计算机软件保护课件 SoftwareProtection2a

LegalProtectionofComputerSoftware

Slides（2a）

ByDr.JiongHehejiong@PART2COPYRIGHTPROTECTIONOFCOMPUTERSOFTWARE

Section1:Historyofcopyrightprotectionofcomputersoftware1.ForeignexperienceA.US1978CONTUFinalReport1980CopyrightActLegislativeandcaselawdevelopmentsintheUS,thefirst„software-intensive”country:CopyrightActof1976(amendedseveraltimes):§101.Definitions[excerpts;emphasisadded]“’Literaryworks’areworks,otherthanaudiovisualworks,expressedinwords,numbers,orotherverbalornumericalsymbolsorindicia,regardlessofthenatureofthematerialobjects,suchasbooks,periodicals,manuscripts,phonorecords,film,tapes,disks,orcards,inwhichtheyareembodied.”„A‘computerprogram’isasetofstatementsorinstructionstobeuseddirectlyorindirectlyinacomputerinordertobringaboutacertainresult.”[amendmentof1980]LegislativeandcaselawdevelopmentsintheUS–thefirst„software-intensive”country:CopyrightAct§102.Subjectmatterofcopyright„(a)Copyrightprotectionsubsists,inaccordancewiththistitle,inoriginalworksofauthorshipfixedinanytangiblemediumofexpression,nowknownorlaterdeveloped,fromwhichtheycanbeperceived,reproduced,orotherwisecommunicated,eitherdirectlyorwiththeaidofamachineordevice.Worksofauthorshipincludethefollowingcategories:(1)literaryworks;…(b)Innocasedoescopyrightprotectionforanoriginalworkofauthorshipextendtoanyidea,procedure,process,system,methodofoperation,concept,principle,ordiscovery,regardlessoftheforminwhichitisdescribed,explained,illustrated,orembodiedinsuchwork.”(Emphasisadded.)LegislativeandcaselawdevelopmentsintheUS–thefirst„software-intensive”country:ClarificationsinthereportoftheHouseofRepresentativesinconnectionwiththe1976adoptionoftheCopyrightAct:„Theterm‘literarywork’doesnotconnoteanycriterionofliterarymeritorqualitativevalue…Italsoincludescomputerdatabasesandcomputerprogramstotheextentthattheyincorporateauthorshipintheprogrammer'sexpressionoforiginalideas,asdistinguishedfromtheideasthemselves.H.R.Rep.No.94-1476,94thCong.,2Sess.54(1976).„Computerprogramsareanewexpressiveformconsideredcopyrightablefromtheoutsetwithouttheneedfornewlegislation.”H.R.Rep.No.94-1476,94thCong.,2dSess.51(1976).(Emphasisadded.)LegislativeandcaselawdevelopmentsintheUS–thefirst„software-intensive”country:Somekeycourtdecisions:DataCashSystems,inc.v.JS&AGroup,Inc.(1980)andGCACorp.v.Chance(1982):.computerprogramsareprotectednotonlyinsourcecodeformatalsoinobjectcodeform.AppleComputer,Inc,v.FranklinComputerCorp(1984):notonlyapplicationprograms,butalsooperatingsystemsareprotected.

WhelanAssociates,Incv.JaslowDentalLaboratory,

Inc(1987):

notonlycopyingtheobjectcodeorsourcecode,butalsothecopyingofnon-literalelements–thatis,theoverallstructure,sequenceandorganization(„SSO”)–maybeaninfringement(interpretationandapplicationoftheidea-expressiondichotomy).

