breyer,"The Uneasy Case for Copyright:A Study of Copyright in Books,Photocopies,and Computer Programs," Harvard Law Review,vol.84,(December 1970),p.329.
    320 17 U.S.C.§108.
    321 李明德:《美国知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2003年版,第156页。
    322 Goldstein v.California,412 U.S.546(1973).
    323 Goldstein v.California,412 U.S.571(1973).
    324 Pub.L.No.92-140,85 Stat.391(1971).
    325 17 U.S.C.§101.
    326 在作者权体系,录音制品不视为作品,受邻接权的保护。
    327 Jessica Litman,"Copyright Legislation and Technological Change," Oregon Law Review,vol.68,(1989),p.308.
    328 Jessica Litman,"Copyright Legislation and Technological Change," Oregon Law Review,vol.68,(1989),p.357.
    329 关于1976年《美国版权法》立法过程中各方的利益斗争与妥协及最后通过情况,可参阅Jessica Litman,"Copyright,Compromise,and Legislative History," Cornell Law Review,vol.72,(July,1987),p.857.
    330 U.S.Code Cong.& Admin.News 1971,1572.quoted from 659 F.2d 967(9th Cir.1981).
    331 17 U.S.C.§ 112.
    332 Universal City Studios v.Sony Corp.of Am.,480 F.Supp.429(C.D.Ca1.1979);aff'd in part,rev'd in part &remanded,659 F.2d 963(9th Cir.1981);rev'd,464 U.S.417(1984).
    333 Universal City Studios v.Sony Corp.of Am.,480 F,Supp.432(C.D.Cal.1979).
    334 Universal City Studios v.Sony Corp.of Am.,659 F.2d 967(9th Cir.1981).
    335 Universal City Studios v.Sony Corp.of Am.,659 F.2d 976(9th Cir.1981).
    336 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.pp.148-149.
    337 Sony Corp.of Am.v.Universal City Studios,464 U.S.442-456(1984).按美国联邦最高法院的惯例,上诉人的名字列于案名前部。因该案是索尼公司向最高法院上诉,故索尼公司的名字列于案名前部,而与一、二审案名不同。
    338 从前述1851年“汤姆叔叔的小屋”案与1870年国会修法、1908年“钢琴卷”案与1909年国会修法、1909年“《宾虚传》”案与1912年国会修法、1968年“有线电视案”及1975年“图书馆复印”案与1976年修法等的互动关系可以看出这一点。似乎在新技术面前,法院的态度倾向于利用人,而国会的态度则有利于版权人。
    339 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.pp.157-158.
    340 1998年10月,美国又通过《版权保护期延长法》(the Bono Act),将版权保护期修改为作者终生加死后70年。
    341 17 U.S.C.§302.
    342 H.R.Report,No.94-1476,94~(th) Cong.,2d Sess.(1976),for Section 106.转引自李明德:《美国知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2003年版,第182-183页。
    343 17 U.S.C.§ 101.
    344 Supplementary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S.Copyright Law,1965Revision Bill 20.quoted from Paul Goldstein,Copyright:Principles,Law and Practice(Volume Ⅰ),Little,Brown &Company Limitod,1989,p.697.
    345 Peter Burger,"The Berne Convention:Its History and its Key Role in the Future," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3(Winter,1988),pp.27-38.
    346 John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994,pp.204-209.
    347 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.p.185.
    348 Henn,"The Quest for International Copyright Protection," Cornell Law Review,vol.39,(1953),p.43.
    349 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.p.185.
    350 Patrick Leahy,"Time for the United States to Join the Berne Copyright Convention," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3,(Winter,1988),p.179.
    351 Carlos J.Moorhend,"H.R.2962:The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1987," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3,(Winter,1988),p.188.
    352 Carlos J.Moorhead,"H.R.2962:The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1987," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3,(Winter,1988),p.187-189.
    353 Carlos J.Moorhead,"H.R.2962:The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1987," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3,(Winter,1988),p.193-194.
    354 Patrick Leahy,"Time for the United States to Join the Berne Copyright Convention," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3,(Winter,1988),p.185.
    355 吴汉东等:《走向知识经济时代的知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2002年版,第101页。
    356 相对于“爱尼阿克”,“爱达法克”方案主要提出了两大改进:(1)用二进制代替十进制,进一步发挥电子元件的速度潜力;(2)将“程序”本身当作数据存贮起来,使运算的全过程均由电子自动控制,以进一步提高运算速度。
    357 吴国盛:《科学的历程(第二版)》,北京:北京大学出版社,2002年版,第536-539页。
    358 Stephen Breyer,"The Uneasy Case for Copyright:A Study of Copyright in Books,Photocopies,and Computer Programs," Harvard Law Review,vol.84,(December 1970),p.338-23.
    359 吴国盛:《科学的历程(第二版)》,北京:北京大学出版社,2002年版,第539-541页。
    360 曹伟:“计算机软件知识产权保护的反思与超越”,西南政法大学博士学位论文,2007年3月,第14-15页。
    361 The Act of December 12,1980,Pub.L.96-517,94 Stat.3015.
    362 在美国之前,菲律宾于1972年首次将计算机软件列为“文学作品”加以版权法保护,但因菲律宾的国际影响有限,这一立法动向没有引起人们的足够重视。
    363 Gates v.Swift(1982)RPC 339-340;Sega Enterprises v.Richards(1983)FSR 73;Thrust-code v.WW Computing (1983)FSR 502.因“literary”不仅具有“文学的”之义,还具有“文字的、书面的”之义,所以当计算机软件被解释为“literary work”时,“literary”已是不露痕迹地从“文学的”向“文字的”转换了,但是汉字的转换是显形的。为了与标准翻译保持一致,这里也使用了“文学作品”的表述,没有使用“文字作品”一语。
    364 Lionel Bently & Brad.Sherman,Intellectual Property Law,Oxford University Press,2001,p.57.
    365 Chapter 5,Green Paper On Copyright and the Challenge of Technology—Copyright Issues Requiring Immediate Action,p.200.
    366 91/250/EEC,Art.4(c).相关分析可参见韦之:“欧共体计算机程序保护指令评介”,《中外法学》1998年第6期,第49-54页。关于世界知识产权组织(WIPO)、联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)等国际组织对计算机软件保护所提出的建议、示范条款、草案等的介绍,可参见曹伟:“计算机软件知识产权保护的反思与超越”,西南政法大学博士学位论文,2007年3月,第18-21页。
    367 TRIPs,Art.10,11.
    368 The Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990,Pub.L.101-650,104 Stat.5089.
    369 U.S.Copyright Office,Report on Computer Software Rental Act,http://www.copyright.gov/reports/software_ren.html,2007年11月2日访问。
    370 H.R.Rep.No.987,98~(th) Cong.,2d Sess.2(1984).Quoted form Paul Goldstein,Copyright:Principles,Law and Practice(Volume Ⅰ),Little,Brown & Company Limited,1989,p.605.
    371 美国法院在19世纪末即讨论过首次销售原则问题[Harrison v.Maynard,Merril & Co.,61 F.689(2d Cir.1894)],美国联邦最高法院于1908年就版权人的发行权(the sole right to vend,“销售专有权”)进行了分析,确立了首次销售原则的地位[Bobbs-Merrill Co.v.Straus,210 U.S.339(1908)]。
    372 U.S.Copyright Office,Report on Computer Software Rental Act,http://www.copyright.gov/reports/software_ren.html,2007年11月2日访问。
    373 92/100/EEC,Art.2.详细分析可参见韦之:“《欧共体出租权指令》评介”,《现代法学》1999年第5期,第136-139页
    374 关于1984年“索尼”案及之后电影业者在“索尼”案中败诉后向国会提出立法议案的情况简介,请见本文第六章“技术发展与版权扩张”相关部分。
    375 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.pp.160-161.
    376 Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.p.162.
    377 西德最早于1965年即规定了版权法定许可费制度,作为对私人复制造成著作权人损失的补偿机制。关于德国版权法定许可费制度的演变,可参见罗莉:“评德国的版权补偿制度及其改革”,张玉敏主编:《中国欧盟知识产权法比较研究》,北京:法律出版社,2005年版.第84-108页。
    378 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.60.
    379 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.60.
