英文摘要 |
There are two factors that influence whether a certain use of a work falls within the scope of direct liability. First, the more comparatively capable the right holder is in maximizing the potential social welfare through control of a certain use, the more likely such a use leads to copyright liability. Second, the stronger the user's intervention in arranging the content and the way the content presented, the higher the possibility is that the user will be held directly liable. Many deep link cases score high under both factors: on one hand, the right holders are in a better position to commercialize deep link. On another hand, the defendants have developed specific technical measures to target the high value works and display them on the defendant's own websites. Whether the defendants have created copies of the works on their own servers might have been a useful proxy in the early days of internet. However, the quality of this proxy has deteriorated. A more consistent test for the liability of deep link is the substantial provision of works test. In case the defendant provides the work to the public on its own website, either through display or download, and the public associates the works more with the defendant's website rather than the plaintiff's website (the public need not confuse as to who the right holder of the work is), such deep link shall constitute direct infringement. Potential critics to the ''substantial provision of the works test'', such as it's too ambiguous, too consequence-oriented and might hold innocent users liable, can all be rebutted through comparison to other tests under other direct infringement uses, such as the ''substantial similar test'' under right of reproduction. |