ComputerAssociatesv.Altai982F2d693(1992):introductionandapplicationoftheabstraction–filtration–comparisontest(dealingwiththeproblemofpossibleidea-expressionmergerincaseofcopyingnon-literalelements).B.EU1988GreenPaperonCopyrightandtheChallengeofTechnology1991ComputerProgramDirective2009ComputerProgramDirective(Revised)Pre-DirectivesituationintheEuropeanCommunities;differingstatutoryandcaselaws.Someexamples:France:copyrightprotection:„yes,but…”UnderArticle48ofthe1985CopyrightLaw,thetermofprotectionofcomputerprogramswasonly25yearsfromthedateoftheircreation.(Assimilationtothe„worksofappliedart”(seeArticle7(4)oftheBerneConvention)as„worksofappliedliteraryworks”?)Germany:initsIncassodecision(May9,1985),theFederalSupremeCourtstatedthatforcomputerprogramsahigherleveloforiginalitytestshouldbeapplied;theprogramsshouldbeofanindividualnatureinthesensethattheyshouldbetheresultsofthecreativeactivitiesofprogrammersexceedingtheaveragelevel.UnitedKingdom:anextremelylow-leveloriginalitytestwasapplied;itwassufficientthatprogramsweretheresultsof„skillandlabour”(the„sweat-on-the-brow”test).2.ChinaA.Domesticlegislation1990《著作权法》制订1991《计算机软件保护条例》制订2001《著作权法》修改2002《计算机软件保护条例》修改2010《著作权法》修改2010年《著作权法》修改2013《计算机软件保护条例》修改Question:Iscomputervirus

protectedbycopyright?Acomputervirusisacomputerprogramthatcanreplicateitselfandspreadfromonecomputertoanother.Theterm"virus"isalsocommonlybuterroneouslyusedtorefertoothertypesofmalware,includingbutnotlimitedtoadwareandspywareprogramsthatdonothavethereproductiveability.B.Internationalinfluence1992BerneConvention2002TRIPsAgreement2006WIPOCopyrightTreaty

CopyrightPatentTrademarkFirstadoption199019841982Amended2001;20101992;2000;20081993;2001;2013Currentversion

201020082013

MotivationforIPlegislations

Section2:BriefreviewoftherelevantprovisionsofCopyrightLaw1.SubjectmatterTheterm“works”usedintheCopyrightLawreferstooriginalintellectualcreationsintheliterary,artisticandscientificdomain,insofarastheyarecapableofbeingreproducedinacertaintangibleform.

(Art.2,RegulationsfortheImplementationoftheCopyrightLaw)著作权法所称作品，是指文学、艺术和科学领域内具有独创性并能以某种有形形式复制的智力成果。（《著作权法实施条例》第2条）ForthepurposeofthisLaw,

theterm“works”includesworksofliterature,art,naturalscience,socialscience,engineeringtechnologyandthelikewhicharecreatedinthefollowingforms:……(8)

computersoftware……(Art.3,CopyrightLaw)著作权法所称的作品，包括以下列形式创作的文学、艺术和自然科学、社会科学、工程技术等作品:（一）文字作品；（二）口述作品；（三）音乐、戏剧、曲艺、舞蹈、杂技艺术作品；（四）美术、建筑作品；（五）摄影作品；（六）电影作品和以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品；（七）工程设计图、产品设计图、地图、示意图等图形作品和模型作品；（八）计算机软件；（九）法律、行政法规规定的其他作品。（《著作权法》第3条）MeasuresfortheprotectionofcomputersoftwareandcommunicationrightshallbeestablishedseparatelybytheStateCouncil.(Art.59,CopyrightLaw)计算机软件、信息网络传播权的保护办法由国务院另行规定。（《著作权法》第59条）2.ExclusiverightsA.Moralrights