    380 Peter H.Salus,Casting The Net—From ARPANET to INTETNET and Beyond,Addison-Wesley,1995,pp.218-219.
    381 Swtrunk,Berners-Lee,http://swtrunk.bokee.com/5628824.html,2007年12月1日访问。
    382 袁泳:“数字版权”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第2卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第62页。
    383 Robert Howell,Database Protection and Canadian Laws,http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Coliection/C2-370-1998E.pdf,2007年12月2日访问。
    384 Chapter 6,Green Paper On Copyright and the Challenge of Technology—Copyright Issues Requiring Immediate Action,p.205.
    385 J.H.Reichman & Pamela Samuelson,"Intellectual Property Rights in Data?",Vanderbilt Law Review,vol.50,(January,1997),p.75.
    385 TRIPs,Art.10.
    386 关于欧盟《数据库法律保护指令》的介绍分析,可参见王源扩:“欧盟数据库法律保护的新动向——欧盟议会和部长理事会1996年第9号指令述评”,《科技与法律》1996年第3期,第57-63页。
    388 Simon Stokes,Digital Copyright:Law and Practice,LexisNexis Butterworths,2002.p.59.
    389 Michael Lehmann,"The European Database Directive and Its Implementation into German Law," International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law,vol.29,(July 1998),p.776.
    390 薛虹:“因特网上的版权及有关权保护”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第1卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第53-54页。
    391 该议案标题为“1996年数据库投资及知识产权反盗版法”(Database linvestment and Intellectual Property Antipiracy Act of 1996)。
    392 David Mirchin,"The European Database Directive Sets the Worldwide Agenda," NFAIS Newsletter,vol.39,(January 1997),pp.10.
    393 David Mirchin,"The European Database Directive Sets the Worldwide Agenda," NFAIS Newsletter,vol.39,(January 1997),pp.11.
    394 “世界知识产权组织数据库知识产权信息会议”,《版权公报》,1998年第1期,第16-17页。
    395 U.S.Copyright Office,Report on Legal Protection For Database,http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html,2007年11月2日访问。
    396 该议案的标题为“信息集合体反盗版法”(Collections of Information Antipiracy Act)。
    397 Jonathan Band & Makoto Kono,"The Database Protection Debate in the 106~(th) Congress," Ohio State Law Journal,vol.62,(2001),pp.871-872.
    398 该议案与“H.R.2652”号议案同名。
    399 该议案标题为“消费者与投资者接触信息法”(Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act)。
    400 Jonathan Band & Makoto Kono,"The Database Protection Debate in the 106~(th) Congress," Ohio State Law Journal,vol.62,(2001),pp.872-875.
    401 中国科学院办公厅:“美国信息高速公路计划”,http://www.cas.ac.cn/html/Dir/2002/09/27/6734.htm,2007年12月5日访问。
    402 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.90.
    403 Information Infrastructure Task Force,Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure:A Preliminary Draft of the Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights(1994).该文件作为知识产权工作小组正式报告的初稿,一般被称为“吕曼工作小组绿皮书”(Lehman Working Group Green Paper)。
    404 MAI Systems Corp.v.Peak Computer,Inc.,1992 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 21829(C.D.Cal.1992);aff'd in part,rev'd in part & remanded,991 F.2d 511(9~(th) Cir.1993).
    405 See,for example,Triad Systems Corp.v.Southeastern Express Co.,1994 U.S.Dist LEXIS 5390(N.D.Cal.1994);Advanced Computer Services v.MAI Systems Corp.,845 F.Supp.356(E.D.Va.1994).
    406 Lehman Working Group Green Paper,Part Ⅰ.Law,A.Copyright,4.Exclusive Rights,a.The Right to Reproduce the Work.
    407 Lehman Working Group Green Paper,Part Ⅳ.Preliminary Findings and Recommendations,A.Law,1.Distribution by Transmission,a.The Distribution Right.
    408 Lehman Working Group Green Paper,Part Ⅳ.Preliminary Findings,and Recommendations,A.Law,1.Distribution by Transmission,c.First Sale Doctrine.
    409[英]R·F·沃尔等:“版权与现代技术”,王捷译,《国外法学》,1984年第6期,第17页。
    410 如版权人曾研制“特殊防拷纸”,试图遏制他人对作品的复印。参见本文第六章“技术发展与版权扩张”相关部分。
    411 Lehman Working Group Green Paper,Part Ⅳ.Preliminary Findings,and Recommendations,A.Law,2.Technological Protection.
    412 Lehman Working Group Green Paper,Part Ⅳ.Preliminary Findings,and Recommendations,A.Law,3.Copyright Management Infromation.
    413 音乐作者,包括词作者与曲作者,之所以反对,是因为绿皮书中关于将传输行为从公开表演中剔出,归入发 行的建议对其不利。根据美国当时的利益分配机制,音乐作者可从作品的公开表演权中受益,而发行权的利益则往往由音乐出版商享有。
    414 Pamela Samuelson,"Legally Speaking:The NII Intellectual Property Report",Communications of the ACM,(December 1994),p.21.Available online at http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/ElectronicProperty/LehmanACMCritique.html.
    415 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.93.
    416 Information Infrastructure Task Force,Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure:The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights(1995).该文件作为知识产权小组的正式报告,一般被称为“白皮书”(White Paper)。
    417 White Paper,Part Ⅳ.Recommendations,A.Copyright.
    418 James Boyle,Shamans,Software,and Spleens:Law and the Construction of the Information Society,Harvard University Press,1996,pp.135-137.
    419 家庭录制权联盟于1980年代初Universal City Studios v.Sony Corp.of Am.案(即“索尼”案)诉讼期间成立,代表着消费性电子业者的利益。因消费者私下录制的自由是保障消费性电子业者的利益的前提,故在反对版权人控制私下复制这一点上,消费性电子业者与消费者具有共同的利益,家庭录制权联盟与消费者组织等得以联合起来,反对电影业者、录音产业者、计算机软件业者等“内容提供商”。
    420 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.125.
    421 Thomas C.Vinje,"Ali's Not Quiet on the Borne Front," European Intellectual Property Review,vol.18,(November 1996),p.585.
    422 包括中国在内的发展中国家也向世界知识产权组织国际局提交了议案,且达16份之多。国际社会围绕新条约的起草而展开的斗争同样非常激烈。参见沈仁干:“世界知识产权组织推出两个新条约”,郑成思主编:《知识产权研究》,北京:中国方正出版社,1997年版,第1-9页。
    423 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.129.
    424 WCT于2002年3月6日生效,WPPT于2002年5月20日生效。这两个条约经常被合称为“互联网条约”(internet treaties)。关于世界知识产权组织这次外交会议的记录,可参见WIPO,Records of the Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions,Geneva 1996,vol.Ⅰ,WIPO,Geneva 1999.与两个互联网条约草案同时提交的《数据库条约草案》未进入实质讨论阶段。相关介绍请见本章“数据库”部分。
    425 Silke Von Lewinski,"The WIPO Treaties 1996:Ready to Come into Force," European Intellectual Property Review,vol.24,(April 2002),p.208.
    426 据世界知识产权组织前副总干事费瑟(Ficsor)透露,TRIPs与两个互联网条约草案的起草工作于20世纪80年代末即开始启动,彼此之间保持着联系。为等待TRIPs的出台,两个互联网条约的起草工作曾一度放慢,以使条约内容能与TRIPs保持一致。参见袁泳:“数字版权”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第2卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第45页注(107)。对两个互联网条约与TRIPs有关规定的比较,可参见郑成思:“两个新的版权条约初探”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第1卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第333-344页。
    427 WCT,Art.1,(1).
    428 WCT,Art.1,(4).《伯尔尼公约》第9条规定,作者对其作品享有“授权以任何方法或形式(in any manner of form)复制该作品的专有权”。WPPT第7条与第11条关于表演者与录音制品制作者享有的复制权的规定以采用了类似的表述。“任何方法或形式”该如何解释?是否包含临时复制?从文义上理解,似应作此解释,但从世界知识产权组织拒绝吕曼建议来看,世界知识产权组织有意保持一种含糊的态度。有学者在研究了国际公约的文本及相关制订背景后,认为《伯尔尼公约》第9条规定的复制权并没有覆盖临时复制,WCT也没有为临时复制问题作出最终结论。参见朱理:“临时复制是否属于著作权法意义上的复制——以国际公约为核心的规范分析”,《电子知识产权》2007年第1期,第22-25页。
    429 WCT,Art.10,11,12;WPPT,Art.10,14,16,18,19.
    430 WCT,Art.8.
    431 李明德:“美国正在审议通过实施WIPO两个新条约的议案”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第1卷,北京,中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第345页。众议院议案的标题是“WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act”,参议院议案的标题是“WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaty Implementation Act of 1997”。
    432 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.134.
