计算机程序专有权的限制

A. S. Vorozhevich
{"title":"计算机程序专有权的限制","authors":"A. S. Vorozhevich","doi":"10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-2-88-133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the article, the author examines time, content and object boundaries of exclusive rights to computer programs. It has been substantiated that the meaningful boundaries of exclusive rights should be established through a closed list of cases of free use. At the same time, the balance sheet doctrine of fair use, supplemented by the concepts of “transformative use”, cannot serve as a tool for establishing such boundaries. At the same time, in order to resolve atypical conflicts of interest arising in relation to a specific object of copyright between a person interested in access to such an object and the rightholder, standards for assessing the behavior of the rightholder should be developed – special (in relation to Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) limits for the implementation of exclusive right. With regard to the object boundaries of rights to computer programs, it was concluded that they are established by means of the “traditional” concept of copyright “protected form – unprotected content” and the doctrine of “essential part”. The principle of exhaustion of rights should not apply to such objects.","PeriodicalId":35992,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE LIMITS OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO COMPUTER PROGRAMS\",\"authors\":\"A. S. Vorozhevich\",\"doi\":\"10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-2-88-133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the article, the author examines time, content and object boundaries of exclusive rights to computer programs. It has been substantiated that the meaningful boundaries of exclusive rights should be established through a closed list of cases of free use. At the same time, the balance sheet doctrine of fair use, supplemented by the concepts of “transformative use”, cannot serve as a tool for establishing such boundaries. At the same time, in order to resolve atypical conflicts of interest arising in relation to a specific object of copyright between a person interested in access to such an object and the rightholder, standards for assessing the behavior of the rightholder should be developed – special (in relation to Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) limits for the implementation of exclusive right. With regard to the object boundaries of rights to computer programs, it was concluded that they are established by means of the “traditional” concept of copyright “protected form – unprotected content” and the doctrine of “essential part”. The principle of exhaustion of rights should not apply to such objects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35992,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-2-88-133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-2-88-133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了计算机程序专有权的时间边界、内容边界和客体边界。事实证明,专有权的有意义的界限应该通过一份自由使用案例的封闭清单来确定。与此同时,合理使用的资产负债表原则,加上“变革性使用”的概念,不能作为确立这种界限的工具。与此同时,为了解决与特定版权客体相关的非典型利益冲突,有兴趣获得该客体的人与权利人之间,应制定评估权利人行为的标准- - -实施专有权的特别限制(关于俄罗斯联邦民法典第10条)。关于计算机程序权利的客体边界,认为是通过“传统的”著作权“形式受保护-内容不受保护”的概念和“本质部分”原则确立的。权利用尽原则不应适用于这类物品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
THE LIMITS OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO COMPUTER PROGRAMS
In the article, the author examines time, content and object boundaries of exclusive rights to computer programs. It has been substantiated that the meaningful boundaries of exclusive rights should be established through a closed list of cases of free use. At the same time, the balance sheet doctrine of fair use, supplemented by the concepts of “transformative use”, cannot serve as a tool for establishing such boundaries. At the same time, in order to resolve atypical conflicts of interest arising in relation to a specific object of copyright between a person interested in access to such an object and the rightholder, standards for assessing the behavior of the rightholder should be developed – special (in relation to Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) limits for the implementation of exclusive right. With regard to the object boundaries of rights to computer programs, it was concluded that they are established by means of the “traditional” concept of copyright “protected form – unprotected content” and the doctrine of “essential part”. The principle of exhaustion of rights should not apply to such objects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL) is the nation’s leading progressive law journal. Founded in 1966 as an instrument to advance personal freedoms and human dignities, CR-CL seeks to catalyze progressive thought and dialogue through publishing innovative legal scholarship and from various perspectives and in diverse fields of study.
期刊最新文献
ON THE IMPACT OF THE REGISTRATION SYSTEM OF THE REAL ESTATE TURNOVER THE PRICIPLES OF CIVIL LIABILITY (finale) ON THE DEFECTS OF THE DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT “LAND PLOT” IN THE FEDERAL LAW NO. 430-FZ INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “RECENT HISTORY OF PRIVATE LAW: TO THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE RESEARCH CENTRE” THE IMPUTATION OF HARM TO A PERSON WHO IS ECONOMICALLY EASIER TO BEAR ITS CONSEQUENCES AS AN ARGUMENT FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF ALTERNATIVE CAUSATION IN TORT LAW
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1