andeconomicrightsRightsofpublication,authorship,alternation,integrity发表权，署名权，修改权，保护作品完整权Rightsofreproduction,performance,broadcasting,exhibition,distribution,communication,makingcinematographic,televisionorvideoproduction,adaptation,translation,compilationandthelike(Art.10,CopyrightLaw)复制权，发行权，出租权，展览权，表演权，放映权，广播权，信息网络传播权，摄制权，改编权，翻译权，汇编权，及应当由著作权人享有的其他权利（《著作权法》第21条）B.TermofprotectionThetermofprotectionoftherightsofauthorship,alteration,andintegrityofanauthorshallbeunlimited.(Art.20,CopyrightLaw)作者的署名权、修改权、保护作品完整权的保护期不受限制。（《著作权法》第20条）Thetermofprotectionoftherightofpublication,therightconcerningItems5to17ofArt.10,Sec.1inrespectofaworkofacitizenshallbethelifetimeoftheauthorandfiftyyearsafterhisdeath,expiringonDecember31ofthefiftiethyearafterhisdeath.Inthecaseofaworkofjointauthorship,suchtermshallexpireonDecember31ofthefiftiethyearafterthedeathofthelastsurvivingauthor.(Art.21,CopyrightLaw)公民的作品，其发表权、本法第十条第一款第（五）项至第（十七）项规定的权利的保护期为作者终生及其死亡后五十年，截止于作者死亡后第五十年的１２月３１日；如果是合作作品，截止于最后死亡的作者死亡后第五十年的１２月３１日。（《著作权法》第21条）C.Limitationandexemption“Fairuse”?Art.22ofCopyrightLawThree-step-testoftheBernConventionMakinguseofpublishedworksofotherpersonsbyvirtueofArticle22(6)and(7)shallnotharmthenormalexploitationoftheworksconcernedandshallnotunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsofthecopyrightowners.“使用他人已经发表的作品不得影响作品的正常利用，也不得无故损害著作权人的合法利益。”（《著作权法实施条例》第29条）Article9oftheBerneConventionstatesthat:RightofReproduction:1.Generally;2.Possibleexceptions;3.Soundandvisualrecordings-(1)AuthorsofliteraryandartisticworksprotectedbythisConventionshallhavetheexclusiverightofauthorizingthereproductionoftheseworks,inanymannerorform.(2)ItshallbeamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontopermitthereproductionofsuchworksincertainspecialcases,providedthatsuchreproductiondoesnotconflictwithanormalexploitationoftheworkanddoesnotunreasonablyprejudicethelegitimateinterestsoftheauthor.(3)AnysoundorvisualrecordingshallbeconsideredasareproductionforthepurposesofthisConvention.3.AuthorshipandfirstownershipA.EmergenceofcopyrightWorksofChinesecitizens，legalpersonsorentitieswithoutlegalpersonality，whetherpublishedornot,shallenjoycopyrightinaccordancewiththisLaw.WorksofforeignersfirstpublishedintheterritoryofthePeople'sRepublicofChinashallenjoycopyrightinaccordancewiththisLaw.AnyworkofaforeignerpublishedoutsidetheterritoryofthePeople'sRepublicofChinawhichiseligibletoenjoycopyrightunderanagreementconcludedbetweenthecountrytowhichtheforeignerbelongsandChina，orunderaninternationaltreatytowhichbothcountriesareparties，shallbeprotectedinaccordancewiththisLaw.中国公民、法人或者其他组织的作品，不论是否发表，依照本法享有著作权。外国人、无国籍人的作品根据其作者所属国或者经常居住地国同中国签订的协议或者共同参加的国际条约享有的著作权，受本法保护。外国人、无国籍人的作品首先在中国境内出版的，依照本法享有著作权。未与中国签订协议或者共同参加国际条约的国家的作者以及无国籍人的作品首次在中国参加的国际条约的成员国出版的，或者在成员国和非成员国同时出版的，受本法保护。（《著作权法》第2条）B.FirstownershipTheauthorofaworkisthecitizenwhohascreatedthework.Whereaworkiscreatedaccordingtothewillandunderthesponsorshipandtheresponsibilityofalegalorentitywithoutlegalpersonality,suchlegalpersonorentitywithoutlegalpersonalityshallbedeemedtobetheauthorofthework.创作作品的公民是作者；由法人或者其他组织主持，代表法人或者其他组织意志创作，并由法人或者其他组织承担责任的作品，法人或者其他组织视为作者。（《著作权法》第11条）4.InfringementandliabilityA.DirectinfringementPracticeofanyoftheexclusiverightsB.IndirectinfringementAbettingoraiding