    433 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.126.
    434 Pub.L.304,112 Star.2860;codified at 17 U.S.C.§ 512.
    435 《数字千年版权法》对于版权人所控制的“接触”(access)只是首次接触(initial access)还是包括所有的后续接触,并未明确。这给司法解释留下了一些空间。
    436 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,pp.144-145.
    437 Universal City Studios v.Reimerdes,82 F.Supp.2d 211(S.N.D.Y.2000).该案于2000年1月20日发布临时禁令,2000年8月17日发布永久性禁令。
    438 《数字千年版权法》第1201条的主题是:版权技术措施的规避(Circumvention of copyright protection systems)。
    439 A&M Records,Inc.v.Napster,Inc.,114 F.Supp.2d 896(N.D.Cal.2000),aff'd in part,rev'd in part,239 F.3d 1004(9~(th) Cir.2001).
    440 Recording Industry Association of Am.v.Diamond Multimedia Sys.,Inc.,29 F.Supp.2d 625(C.D.Cal.1998).
    441 Recording Industry Association of Am.v.Diamond Multimedia Sys.,Inc.29 F.Supp.2d 624(C.D.Cal.1998);aff'd 180 F.3d 1072,1076-81(9th Cir.1999).该案中,原告美国录音产业协会(RIAA)起诉被告帝盟公司生产的MP3播放器Rio PMP 300违反了美国1992年《家庭录音法》的规定,没有安装连续复制管理系统(SCMS),构成侵权。法院认定Rio PMP 300不是1992年《家庭录音法》所规定的录音设备,不受该法约束。此后,MP3产业迅猛发展,MP3音乐也迅速流行起来。
    442 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.158.
    443 有关介绍、分析,可参见刘家瑞:“论新兴文件共享技术的版权间接责任(上、下)”,《电子知识产权》,2004年第8、9期,第13-16页、第28-31页;徐一文:“P2P革命中的版权——共享网络中的版权侵权问题研究”,周林主编:《知识产权研究》第18卷,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版,第139-201页;等等。
    444 MGM v.Grokster,269 F.Supp.2d 1213,(C.D.Cal.2003);aff'd,380 F.3d 1154(9~(th) Cir.2004);vacated and remanded,545 U.S.913.
    445 对该案的有关评析,可参见王迁:“P2P软件提供者的帮助侵权责任——美国最高法院Grokster案判决评析”,《电子知识产权》2005年第9期,第52-56页;张金恩:“美国版权间接侵权制度的新发展——MGM v.GROKSTER,LTD.,ET AL案述评”,《知识产权》,2006年第2期,第55-59页。
    446 编辑部:“2005年度知识产权领域大事回顾”,《电子知识产权》2006年第1期,第15页。
    447 徐一文:“P2P革命中的版权——共享网络中的版权侵权问题研究”,周林主编:《知识产权研究》第18卷,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版,第157-158页。
    448 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.169.
    449 Ronan Dcazley,Rethinking Copyright—History,Theory,Language,Edawrd Eigar Publishing Limited,2006,p.125.
    450 Australia Copyright Amendment(Digital Agenda) Act 2000,Section 116A.
    451 当P2P技术发展起来以后,唱片公司一方面通过法律途径追究P2P技术提供商的责任,另一方面利用技术措施阻止普通消费者复制和共享数字音乐。索尼BMG公司在2005年1—11月推出的52种唱片中,植入了版权保护软件“XCP”(eXtended Copy Protection),并采用Rootkit技术将“XCP”隐藏起来。Rootkit最早出现于20世纪90年代中期,是Unix黑客们用来帮助他们窃取系统根级访问权并在系统中不露痕迹地隐藏恶意代码的一组软件工具。自1999年针对Windows系统的Rootkit出现后,Rootkit成为一种常用的黑客工具。当用户在个人电脑上播放索尼BMG公司发行的这些唱片时,唱片中所植入的技术措施会秘密改变电脑的程序设置,在不损害系统的情况下,这一技术措施无法从计算机上删除。电脑极有可能因此遭到多种恶意软件程序的攻击。2005年11月11日,瑞星全球反病毒监测网就截获了一个利用索尼防盗版软件隐藏自身的后门程序、并命名为“深喉变种B(Backdoor.Brcplibot.b)”痛毒,该病毒还出现了两个变种“探喉变种C/D”,这三个病毒都通过电子邮件传播,用户不小心打开病毒邮件携带的附件后就会被感染。中毒之后,用户的电脑会自动连接IRC聊天频道,黑客可对染毒的计算机进行远程控制,如:获取用户名、账号密码、IP地址信息等。同时该病毒还会从网上下载其他的病毒、木马及间谍软件等,给用户的计算机安全造成更大的威胁。计算机安全专家Russinovich在2005年10月底偶然发现索尼BMG公司的这一这秘密后于当年万圣节前夜在其博客上发布了这一消息。公众对此反应非常激 烈,美国加州消费者对索尼BMG公司提起了集体诉讼,徽软公司宣布索尼的程序对于运行Windows的PC构成了安全风险,赛门铁克等安全公司纷纷对用户提出警告,美国国土安全部也对此事表示关注.索尼BMG公司在认识到事态的严重性后,采取了补救措施,如向公众道歉、召回已售出的近500万张唱片、向反病毒公司提供技术资料、赔偿消费者损失等。
    452 See,for example,Pamela Samuelson & Jason Schultz,"Should Copyright Owners Have to Give Notice of the Use of Technical Protection Measures7," Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law,vol.6,(Fall 2007),p.41;Deirdre Mulligan & Aaron Perzanowski,"The Magnificence of the Disaster:Reconstructing the Sony BMG Rootkit Incident," Berkeley Technology Law Journal,vol.22,(Summer 2007),p.1157.
    453 章忠信:“美国著作权法科技保护措施例外规定之探讨”,《万国法律》第151期,www.copyrightnote.oge/paper/pa0043.doc_73K_2007-2-3,2008年1月2日访问。
    454 李明德、许超:《著作权法》,北京:法律出版社2003年版,第179页。
    455 Lionel Bently,"Copyright and the Death of the Author in Literature and Law," Modern Law Review,vol.57,(November 1994),p.583.
    456 See,for example,Turkewitz,"Authors' Rights are Dead," Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA,vol.38;(1990),p.41;David Nimmer,"The End of Copyright," Vanderbilt Law Review,vol.48,(October 1995),p.1420;John Perry Barlow,"The Economy of Ideas:Everything You Know about Intellectual Property Is Wrong," in Adam D.Moore,eds.Intellectual Property:Moral,Legal,and International Dilemmas,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.,1997,p.349;Siva Vaidhyanathan,Copyrights and Copywrongs:The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity,New York University,2001,p.149;Glynn S.Lunney,"The Death of Copyright:Digital Technology,Private Copying,and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act," Virginia Law.Review,vol.87,(September 2001),p.813.
    457 薛虹:“美丽新世界:因特网上的知识产权纵横谈”,《知识产权》,1999年第1期,第12页。
    458 例如:Ronan Deazley,Rethinking Copyright—History,Theory,Language,Edawrd Elgar Publishing Limited,2006;Niva Elkin-Koren,"It's All about Control:Rethinking Copyright in the New Information Landscape," in Niva Elkin-Koren and Neil Weinstock Netanel,eds.The Commodification of Information,Aspen Publishers,Inc.,2002.李雨峰:“版权扩张:一种合法性的反思”,《现代法学》2001年第5期,第57-65页;另见李雨峰:《枪口下的法律:中国版权史研究》,北京:知识产权出版社,2006年版,第215-237页;冯晓青:“著作权扩张及其缘由透视”,《政法论坛》,2006年第6期,第74-87页;另见冯晓青:《知识产权法利益平衡理论》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006年版,第211-250页。
    459 李雨峰:“版权法上公共领域的概念”,《知识产权》,2007年第5期,第3页。
    460 冯晓青:《知识产权法利益平衡理论》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006年版,第236页。另见冯晓青:“著作权扩张及其缘由透视”,《政法论坛》,2006年第6期,第79页。
    461 在版权史研究专家中,大卫·桑德斯(David Saunders)特别强调技术对版权的影响,他甚至认为文化对版权的影响只是偶然的,最多也只是影响到版权中具体术语的措辞。关于桑德斯的观点及分析,可参见David Saunders,Authorship and Copyright,Routledge,1992.
