The Criminal Liability Of Deeply Linking Infringing Works

In the case of serious infringement of copyright by deep linking technology in reality,especially when linked objects are infringing works,its criminal liability should be discussed in separate situations,and the deep-linking behavior cannot be criminalized in a one-size-fits-all manner.First of all,the classification of deep links should be based on the interface of the works.Because for the communicators,the controller of this interface dominates the dissemination of the works,the way the works are presented,and the frequency and timing of the advertisements as a source of income for the website are determined by the controller.Thus,deep link can be divided into frame link and ordinary deep link.The so-called frame link refers to the link that presenting works on the interface which is in the control of the chain-linker.While the ordinary deep link render works still by jumping to the page the linked controls.Secondly,the key to determine the criminal nature of deeply linking infringing works lies in clarifying what is the communication prohibited by Article 217 of Criminal Law,and cannot blindly copy the relevant civil rules.The legal interests protected by the crime of copyright infringement include the copyright and the market economic order of copyright,and the perpetrating act of communication must be a behavior that is realistic and imminent dangerous to legal interests.Therefore,the “communication behavior” prohibited by the criminal law must be a type of behavior that causes the diffusion of the substantive content of the work.Then the framed link that does not jump to the linked webpage can be identified as the implementation of the dissemination because the chain-linker has exposed the user to the substantive content of the work in the areas it controls.However,ordinary deep links only serve as a "pathfinder" role.They do not directly contact the audience with the work on the pages they control.There is no imminent danger to the violation of legal interests,their criminal nature is the help of communication.Lastly,for the frame link,once the nature of its perpetrating behavior is determined,there will not be much problem in prosecuting its criminal liability.And for ordinary deep links,there is no need to regulate them by treating them as perpetration.Treating accomplices as perpetration will not only undermine the accomplice theory system,but also will not help the criminal law deal with new emergent things.As for the issues of subordination barriers,subjective identification barriers,and help time that are disputed when determining the accomplice liability of a chain-linker,the current accomplice theory can solve them.In fact,the so-called dependency barrier is just a "pseudo-barrier".When the chained person does not constitute crimes of copyright infringement due to lack of “quantity” requirements,there is no need to investigate criminal liability of ordinary deep linkers,which can be solved by other means.When the chained person has constituted a crime,the ordinary deep-linked chained person may constitute a one-sided accomplice,whose subjective knowledge can be determined through notification from others,and can also use the relevant cognizing factors listed in the civil provisions to presume the state of knowledge.And because the network communication behavior is a continuous behavior,copyright crimes in the network domain are continuous crimes.After the behavior of the copying and issuance of infringing works by the linked is completed,the linking behavior can still constitute a help behavior,and the criminal responsibility for accomplice can be investigated.