directinfringementC.LiabilityCivilliabilityAdministrativeliabilityCriminalliability3-in-1Section3:Characteristicsofsoftwareascopyrightsubjectmatter1.CopyrightabilityofsoftwareA.CompoundofProgramandRelateddocumentsB.ProgramSourcecodeandObjectcodeC.CopyrightabilityofprogramCase:AppleComputer,Inc.v.FranklinComputerCorp.,714F.2d1240(3dCir.1983)In1982,FranklinComputerCorporationintroducedtheFranklinAce100,acloneofAppleComputer'sAppleII.AppledeterminedthatsubstantialportionsoftheFranklinROMandoperatingsystemhadbeencopieddirectlyfromApple'sversions.OnMay121982,ApplefiledsuitintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofPennsylvania.Itcitedthepresenceofsomeofthesameembeddedstrings,suchasthename"JamesHuston"(anAppleprogrammer),and"Applesoft,"onboththeAppleandFranklinsystemdisks.FranklinadmittedthatithadcopiedApple'ssoftwarebutargued:itwouldhavebeenimpracticaltoindependentlywriteitsownversionsofthesoftwareandmaintaincompatibility.

Franklinargued:becauseApple'ssoftwareexistedonlyinmachine-readableform,andnotinprintedform,itcouldbefreelycopied.Franklinargued:theAppleIIfirmwarewaslikenedtoamachinepartwhoseformwasdictatedentirelybytherequirementsofcompatibility(thatis,anexactcopyofApple'sROMwastheonlypartthatwould"fit"inanApple-compatiblecomputerandenableitsintendedfunction),andwasthereforenotcopyrightable.ThedistrictcourtfoundinfavorofFranklin.However,AppleappealedtherulingtotheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheThirdCircuitwhich,inaseparatecasedecidedthreedaysafterFranklinwonatthelowerlevel,determinedthatbothaprogramexistingonlyinawrittenformunreadabletohumans(e.g.objectcode)andoneembeddedonaROMwereprotectedbycopyright.TheCourtofAppealsoverturnedthedistrictcourt'srulinginFranklinandgoingfurthertoholdthatoperatingsystemswerealsocopyrightable.HenceApplewasabletoforceFranklintowithdrawitsclonesby1988.Thecompanylaterbroughtnon-infringingclonestomarket,butasthesemodelswereonlypartiallycompatiblewiththeAppleII,andastheAppleIIarchitecturewasbythistimeoutdatedinanycase,theyenjoyedlittlesuccessinthemarketplace.ISSUE1：Objectcodecopyrightable？Anyaestheticvalue?JusticeOliverWendellHolmes,Jr.inBleistein:“Itwouldbeadangerousundertakingforpersonstrainedonlytothelawtoconstitutethemselvesfinaljudgesoftheworthofpictorialillustrations,outsideofthenarrowestandmostobviouslimits.Attheoneextreme,someworksofgeniuswouldbesuretomissappreciation.Theirverynoveltywouldmakethemrepulsiveuntilthepublichadlearnedthenewlanguageinwhichtheirauthorspoke.”