    462 Jessica Litman,"The Public Domain," Emory Law Journal,vol.39,(Fall 1990),p.1004.
    463 Nichols v.Universal Pictures Corp.,45 F.2d 119(2d Cir.1930).
    464 李雨峰:“思想/表达二分法的检讨”,《北大法律评论》第8卷第2辑,北京:北京大学出版社,2007年版,第1页。
    465 思想/表达二分法不过是为确立版权而出现的人造物,见本文前三章的相关叙述。
    466 B Rand,ed.The Correspondence of John Locke and Edawrd Clarke,Clarendon Press,1927,p.366.转引自Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain (1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004,p.3.
    467 Ronan Deazley,Rethinking Copyright—History,Theory,Language,Edawrd Elgar Publishing Limited,2006,pp.135-144.
    468 关于利益集团推动国际社会达成TRIPs的介绍,可参见[澳]彼得·达沃豪斯、约翰·布雷斯韦特:《信息封建主义》,北京:知识产权出版社,2005年版。
    469 国内对此也有过论争。有关文献可参见郑胜利:“论知识产权法定主义”,郑胜利主编:《北大知识产权评论》第2卷,北京:法律出版社,2004年版,第51-66页;李扬等:《知识产权基础理论和前沿问题研究》,北京,法律出版社,2004年版,第123-144页;易继明:“知识产权的观念:类型化及法律适用”,《法学研究》,2005年第3期,第110-125页;李扬:“知识产权法定主义及其适用——兼与梁慧星、易继明教授商榷”,《法学研究》,2006年第2期,第3-16页;彭学龙:“知识产权:自然权利亦或法定之权”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第8期,第14-17页。
    470 美国电影业者在1975年家用录像机开始进入美国家庭时,就曾想对家庭录像行为予以限制,以防患于未然。因为他们担心,若不一开始就加以限制,到后面自由家庭录像行为已成为公众的习惯后,就不大可能再加以限制了。这种担心也例证了版权外在于人们生活习惯的品性。参见Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994,pp.143-144.
    471 国内法院系统对于知识产权保护似乎有积极主动态势,这一现象值得关注。有学者对此进行了批评。参见崔国斌:“知识产权法官造法批判”,《中国法学》,2006年第1期,第144-164页。
    472 White-Smith Music Publishing Co.v.Apollo Co.,209 U.S.1(1908).
    473 Sony Corp.of Am.v.Universal City Studios,464 U.S.417(1984).
    474 袁泳:“论新技术与版权扩张”,《著作权》,1998年第4期,第16-17页。
    475 《德国著作权法》为了保持其理论上的一致性,而规定只有那些对电影制作进行了创作性参与的人才是电影作品的作者。故电影制片人通常情况下不是作者。但为了便于制片人收回投资,《德国著作权法》又规定电影作品的作者有义务将电影作品的相关排他性权利许可给电影制片人。参见2003年《德国著作权法与邻接权法》第89条,[德]M·雷炳德:《著作权法》,张恩民译,北京:法律出版社,2005年版,(附录)第743页。《法国知识产权法典》L.113-7条也规定:“完成视听作品智力创作的一个或数个自然人为作者。”参见黄晖译:《法国知识产权法典(法律部分)》,北京:商务印书馆,1999年版,第一部分第8页。相比之下,作者权体系更注重内在理论体系的完整性,而版权体系则更注重实用性。
    476 卢海君:“传播权的猜想与证明”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第1期,第12页。
    477 美国1991年“费斯特”案件似乎是对独创性正当化功能的回归,而这又会缩小版权的保护范围。
    478 Jordan M.Blanke,"Vincent van gogh,'Sweat of the Brow,'and Database Protection",American Business Law Journal,vol.39,(Summer 2002),p.681.
    479 利用“点击合同”、“折封合同”等形式限制作品使用人的自由也是版权人常用的手段。
    480 Turkewitz,"Authors' Rights are Dead," Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA,vol.38;(1990),p.41.
    481 David Nimmer,"The End of Copyright," Vanderbilt Law Review,vol.48,(October 1995),p.1420.
    482 Jessica Litman,"The Exclusive Right to Read," Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal,vol.13,(1994),p.54.
    483 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,p.194.
    484 Jeremy Waldron,"From Authors to Copiers:Individual Rights and Social Values in Intellectual Property",Chi-Kent Law Review,vol.68,(1993),p.851.
    485 David Vaver:“知识产权的危机与出路”,李雨峰译,《知识产权》,2007年第4期,第96页。
    486 在上个世纪6、70年代美国修改版权法期间,美国各界就版权能否适应新技术发展展开过辩论。哈佛大学法学院教授布瑞尔(Stephen Breyer,后成为美国联邦最高法院第108位大法官)撰文主张版权制度应予取消,其所预设功能完全可由技术、市场等机制替代。布瑞尔的观点遭到激烈的反驳。最后布瑞尔承认自己的考虑有失周全并对原先的观点加以修正。这场论战虽然没有危及到版权的存在,但也从反面激发了人们思考新技术挑战下的版权法的存在价值。布瑞尔的论文见Stephen Breyer,"The Uneasy Case for Copyright:A Study of Copyright in Books,Photocopies,and Computer Programs," Harvard Law Review,vol.84,(December 1970),p.329.对这场论战的介绍可参见Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994,pp.22-26.
    487 John Perry,Barlow,"The Economy of Ideas:Everything You Know about Intellectual Property Is Wrong," in Adam D.Moore,eds.Intellectual Property:Moral Legal,and International Dilemmas,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.,1997,pp.349-371.
    488 国内也有学者持此看法,如,彭玉勇:“著作权保护的现代发展趋势与反垄断措施”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第2期,第11页。
    489 Information Infrastructure Task Force,Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure:A Preliminary Draft of the Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights(1994),Background.
    490 郭禾:“信息技术对著作权制度的影响”,《著作权》,1996年第3期,第29-34页。
    491 金渝林:“信息数字化技术和联网技术对现有版权理论的影响”,《国际商务》,1996年第2期,第53-54页。
    492 袁泳:“数字版权”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第2卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版,第124-125页;李明德、许超:《著作权法》,北京:法律出版社,2003年版,第325页。
    493 “激励机制”模式与下文“商业利用权”模式部分参考了彭学龙博士的译文。参见彭学龙:“数字网络环境下的复制与复制权——兼论数字版权法的重构”,梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第32卷,北京:法律出版社2005年版,第158-176页。
    494 Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure,The Digital Dilemma:Intellectual Property in the Information Age,The National Academy Press,2000,pp.140-145.
    495 Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001,pp.171-191.
    496 Pamela Samuelson,Toward a "'New Deal' for Copyright for an Information Age",Michigan Law Review,vol.100,(2002),Available online at http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/～pam/papers/Litman%20review.pdf.
    497 Jane C.Ginsburg,Can Copyright Become User-Friendly?," Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & Arts,vol.25,(October 2001),Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=288240.
    498 Jonathan H.Blavin,"Digital Copyright," Harvard Journal of Law & Technology,vol.14,(Spring 2001),Available online at http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v14/14HarvJLTech741.pdf.
    499 彭学龙:“数字网络环境下的复制与复制权——兼论数字版权法的重构”,梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第32卷,北京:法律出版社2005年版,第175页。
    500 有时候,双方都用“access right”来表达自己的主张,这使得“access right”一词包含两种相互对立的含义:“接触作品的权利”(right to gain acccss to copyrighted material)与“控制接触作品的权利”(right to control access to copyrighted material)。为了区别这两种对立的含义,本文将前一含义上使用的“access right”译为“接触权”,而将后一含义上使用的“access right”译为“接触控制权”。
    501 Jane C.Ginsburg,"From Having C,opies to Experiencing Works:the Development of an Access Right in U.S.Copyright Law,"Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA,vol.50,(2003),p.113.,Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=222493.
