立法修改視角下的技術措施保護範圍

2020年《著作權法》直接納入了《資訊網路傳播權保護條例》對技術措施的定義，導致防止未經許可運行電腦程式的“接觸控制措施”和防止未經許可複製作品的“版權保護措施”被排除出保護範圍，導致難以對電腦程式提供有效保護和與國際條約不符的後果。在再次修改《著作權法》之前，對此問題只能通過《著作權法實施條例》或司法解釋對技術措施的擴大“解釋”加以解決。2020年《刑法》規定規避技術措施入罪的用語在字面上未納入對技術措施提供規避手段的行為，導致大大縮減了對技術措施的保護範圍，使該條款基本失去意義。應根據《著作權法》和《資訊網路傳播權保護條例》中相同用語之間的關係，將《刑法》中的該用語解釋為涵蓋提供規避手段的行為。

When the PRC Copyright Law was revised in 2020, it directly incorporated the definition of technological measures adopted by the Regulation on the Protection of the Right of Communication through Information Network, resulting in the exclusion of protection for“access control measures”to prevent unauthorized operation of computer programs and“copyright protection measures”to prevent unauthorized reproduction of works. It has caused serious consequences such as difficulty in providing effective protection for computer programs and violation of international treaties. Before revising the Copyright Law again, this problem can only be resolved through the extensive redefinition of technological measures in the Regulation on the Implementation of the Copyright Law or in the Judicial Interpretation. When the PRC Criminal Law was revised in 2020, the term incriminating circumvention of technological measures does not literally include the act of providing means to circumvent technological measures, resulting in greatly narrowing the scope of protection for technical measures and ineffectiveness of this provision. Based on the relationship between the meaning on the same terms in the Copyright Law and the Regulation on the Protection of the Right of Communication through Information, the term in the Criminal Law should be interpreted as covering the provision of means to circumvent technological measures.