Worksofappliedart?MarketablitytheorySeparatable?Graphicworks?Personalchoiceorfunction?“Machine-readableform”？White-Smithv.Apollo,209U.S.1(1908)ruledthatmanufacturersofmusicrollsforplayerpianosdidnothavetopayroyaltiestothecomposers,basedonaholdingthatthepianorollswerenotcopiesoftheplaintiffs’copyrightedsheetmusic,butwereinsteadpartsofthemachinethatreproducedthemusic.Hardlyanyonecouldperceivemusicbylookingatarollofpaperwithholesinit.ThelaterCopyrightActdefineda“copy”asa“materialobjectinwhichaworkisfixedandfromwhichtheworkcanbeperceived,reproduced,orotherwisecommunicated,eitherdirectlyorwiththeaidofamachineordevice.”Undersection102ofthe1976CopyrightAct,copyrightprotectionextendsto"originalworksofauthorshipfixedinanytangiblemediumofexpression,nowknownorlaterdeveloped,fromwhichtheycanbeperceived,reproduced,orotherwisecommunicated,eitherdirectlyorwiththeaidofamachineordevice."ISSUE2：ROMcopyrightable?“Fixed”！ISSUE3：OSandFirmwarecopyrightable?Questions关于“计算机程序与传统受版权保护作品之间的差异”的思考Q1：计算机程序并非只是文本，它们也实施行为行为并不是一件计算机程序的从属性副产品，而是计算机程序的本质部分。直白地讲，即使编程者的表达如同散文般优雅简洁，如果该计算机程序不能实施行为，那么也不会有人去购买。Q2：文本与行为大部分独立文本与行为的独立性是计算机程序之所以与其它受版权保护作品存在区别的重要原因。你可以想象一下：能否使用不同的音符创作两首听上去无法区别的音乐作品？能否用不同的角色或对话创作两部观众无法区分的戏剧作品？然而，两件由不同文本创作的计算机程序可以令用户无法分辨它们的差异。Q3：行为是有价值的传统文字作品的价值来自于它们的表达，包括它们表达了什么，以及它们如何表达。但是，形成鲜明对比的是：作为文本，计算机程序对用户毫无价值；它们的价值来自于它们实施的行为。2.RequirementforcopyrightprotectionThesoftwareprotectedbythisRegulationmustbeindependentlycreatedbythecreatorandhasbeenalreadyfixedonanyformoftangiblemedium.受本条例保护的软件必须由开发者独立开发，并已固定在某种有形物体上。（《软件条例》第4条）Difference:Theterm“works”usedintheLawshallmeanoriginalintellectualcreationsintheliterary,artisticandscientificdomain,insofarastheyarecapableofbeingreproduced

inacertaintangibleform.著作权法所称作品，是指文学、艺术和科学领域内具有独创性（Originality）并能以某种有形形式复制的智力成果。（《著作权法实施条例》第2条）US:Undersection102ofthe1976CopyrightAct,copyrightprotectionextendsto"originalworksofauthorshipfixedinanytangiblemediumofexpression,nowknownorlaterdeveloped,fromwhichtheycanbeperceived,reproduced,orotherwisecommunicated,eitherdirectlyorwiththeaidofamachineordevice."Article2oftheBerneConvention:ProtectedWorks:

1.“Literaryandartisticworks”;2.Possiblerequirementoffixation;3.Derivativeworks;4.Officialtexts;5.Collections;6.Obligationtoprotect;beneficiariesofprotection;7.Worksofappliedartandindustrialdesigns;8.News(1)