    502 Thomas Heide,"Copyright in the EU and U.S.:What 'Access-Right'?," Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.,vol.48,(Spring,2001),p.363;also see:European Intellectual Property Review,vol.23,(October,2001),p.469.
    503 彭学龙:“数字网络环境下的复制与复制权——兼论数字版权法的重构”,梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第32卷,北京:法律出版社2005年版,第195、196页。
    504 技术发展对作品的精神权利并无影响,故这种统一的权利模式也仅只版权中的财产权利而言。
    505 Shira Perlmutter,"Convergence and the Future of Copyright," European Intellectual Property Review,vol.23,(February,1996),pp.111-117.
    506 陶双文:“网络传播权将导致著作权财产权重整”,周林主编:《知识产权研究》第18卷,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版,第203-218页。其他学者也作过构建“大传播权”的尝试,参见卢海君:“传播权的猜想与证明”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第1期,第12-17页。
    507 《法国知识产权法典》第L.122-1,2,3条参见黄晖译:《法国知识产权法典(法律部分)》,北京:商务印书馆,1999年版,第一部分第12、13页。
    508 Swiss Federal Copyright Law Art.10(1):"The author shall have the exclusive right to decide whether,when and how his work is to be used."
    509 薛虹:《网络时代的知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2000年版,第18页。
    510 Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure,The Digital Dilemma:Intellectual Property in the Information Age,The National Academy Press,2000,p.182.
    511 Committee on Intellectual,Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure,The Digital Dilemma:Intellectual Property in the Information Age,The National Academy Press,2000,pp.181-182.
    512 方兴东、王俊秀:《起来——挑战微软“霸权”》,北京:中华工商联合出版社,1999年版,第1页。
    513 Richard Stallman,The GNU Manifesto,http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto,2007年12月10日访问。
    514 “Copyleft”是为了与版权(copyright)相对而生造的一个词,对版权而言,带有叛逆色彩。国内有将该词译为“版权所无”、“版权向左”等,均未见妥贴。因目前难有与“Copyleft”对应的中文翻译,本文直接使用“Copyleft”一词,不另作中文翻译。
    515 张平、马骁:《共享智慧——开源软件知识产权问题解析》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005年版,第82-84页。
    516 熊明德:“转折世纪山脊的Linux,细说——身世、冲击、未来图像”,http://www.bnext.com.tw/mag/2000_06_777.html.转引自张平、马骁:《共享智慧——开源软件知识产权问题解析》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005年版,第86页。
    517 关于自由软件、开源软件的更多介绍,可访问http://www.gnu.org.或参见张平、马骁:《共享智慧——开源软件知识产权问题解析》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005年版。
    518 2006年3月,CC许可证的简体中文版在北京发布,“知识共享协议”成为“CC许可证”的正式中文名称。
    519 Ronan Deazley,Rethinking Copyright—History,Theory,Language,Edawrd Elgar Publishing Limited,2006,pp.161-163.
    520 李雨峰:《枪口下的法律:中国版权史研究》,北京:知识产权出版社,2006年版,第215页。
    521 朱理:“临时复制问题是否属于著作权法意义上的复制——以国际公约为核心的规范分析”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第1期,第22-25页;另见朱理:“著作权的边界——信息社会著作权的限制与例外研究”,北京大学博士学位论文,2006年4月,第54-66页。
    522 张承志诉世纪互联通讯技术有限公司侵犯著作权纠纷案,《最高人民法院公报》,2000年第1期,第28页。
    523 崔国斌:“知识产权法官造法批判”,《中国法学》,2006年第1期,第162页。
    524 薛虹:《网络时代的知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2000年版,第148页。
    525 薛虹:《网络时代的知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2000年版,第149页。
    526 彭学龙:“数字网络环境下的复制与复制权——兼论数字版权法的重构”,梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第32卷,北京:法律出版社2005年版,第145-147页。
    527 中国互联网协会、DCCI互联网数据中心:“2007—2008中国互联网调查报告”,http://il.sinaimg.cn/IT/focus/2007_GUIDE2008/idx/2008/0108/U73P2T52D3219F1881DT20080108095241.pdf,2008年2月4日访问。
    528 彭学龙:“版权法的现实困境与未来展望”,《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2006年第2期,第237-238页。
    1.《马克思恩格斯全集》第l卷,北京:人民出版社,1956年版。
    2.[法]F·基佐:《一六四○年英国革命史》,伍光健译,北京:商务印书馆,1985年版。
    3.[法]德尼兹·加亚尔等:《欧洲史》,蔡鸿宾等译,海口:海南出版社,2000年版。
    4.[英]安东尼·阿巴拉斯特:《西方自由主义的兴衰》,曹海军等译,长春:吉林人民出版社,2004年版。
    5.[英]洛克:《政府论》(下篇),叶启芳等译,北京:商务印书馆,1964年版。
    6.[美]麦迪逊:《辩论:美国制宪会议记录》,尹宣译,沈阳:辽宁教育出版社,2003年版。
    7.[美]威廉·亨德里克·房龙:《美国史纲》,尹继武译,西安:陕西师范大学出版社,2006年版。
    8.[美]汉密尔顿等:《联邦党人文集》,程建如等译,北京:商务印书馆,1980年版。
    9.[法]弗雷德里克·巴比耶:《书籍的历史》,刘阳等译,桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2005年版。
    10.[美]伊恩.P.瓦特:《小说的兴起》,高原等译,北京:三联书店,1992年版。
    11.[澳]彼得·达沃豪斯、约翰·布雷斯韦特:《信息封建主义》,北京:知识产权出版社,2005年版。
    12.[美]劳伦斯·莱斯格:《思想的未来》,李旭译,北京:中信出版社,2004年版。
    13.[美]劳伦斯·莱斯格:<代码》,李旭等译,北京:中信出版社,2004年版。
    书馆,2000年版。
    15.[美]罗伯特等:《新技术时代的知识产权法》,齐筠等译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003年版。
    16.[西]德利娅·利普希克:《著作权和邻接权》,联合国教科文组织译,中国对外翻译出版公司,2000年版。
    17.[英]爱德华·扬格:《试论独创性作品》,袁可嘉译,北京:人民文学出版社,1998年版。
    18.[德]M·雷炳德:《著作权法》,张恩民译,北京:法律出版社,2005年版。
    19.[美]Paul Goldstein:《捍卫著作权—从印刷术到数位时代的著作权法》,叶茂林译,台湾:五南图书出版有限公司,2000年版。
    20.[澳]布拉德·谢尔曼、[英]莱昂内尔·本特利:《现代知识产权法的演进:1760—1911英国的历程》,金海军译,北京:北京大学出版社,2006年版。
    21.[英]帕斯卡尔·卡米纳:《欧盟电影版权》,籍之伟等译,北京:中国电影出版社,2006年版。
    22.高岱编著:《英国通史纲要》,合肥:安徽人民出版社,2002年版。
    23.黄仁宇:《资本主义与二十一世纪》,北京:三联书店,1997年版。
    24.赵文洪:《私人财产权利体系的发展—西方市场经济和资本主义的起源问题研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版。
    25.王鸿生:《世界科学技术史》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001年第2版。
    26.吴国盛:《科学的历程(第二版)》,北京:北京大学出版社,2002年版。
    27.博言编著:《发明简史》,北京:中央编译出版社,2006年版。
    28.张密生主编:《科学技术史》,武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005年版。
    29.方兴东、王俊秀:《起来——挑战微软“霸权”》,北京:中华工商联合出版社,1999年版。
    30.张玉敏主编:《中国欧盟知识产权法比较研究》,北京:法律出版社,2005年版。
    31.沈仁干主编:《数字技术与著作权:观念、规范与实例》,北京:法律出 版社,2004年版。
    32.段瑞林:《知识产权法概论》,北京:光明日报出版社,1988年版。
    33.郑成思:《版权法》,北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990年版。
    34.郑成思:《WTO知识产权协议逐条讲解》,北京:中国方正出版社,2001年版。
    35.吴汉东:《著作权合理使用制度研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996年版。
    36.吴汉东等:《走向知识经济时代的知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2002年版。
