P2p Technologies And Network Copyright Protection Of The Law

P2P technology, traditional copyright law are facing an unprecedented dilemma. And the dilemma is revealed behind scientific andtechnological progress and legal justice conflict. Due to the technological neutrality, we can not be artificially network copyright infringement blame it, so, but the traditional copyright laws or amend its own legislation, as well as a breakthrough play other related systems and social norms, the coordinating role of can turn their swords into plowshares. This paper which is the core idea of the work.This paper is divided into four chapters, the integrated use of value analysis, comparison, case analysis, logic analysis and semantic analysis methods such as focus on this idea are discussed. P2P technology in the first chapter of the legal protection of copyright, mainly on P2P technology, copyright and network with the two closely related to the information network to spread the concept of P2P technology and the characteristics of copyright protection in the positive and negative effects. Chapter II of P2P technology network content providers and end users is a direct infringement liability under Chapter III of P2P technology network of indirect infringement and copyright infringement common "sister chapter." In these two chapters, this paper discusses the various different main Tort Liability. In the second chapter, focus on the end-user network of direct infringement liability, primarily through the United States, Canada and China, and other end-users on the network's "download" and "upload" of the different provisions of contrast, the expression I tend to the provisions of United States legislation that users download Although it is personal appreciation for the purpose, but its free access to its originally funded the purchase of the necessary works, a commercial, non-"fair use" should be an infringement. As for the "upload" behavior is a flagrant violation of copyright works dissemination of the rights of people, was the infringement, since no objection; In the third chapter, mainly through the Napster case to the United States and Grokster case, a comparison with the indirect infringement to assume responsibility, but the two cases apply the principle of liability is the difference, that is directly applicable to the former fault the principle of responsibility, but the latter it is in the application of "substantive non-infringing uses" standard would lead to unreasonable consequences of the situation, "actively induced by the rules" to "substantial non-infringing uses," the application of the standard adds a prerequisite, that is, products are subjective there are not at fault. Coincidentally, in the judgment of our pilot basis, also apply the principle of the responsibility of the fault, but the court found that Internet service providers and Internet users shared infringement liability, the court applied the law of a species, have no more than two common deliberate, common mistakes, but the violations occurred with the direct consequences of the same damage, as part of the common violations of the requirements of the implementation of direct infringement, are jointly and severally liable. It can be said that such a requirement is a special case of joint tortfeasors, contrary to the general form of joint tortfeasors element, but I think this is the legislators of the value of the pursuit of a balanced outcome. If in the search for direct infringement has become a fact that can not be recognized, then requested its commitment to direct infringement liability is a myth. So by that other than direct infringement, the existence of common fault of third-party liability is an infringement should be a matter of choice. Because, in the order of value and the fair value of a conflict between, in accordance with the principle of law is equal and there are bound to one party hold a dominant position, then to choose to act on the results of the order of priority is inevitable, and fair, of, but not sacrifice a fair, just after its order to find on the value of the balance. Moreover, a third party, there are indeed at fault, urged her to make a reasonable attention to the general obligation to safeguard social equity is a reflection. Of course, due to the ever-changing P2P technology, P2P software providers exist subjective fault evidence increasingly difficult to access, therefore, to find ways of relief proceedings outside -through the copyright collective management organization system and the system of compensation for copyright protection of copyrights will become a trend .This is the fourth chapter of this key content. In short, I believe that the law is not a panacea, the law on its own strength alone to solve the P2P network technology under the copyright infringement problems it is very difficult satisfactory. Therefore, to ensure that copyright network development in a harmonious environment is also in need of legal and moral norms of society, and other coordinated operations, but the law should be living in the core of their own amendments and legislative breakthrough is P2P technology should be under the full protection of copyright network the crux.