Theexpression“literaryandartisticworks”shallincludeeveryproductionintheliterary,scientificandartisticdomain,whatevermaybethemodeorformofitsexpression,suchasbooks,pamphletsandotherwritings;lectures,addresses,sermonsandotherworksofthesamenature;dramaticordramatico-musicalworks;choreographicworksandentertainmentsindumbshow;musicalcompositionswithorwithoutwords;cinematographicworkstowhichareassimilatedworksexpressedbyaprocessanalogoustocinematography;worksofdrawing,painting,architecture,sculpture,engravingandlithography;photographicworkstowhichareassimilatedworksexpressedbyaprocessanalogoustophotography;worksofappliedart;illustrations,maps,plans,sketchesandthree-dimensionalworksrelativetogeography,topography,architectureorscience.(2)Itshall,however,beamatterforlegislationinthecountriesoftheUniontoprescribethatworksingeneraloranyspecifiedcategoriesofworksshallnotbeprotectedunlesstheyhavebeenfixedinsomematerialform.OriginalityasrequirementforprotectionOriginatedCriteriafororiginality：FeistPublications,Inc.,v.RuralTelephoneServiceCo.,499U.S.340(1991)RuralisatelephonecooperativeprovidingservicesforareasinnorthwestKansas.Thecompanywasunderastatutoryobligationtocompileaphonedirectoryofalltheircustomersfreeofchargeasaconditionoftheirmonopolyfranchise.FeistspecializedincompilingtelephonedirectoriesfromlargergeographicareasthanRuralfromotherareasofKansas.Theyhadlicensedthedirectoryof11otherlocaldirectories,withRuralbeingtheonlyhold-outintheregion.DespiteRural'sdenialofalicensetoFeist,Feistcopiedsome4000entriesfromRural'sdirectory.BecauseRuralhadplacedasmallnumberofphonyentriestodetectcopying,Feistwascaught.Priortothiscase,thesubstanceofcopyrightinUnitedStateslawfollowedthesweatofthebrowdoctrine,whichgavecopyrighttoanyonewhoinvestedsignificantamountoftimeandenergyintotheirwork.Attrialandappeallevelthecourtsfollowedthisdoctrine,sidingwithRural.TherulingoftheCourtexaminedthepurposeofcopyrightandexplainedthestandardofcopyrightabilityasbasedonoriginality.Ruralclaimedacollectioncopyrightinitsdirectory.Thecourtclarifiedthattheintentofcopyrightlawwasnot,asclaimedbyRuralandsomelowercourts,torewardtheeffortsofpersonscollectinginformation--theso-called"sweatofthebrow"or"industriouscollection"doctrine--butrather"topromotetheProgressofScienceandusefulArts".Thatis,toencouragecreativeexpression.Thestandardforcreativityisextremelylow.Itneednotbenovel,ratheritonlyneedstopossessa"spark"or"minimaldegree"ofcreativitytobeprotectedbycopyright.ThecourtruledthatRural'sdirectorywasnothingmorethananalphabeticlistofallsubscriberstoitsservice,whichitwasrequiredtocompileunderlaw,andthatnocreativeexpressionwasinvolved.ThefactthatRuralspentconsiderabletimeandmoneycollectingthedatawasirrelevanttocopyrightlaw,andRural'scopyrightclaimwasdismissed.Alsosee:Burrow-GilesLithographicCo.v.Sarony,111U.S.,53(1884)Bleisteinv.DonaldsonLithographingCo.,188U.S.239(1903)AlfredBell&Co.v.CataldaFineArts,Inc.,

191F.2d99(2dCir.1951)3.Idea/ExpressionDichotomyProtectionforsoftwarecopyrightofferedbythisRegulationmaynotbeextendedtotheideas,processingoperations,

operatingmethodsoralgorithmconceptsforcreatingthesoftware．本条例对软件著作权的保护不延及开发软件所用的思想、处理过程、操作方法或者数学概念等。（《软件条例》第6条）EU:ProtectioninaccordancewiththisDirectiveshallapplytotheexpressioninanyformofacomputerprogram.Ideasandprincipleswhichunderlieanyelementofacomputerprogram,includingthosewhichunderlieitsinterfaces,arenotprotectedbycopyrightunderthisDirective.(Article1,ComputerProgramsDirective)US:Bakerv.Seldon,101U.S.99(1879)P,Selden,testatorofcomplainant,obtainedcopyrightinthebookthatexplainedasystemofdoubleentrybookkeepingbutwithapeculiararrangementofcolumnsandheadingswhichpresenttheentireoperation,ofaday,aweek,oramonth,onasinglepageorontwopagesfacingeachotherinanaccountbook.Dusesasimilarplanbutmakesdifferentarrangementofthecolumnsandusesdifferentheadingsforthecolumns.ThelowercourtheldforSeldenandDappealed.Q:DidSelden’scopyrightextendtotherighttomakeandusetheaccountsbookssodescribedinthecopyrightedbook?A:Anyauthormayexplainthetruthsofascienceorthemethodsofanartthatarethepropertyoftheentireworldandgetacopyrightinthework.Thatcopyright,however,doesnotextendtothemethodoruseofthesystemdescribed.Onlythedescriptionitselfwasprotectablebycopyright.Asystemissimplynotsubjecttocopyrightprotection.Toprotectasystem,theauthorwouldhavetoapplyforapatentandmeetthepatentrequirements.Awardingprotectiononthebasisofthecopyrightinthebookwouldbeafraudonthepublic.Alsosee:Harper&RowPublishers,Inc.v.NationEnters.,471U.S.539,556(1985):“Copyright'sidea/expressiondichotomy'strikesadefinitionalbalancebetweentheFirstAmendmentandtheCopyrightActbypermittingfreecommunicationoffactswhilestillprotectinganauthor'sexpression.'"