    37.李明德:《美国知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2003年版。
    38.李明德、许超:《著作权法》,北京:法律出版社2003年版。
    39.李雨峰:《枪口下的法律:中国版权史研究》,北京:知识产权出版社,2006年版。
    40.冯晓青:《知识产权法利益平衡理论》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006年版。
    41.薛虹:《网络时代的知识产权法》,北京:法律出版社,2000年版。
    42.张平、马骁:《共享智慧——开源软件知识产权问题解析》,北京:北京大学出版社,2005年版。
    43.李扬等:《知识产权基础理论和前沿问题研究》,北京,法律出版社,2004年版。
    44.David Vaver:“知识产权的危机与出路”,李雨峰译,《知识产权》,2007年第4期。
    45.[英]R·F·沃尔等:“版权与现代技术”,王捷译,《国外法学》,1984年第6期。
    46.[美]保罗·爱德华.·盖勒:“版权的历史与未来:文化与版权的关系”,李祖明译,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第6卷,北京:中国方正出版社,2001年版。
    47.刘波林译:“安妮法”,《中国版权》,2005年第2期。
    48.刘波林:“从印刷特权到作者权利”,《中国版权》,2005年第2期。
    49.袁泳:“论新技术与版权扩张”,《著作权》,1998年第4期。
    50.袁泳:“数字版权”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第2卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
    51.薛虹:“因特网上的版权及有关权保护”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第1卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
    52.薛虹:“美丽新世界:因特网上的知识产权纵横谈”,《知识产权》,1999年第1期。
    53.郑成思:“两个新的版权条约初探”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第第1卷,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
    54.李明德:“美国正在审议通过实施WIPO两个新条约的议案”,郑成思主编:《知识产权文丛》第1卷,北京,中国政法大学出版社,1999年版。
    55.徐一文:“P2P革命中的版权——共享网络中的版权侵权问题研究”,周林主编:《知识产权研究》第18卷,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版。
    56.袁晓东:“独创性理论研究与实证分析”,梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第16卷,香港:金桥文化出版(香港)有限公司,2000年版。
    57.沈仁干:“世界知识产权组织推出两个新条约”,郑成思主编:《知识产权研究》,北京:中国方正出版社,1997年版。
    58.李雨峰:“从写者到作者——对著作权制度的一种功能主义解释”,《政法论坛》,2006年第6期。
    59.李雨峰:“思想/表达二分法的检讨”,《北大法律评论》第8卷第2辑,北京:北京大学出版社,2007年版。
    60.李雨峰:“版权扩张:一种合法性的反思”,《现代法学》2001年第5期。
    61.李雨峰:“版权法上公共领域的概念”,《知识产权》,2007年第5期。
    62.冯晓青:“著作权扩张及其缘由透视”,《政法论坛》,2006年第6期。
    63.金渝林:“论作品的独创性”,《法学研究》,1995年第4期。
    64.金渝林:“信息数字化技术和联网技术对现有版权理论的影响”,《国际商务》,1996年第2期。
    65.刘咏梅:“美国版权制度概论”,《国外法学》,1987年第2期。
    66.韦之:“欧共体计算机程序保护指令评介”,《中外法学》1998年第6期。
    67.韦之:“《欧共体出租权指令》评介”,《现代法学》1999年第5期。
    68.王源扩:“欧盟数据库法律保护的新动向——欧盟议会和部长理事会1996年第9号指令述评”,《科技与法律》1996年第3期。
    69.刘家瑞:“论新兴文件共享技术的版权间接责任(上、下)”,《电子知识产权》,2004年第8、9期。
    70.王迁:“P2P软件提供者的帮助侵权责任——美国最高法院Grokster案判决评析”,《电子知识产权》2005年第9期。
    71.张金恩:“美国版权间接侵权制度的新发展——MGM v.GROKSTER,LTD.,ET AL案述评”,《知识产权》,2006年第2期。
    72.郑胜利:“论知识产权法定主义”,郑胜利主编:《北大知识产权评论》第2卷,北京:法律出版社,2004年版。
    73.崔国斌:“知识产权法官造法批判”,《中国法学》,2006年第1期。
    74.易继明:“知识产权的观念:类型化及法律适用”,《法学研究》,2005年第3期。
    75.李扬:“知识产权法定主义及其适用——兼与梁慧星、易继明教授商榷”,《法学研究》,2006年第2期。
    76.郭禾:“信息技术对著作权制度的影响”,《著作权》,1996年第3期。
    77.朱理:“临时复制问题是否属于著作权法意义上的复制——以国际公约为核心的规范分析”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第1期。
    78.彭学龙:“知识产权:自然权利亦或法定之权”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第8期。
    79.彭学龙:“数字网络环境下的复制与复制权——兼论数字版权法的重构”,梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第32卷,北京:法律出版社2005年版。
    80.彭学龙:“版权法的现实困境与未来展望”,《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,2006年第2期。
    81.陶双文:“网络传播权将导致著作权财产权重整”,周林主编:《知识产权研究》第18卷,北京:知识产权出版社,2007年版。
    82.卢海君:“传播权的猜想与证明”,《电子知识产权》,2007年第1期。
    83.彭玉勇:“著作权保护的现代发展趋势与反垄断措施”,《电子知识产权》, 2007年第2期。
    84.张锡盛:“英国星室法院存废年代考”,《云南大学人文社会科学学报》,2000年第3期。
    85.孙林:“美国政府怎样支持铁路发展”,《中国改革)》,2006年第3期。
    86.陈楠楠:“自动钢琴”,《钢琴艺术》,2003年第6期。
    87.钟建国:“电视技术发展史话”,《厦门科技》1996年第2期。
    88.编辑部:“静电复印技术的故事”,《电子科技》,2001年第6期。
    89.曹伟:“计算机软件知识产权保护的反思与超越”,西南政法大学博士学位论文,2007年3月。
    90.朱理:“著作权的边界——信息社会著作权的限制与例外研究”,北京大学博士学位论文,2006年4月。
    91.张晓秦:“论信息化时代著作权的演进与法律保护”,对外经济贸易大学博士学位论文,2007年3月。
    92.“世界知识产权组织数据库知识产权信息会议”,《版权公报》,1998年第1期。
    93.张承志诉世纪互联通讯技术有限公司侵犯著作权纠纷案,《最高人民法院公报》,2000年第1期。
    94.章忠信:“美国著作权法科技保护措施例外规定之探讨”,《万国法律》第151期,www.copvrightnote.org/paper/pa0043.doc 73K 2007-2-3.
    95.中国互联网协会、DCCI互联网数据中心:“2007—2008中国互联网调查报告”,http://il.sinaimg.cn/IT/focus/2007_GUIDE2008/idx/2008/0108/U73P2T52D3219F1881DT20080108095241.pdf.
    96.中国科学院办公厅:“美国信息高速公路计划”,http://www.cas.ac.cn/html/Dir/2002/09/27/6734.htm.
    1.Lyman.Ray.Patterson,Copyright in Historical Perspective,Vanderbilt University Press,1968.
    2.Patterson & Lindberg,The Nature of Copyright,the University of Georgia Press,1991.
    3.John Feather,Publishing,Piracy and Politics—An Historical Study of Copyright In Britain,Mansell Publishing Limited,1994.
    4.Mark Rose,Authors and Owners,Harvard University Press,1993.
    5.Mark.Rose:The Author as Proprietor,Clarendon Press,1994.
    6.Ronan Deazley,On the Origin of the Right to Copy—Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteen-Century Britain(1695-1775),Hart Publishing,2004.
    7.Ronan Deazley,Rethinking Copyright—History,Theory,Language,Edawrd Elgar Publishing Limited,2006.
    8.David Saunders,Authorship and Copyright,Routledge,1992.
    9.Paul Goldstein,Copyright's Highway:From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox,Hill and Wang,1994.
    10.Paul Goldstein,Copyright:Principles,Law and Practice(Volume Ⅰ),Little,Brown & Company Limited,1989.
    11.Elizabeth Armstrong,Before Copyright:The French Book-Privilege System,1498-1526,Cambridge University Press,1990.
    12.John Tebbel,A History of Book Publishing in the United States(Vol.Ⅱ),Bowker,1975.
    13.Harry Ransom,The First Copyright Statute,University of Texas Press,1956.
    14.Cyprian Blagden,The Stationers' Company:A History,1403-1959,Harvard University Press,1960.
    15.King,The Life and Letters of John Locke,Garland Publishers,1972.
    16.Ronald V.Bettig,Copyright Culture—The Polictical Economy of Intellectual Property,Westview Press,1996.
    17.Edward Plomari and L.Clark Hamilton,Copyright:Intellectual Property in the Information Age,London:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1980.
    18.Brad.Sherman & Lionel Bently,The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law—The British Experience,1760-1911,Cambridge university Press,1999.
    19.Lionel Bently & Brad.Sherman,Intellectual Property Law,Oxford University Press,2001.
    20.Benjamin Kaplan,An Unhurried View of Copyright,Columbia University Press,1967.
    21.A.S.Collins,Authorship in the Days of Johnson—Being a study of the relation between author,patron,publisher and public,1726-1780.Robert Holden,1927.
    22.F.Hargrave,An Argument in Defence of Literary Property,Otridge,1774.
    23.Julie E.Cohen et al,Copyright in a Global Information Economy,Aspen Law & Business Publishers,2002.
    24.W.R.Cornish,Intellectual Property:Patents,Copyright,Trade Marks and Allied Rights(Fourth Edition),Sweet & Maxwell,1999.
    25.Sam-Ricketson,Berne Convention for Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886-1986,Sweet & Maxwell Ltd,1989.
    26.Catherine Seville,The Internationalisation of Copyright Law,Cambridge University Press,2006.
    27.Gillian Davies & Michele E.Hung,Music and Video Private Copying:An International Survey of the Problems and the Law,Sweet & Maxwell,1993.
    28.Jessica Litman,Digital Copyright,Prometheus Books,2001.
    29.Simon Stokes,Digital Copyright:Law and Practice,LexisNexis Butterworths,2002.
    30.James Boyle,Shamans,Software,and Spleens:Law and the Construction of the Information Society,Harvard University Press,1996.
    31.Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure,The Digital Dilemma:Intellectual Property in the Information Age,The National Academy Press,2000.
    32.J.Gaines,Contested Culture:The Image,the Voice and the law,University of North Carolina Press,1991.
    33.Siva Vaidhyanathan,Copyrights and Copywrongs:The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity,New York University,2001.
    34.WIPO,Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works(Paris Act,1971),WIPO Publication,1978.
    35.WIPO,Records of the Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions,Geneva 1996,vol.Ⅰ,WIPO,Geneva 1999.
    36.Peter H.Salus,Casting The Net—From ARPANET to INTETNET and Beyond,Addison-Wesley,1995.
    37.B Rand,ed.The Correspondence of John Locke and Edawrd Clarke,Clarendon Press,1927.
    38.Ferando Zapata Lopez,"The Right of Reproduction,Publishing Contracts and Protection Measures in the Digital Environment," EUESCO Copyright Bulletin,vol.ⅩⅩⅩⅥ,No.3,(July-September 2002).
    39.Paul F.Crendler,"The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press 1540-1605," Modern History,1975.
    40.Sheila Lambert,"Journeymen and Master Printers in the early seventeenth century," Journal of the Printing Historical Society,vol.21,(1992).
    41.Lyman·Ray·Patterson,"The Statute of Anne:Copyright Misconstrued,"Harvard Journal on Legislation,vol.3,(1965-1966).
    42.Dennis W.K.Khong,"The Historical Law and Economics of the First Copyright Act," Erasmus Law and Economics Review 2,no.1(March 2006).
    43.Craig W.Dallon,"The Problem with Congress and Copyright:Forgetting the Past and Ignoring the Public Interest," Santa Clara Law Review,vol.44,(2004).
    44.Martha Woodmansee,"The Genius and the Copyright:Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the 'Author'," Eighteenth-Century Studies,vol.17(Summer 1984).
    45.Brander Matthews,"The Evolution of Copyright," Political Science Quarterly,vol.5(December 1890).
    46.Charles B.Qualia,"French Dramatic Sources of Bulwer-Lytton's Richelieu," Publications of the Modern Language Association,vol.42(March 1927).
    47.Peter Burger,"The Berne Convention:Its History and its Key Role in the Future," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3(Winter 1988).
    48.Howard B.Abrams,"The Historic Foundation of American Copyright Law:Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright," Wayne Law.Review.vol.29(Spring 1983).
    49.Glynn S.Lunney,"Reexamine Copyright Incentive Access Paradigm,"Vanderbilt Law Review,vol.41,(April 1996).
    50.Edward Samuels,"The Idea-expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law,"Tennessee Law Review,vol.56,(Winter 1989).
    51.Pamela Samuelson,Toward a "'New Deal'for Copyright for an Information Age," Michigan Law Review,vol.100,(2002).
    52.Pamela Samuelson,"Legally Speaking:The NII Intellectual Property Report",Communications of the ACM,(December 1994).
    53.Pamela Samuelson & Jason Schultz,"Should Copyright Owners Have to Give Notice of the Use of Technical Protection Measures?," Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law,vol.6,(Fall 2007).
    54.J.H.Reichman & Pamela Samuelson,"Intellectual Property Rights in Data?",Vanderbilt Law Review,vol.50,(January 1997).
    55.Jessiea Litman,"Copyright Legislation and Technological Change," Oregon Law Review,vol.68(1989).
    56.Jessiea Litman,"Copyright,Compromise,and Legislative History," Cornell Law Review,vol.72,(July 1987).
    57.Jessiea Litman,"The Public Domain," Emory Law Journal,vol.39,(Fall 1990).
    58.Jessiea Litman,"The Exclusive Right to Read," Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal,vol.13,(1994).
    59.Jessica Litman,"War and Peace," Journal of the Copyright Society of U.S.,vol.53,(2006).
    60.Alistair Abbott & Kevin Garnett,"Who Is the 'Author' of a Photograph,"European Intellectual Property Review,vol.20,(june 1998),p.204.
    61.Paul Goldstein,"Copyright and Author's Right in the Twenty-first Century",in WIPO & Ministry of Culture and Francophome of France,eds.WIPO Worldwide Symposium on the Future of Copyright and Neighboring Rights,Paris France,1994.
    62.Kathy Bowrey,"Who's Writing Copyright's History," European Intellectual Property Review,vol.18,(June 1996).
    63.Ashby,"Legal Aspects of Radio Broadcasting," Air Law Review,vol.1,(1930).
    64.Jane C.Ginsburg,"Copyright and Control over New Technologies of Dissemination," Columbia Law Review,vol.101,(November 2001).
    65.Stephen Breyer,"The Uneasy Case for Copyright:A Study of Copyright in Books,Photocopies,and Computer Programs," Harvard Law Review,vol.84,(December 1970).
    66.Henn,"The Quest for International Copyright Protection," Cornell Law Review,vol.39,(1953).
    67.Patrick Leahy,"Time for the United States to Join the Berne Copyright Convention," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3,(Winter 1988).
    68.Carlos J.Moorhead,"H.R.2962:The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1987," Journal of Law & Technology,vol.3,(Winter 1988).
    69.David Mirchin,"The European Database Directive Sets the Worldwide Agenda," NFAIS Newsletter,vol.39,(January 1997).
    70.Jonathan Band & Makoto Kono,"The Database Protection Debate in the 106~(th) Congress," Ohio State Law Journal,vol.62,(200.1).
    71.Thomas C.Vinje,"Ali's Not Quiet on the Beme Front," European Intellectual Property Review,vol.18,(November 1996).
    72.Silke Von Lewinski,"The WIPO Treaties 1996:Ready to Come into Force,"European Intellectual Property Review,vol.24,(April 2002).
    73.Lionel Bently,"Copyright and the Death of the Author in Literature and Law," Modern Law Review,vol.57,(November 1994).
    74.Turkewitz,"Authors' Rights are Dead," Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA,vol.38;(1990).
    75.David Nimmer;"The End of Copyright," Vanderbilt Law Review,vol.48,(October 1995).
    76.John Perry Barlow,"The Economy of Ideas:Everything You Know about Intellectual Property Is Wrong,” in Adam D.Moore,eds.Intellectual Property:Moral,Legal,and International Dilemmas,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.,1997.
    77.Niva Elkin-Koren,"It's All about Control:Rethinking Copyright in the New Information Landscape," in Niva Elkin-Koren and Neil Weinstock Netanel,eds.The Commodification of Information,Aspen Publishers,Inc.,2002.
    78.Glynn S.Lunney,"The Death of Copyright:Digital Technology,Private Copying,and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act," Virginia Law Review,vol.87,(September 2001).
    79.Jordan M.Blanke,"Vincent van gogh,'Sweat of the Brow,'and Database Protection",American Business Law Journal,vol.39,(Summer 2002).
    80.Michael Lehmann,"The European Database Directive and Its Implementation into German Law," International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law,vol.29,(July,1998).
    81.Jeremy Waldron,"From Authors to Copiers:Individual Rights and Social Values in Intellectual Property",Chi-Kent Law Review,vol.68,(1993).
    82.Jane C.Ginsburg,"From Having Copies to Experiencing Works:the Development of an Access Right in U.S.Copyright Law," Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA,vol.50,(2003).
    83.Jane C.Ginsburg,"Copyright and Control over New Technologies of Dissemination," Columbia Law Review,vol.101,(November 2001).
    84.Jane C.Ginsburg,Can Copyright Become User-Friendly?," Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & Arts,vol.25,(October,2001).
    85.Thomas Heide,"Copyright in the EU and U.S.:What 'Access-Right'?,"Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.,vol.48,(Spring,2001);also see:European Intellectual Property Review,vol.23,(October,2001).
    86.Shira Perlmutter,"Convergence and the Future of Copyright," European Intellectual Property Review,vol.23,(February,1996).
    87.Craig W.Dallon,"The Problem with Congress and Copyright:Forgetting the Past and Ignoring the Public Interest," Santa Clara Law Review,vol.44,(2004).
    88.Jonathan H.Blavin,“Digital Copyright," Harvard Journal of Law &Technology,vol.14,(Spring 2001).
    89.Deirdre Mulligan & Aaron Perzanowski,"The Magnificence of the Disaster:Reconstructing the Sony BMG Rootkit Incident," Berkeley Technology Law Journal,vol.22,(Summer 2007).
    90.Information Infrastructure Task Force,Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure:A Preliminary Draft of the Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights(1994).(Lehman Working Group Green Paper).
    91.Information Infrastructure Task Force,Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure:The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights(1995).(White Paper).
    92.B.Zorina Khan,Intellectual Property and Economic Development:lessons from American and European History,http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/study_papers/spla_khan_study.pdf.
    93.E Cobham Brewer,"Evil May Day," Dictionary of Phrase and Fable(1894),http://www.factmonster.com/dictionary/brewers/evil-may-day.html.
    94.Rebecca Moore Howard,Some Events and Ideas in the History of Authorship in the West,http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/Handouts/ChronAuth.html.
    95.R.M.Howard,Some Events and Ideas in the History of Authorship in the West,http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/Handouts/ChronAuth.html.
    96.Mona Mohajer,The London Theatre around 1800,http://www.math.grinnell.edu/～simpsone/Teaching/Romantics/mona.html.
    97.Hideaki Shirata,The Origin of Two American Copyright Theories—A Case of the Reception of English Law,http://orion.mt.tama.hosei.ac.ip/hideaki/twocopy.htm.
    98.U.S.Congress,Office of Technology Assessment,Copyright and Home Copying:Technology Challenges the Law,U.S.Government Printing Office,1989,pp.145-146;www.princeton.edu/～ota/disk1/1989/8910/891008.PDF.
    99.U.S.Copyright Office,Report on Computer Software Rental Act,http://www.copyright.gov/reports/software_ren.html.
    100.U.S.Copyright Office,Report on Legal Protection For Databases,http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html.
    101.Swtrunk,Berners-Lee,http://swtrunk.bokee.com/5628824.html.
    102.Robert Howell,Database Protection and Canadian Laws,http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/C2-370-1998E.pdf.
    103.Richard Stallman,The GNU Manifesto,http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.
    1.Burnet v.Chetwood(1721) 2 Mer.441.
    2.Gyles v.Wilcox(1741) 35 Eng.Rep.1009.
    3.Millar v.Taylor(1769) 68 Eng.Rep.251.
    4.Donaldson v.Becket(1774),17 Parliamentary History col.992.
    5.Toole v.Young(1874) 9 LR(QB) 523.
    6.Walter v.Lane(1900) AC 539.
    7.University of London Press v.University Tutorial Press(1916) 2 Ch 601.
    8.Macmillan v.Cooper(1923) 93 LJPC 113.
    9.Ladbroke v.William Hill(1964) 1 All ER 465.
    10.Gates v.Swift(1982) RPC 339.
    11.Sega Enterprises v.Richards(1983) FSR 73.
    12.Thrust-code v.WW Computing(1983) FSR 502.
    13.Wheaton v.Peters,29 Fed Cas.871(1832);33 U.S.591(1834).
    14.Gray v.Russell,10 F.Cas.1035,No.5728(C.C.Mass,1839).
    15.Emerson v.Davies,8 F.Cas.620,No.4436(C.C.Mass,1845).
    16.Stowe v.Thomas,23 Fed.Cases 201(C.C.E.D.Pa.1853).
    17.Bakerv.Selden,101 U.S.105(1879).
    18.Burrow-Giles Lithographic.Co.v.Sarony,111 U.S.60(1884).
    19.Harrisonv.Maynard,Merril & Co.,61 F.689(2d Cir.1894).
    20.Holmes v.Hurst,174 U.S.86(1899).
    21.Edison v.Lubin,122 F.242(3d Cir.1903).
    22.Bleistein v.Donaldson Lithographing Co.,188 U.S.250(1903).
    23.Bobbs-Merrill Co.v.Straus,210 U.S.339(1908).
    24.White-Smith Music Publishing Co.v.Apollo Co.,209 U.S.1(1908).
    25.Harper & Bros.v.Kalem Co.,169 F.61(2d Cir.1909);222U.S.55(1911).
    26.Ferris v.Frohman,223 U.S.424(1912).
    27.New York Trust Co.v.Eisner,256 U.S.345(1921).
    28.Jewelers' Circular Pub.Co.v.Keystone Pub.Co.,274 F.932,934(D.C.N.Y.1921);281 F.83(2d Cir.1922).
    29.M.Witmark & Sons.v.L.Bamberger & Co.,291 F.776(D.N.J.1923).
    30.Jerome H.Remick & Co.v.American Auto.Accessories,5 F.2d 411(6th Cir.1925).
    31.Nichols v.Universal Pictures Corp.,45 F.2d 119(2d Cir.1930).
    32.Sheldon v.Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.,81 F.2d 49(1936).
    33.United Artists Television v.Fortnightly Corp.,255 F.Supp.177(S.D.N.Y.1966);aff'd,377 F.2d 872(2d Cir.1967);rev'd,392 U.S.390(1968).
    34.Goldstein v.California,412 U.S.546(1973).
    35.Teleprompter Corp.v.Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.,415 U.S.394(1974).
    36.Williams & Wilkins Co.v.The United States,172 Ct.Cl.670(1972);203 Ct.Cl.95(1973);420 U.S.376(1975).
    37.Universal City Studios v.Sony Corp.of Am.,480 F.Supp.429(C.D.Cal.1979);aff'd in part,rev'd in part & remanded,659 F.2d 963(9th Cir.1981);rev'd,464 U.S.417(1984).
    38.Feist Publications,Inc.v.Rural Telephone Service Co.,Inc.,499 U.S.369(1991).
    39.MAI Systems Corp.v.Peak Computer,Inc.,1992 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 21829(C.D.Cal.1992);aff'd in part,rev'd in part & remanded,991 F.2d 511(9~(th) Cir.1993).
    40.Triad Systems Corp.v.Southeastern Express Co.,1994 U.S.Dist LEXIS 5390(N.D.Cal.1994).
    41.Advanced Computer Services v.MAI Systems Corp.,845 F.Supp.356(E.D.Va.1994).
    42.Recording Industry Association of Am.v.Diamond Multimedia Sys.,Inc.29 F. Supp. 2d 624 (CD. Cal. 1998); aff'd 180 F.3d 1072, 1076-81 (9~(th) Cir. 1999).
    
    43. Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 82 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.N.D.Y. 2000).
    
    44. A &M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 239 F. 3d 1004 (9~(th) Cir. 2001).
    
    45. MGM v. Grokster, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1213, (CD. Cal. 2003); aff'd, 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004); vacated and remanded, 545 U.S. 913 (2005).