سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

جعفرخانی, احسان, افتخار جهرمی, گودرز. (1404). مسئولیت ناشی از مساعدت در نقض به مثابه یکی از انواع مسئولیت غیرمستقیم در نقض کپی‌رایت. , 28(2), 1-18. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2022.225868.2101
احسان جعفرخانی; گودرز افتخار جهرمی. "مسئولیت ناشی از مساعدت در نقض به مثابه یکی از انواع مسئولیت غیرمستقیم در نقض کپی‌رایت". , 28, 2, 1404, 1-18. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2022.225868.2101
جعفرخانی, احسان, افتخار جهرمی, گودرز. (1404). 'مسئولیت ناشی از مساعدت در نقض به مثابه یکی از انواع مسئولیت غیرمستقیم در نقض کپی‌رایت', , 28(2), pp. 1-18. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2022.225868.2101
جعفرخانی, احسان, افتخار جهرمی, گودرز. مسئولیت ناشی از مساعدت در نقض به مثابه یکی از انواع مسئولیت غیرمستقیم در نقض کپی‌رایت. , 1404; 28(2): 1-18. doi: 10.48308/jlr.2022.225868.2101

مسئولیت ناشی از مساعدت در نقض به مثابه یکی از انواع مسئولیت غیرمستقیم در نقض کپی‌رایت

فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی
مقاله 1، دوره 28، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 110، 1404، صفحه 1-18    اصل مقاله (687.55 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jlr.2022.225868.2101
نویسندگان
احسان جعفرخانی* 1؛ گودرز افتخار جهرمی2
1دانشجوی دوره دکتری، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
2استاد دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
با توجه به آنکه فناوری‌های متعدد به‌گونه‌ای طراحی‌شده‌اند که نقض کپی‌رایت را در سطحی وسیع ممکن می‌سازند، به این معنا که خود آنها به‌طور مستقیم مبادرت به نقض کپی‌رایت نمی‌کنند، اما نقض کپی‌رایت برای ناقضان مستقیم را در سطحی وسیع تسهیل می‌سازند. نظام‌های حقوقی دنیا به این سمت پیش رفته‌اند که انواعی از مسئولیت غیرمستقیم را در کنار مسئولیت مستقیم ناشی از نقض کپی‌رایت مورد شناسایی قرار دهند. نظام حقوقی آمریکا که سردمدار اصلی در این زمینه است، مسئولیت ناشی از مساعدت در نقض را تحت شرایطی خاص پیش‌بینی کرده است که استفاده از ارکان آن در کنار پذیرش ضرورت شناسایی مسئولیت غیرمستقیم در نقض کپی‌رایت می‌تواند برای سایر نظام‌های حقوقی راهگشا باشد. در نظام حقوقی ایران، با توجه به آنکه منع شرعی یا قانونی در پذیرش مسئولیت غیرمستقیم در نقض کپی‌رایت وجود ندارد، می‌توان با استفاده از مبانی موجود، ارکان پیش‌بینی‌شده در مسئولیت ناشی از مساعدت در نقض را برای تعیین دامنۀ مسئولیت غیرمستقیم در نقض کپی‌رایت مورد استفاده قرار داد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
کپی‌رایت"؛ مسئولیت غیر مستقیم"؛ "؛ مسئولیت ناشی از مساعدت در نقض"
عنوان مقاله [English]
Contributory Infringement as an Indirect Liability in Copyright Law
نویسندگان [English]
Ehsan Jafarkhani1؛ Goodarz Eftekhar Jahromi2
1PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran Corresponding Author Email: e.jafarkhani@sbu.ac.ir
2Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, IRAN.
چکیده [English]
The advancement of industry and technology has been an inevitable and often desirable aspect of human history, enhancing human welfare and power, and becoming a central goal for many. Government and corporate policies have also focused on expanding technology. However, these advancements can create opportunities for misuse, endangering individuals’ rights, including copyright. Modern technologies have facilitated the creation of copyrighted works but have also made their infringement easier. Opportunists exploit technology to enable widespread copyright infringement without directly violating it, rendering legal protections for copyright ineffective, as rights holders often cannot identify infringements or pursue claims against numerous infringers. Since halting technological progress is neither feasible nor desirable, a new approach to copyright law is needed to ensure its enforcement by establishing clear liabilities for those facilitating infringement. In this article, our goal is to examine in detail one of the types of indirect liability that has been identified for facilitators of copyright infringement, through a comparative study of the judicial practice of the United States of America, and also to examine the possibility of identifying this type of liability in the Iranian legal system. The United States was chosen for this comparative study due to its significant industrial and technological advancements, its status as a hub for major investments, and its capitalist system with strong copyright protections. The U.S federal courts, relying on common law without needing new legislation, have recognized three types of indirect liability in copyright infringement and clarified their dimensions in various rulings. In this article, key federal courts decisions on contributory infringement are studied aiming to analyze its aspects based on external conditions of each aforementioned claims through primary sources, elucidating U.S. judicial precedent for readers. Additionally, inspired by the U.S. judges’ reliance on common law, this article references Islamic (Imami) jurisprudential principles and Iranian civil liability doctrines that accept indirect liability in specific cases, aiming to explore the potential for recognizing such liability in Iran’s literary and artistic property law through unity criterion. In the U.S. copyright system, three types of indirect liability are recognized: vicarious liability, liability for inducing infringement, and contributory infringement, each with distinct bases but sharing the common feature of holding someone other than the direct infringer liable. This article focuses solely on contributory infringement, outlining its conditions and characteristics. The key judicial definition of contributory infringement – which the courts have identified all the elements of this liability based on that definition– is: “One who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a "contributory" infringer.” According to this definition, there must be two basic elements to identify liability: (1) knowledge of the infringement and (2) material contribution to it. Regarding the element of knowledge, it can be stated that explicit and actual knowledge of specific cases of infringement will certainly be recognized as the element of knowledge in imposing this type of liability, and also if the external conditions of the dispute are such that any reasonable person can achieve a typical knowledge of the infringement cases, this typical and conventional knowledge will also be sufficient to impose liability. Regarding the element of effective participation and cooperation, it should also be noted that courts have usually not addressed the causal relationship in examining this element and have considered a form of extensive facilitation of the violation as the realization of this element. In Iranian law, rooted in Imami jurisprudence in many aspects of civil liability, the principle is personal liability, and one cannot generally be held responsible for another’s damage, as affirmed by rules like the "Vezr Rule". However, in both jurisprudence and statutory law there are cases where the sacred shariah or legislator has recognized indirect liability based on wisdom or expediency, such as the liability of the Aqila, public treasury, guardians, or employers, which in these cases have acted contrary to the principle of personal liability. What is of great importance in this text is that in contributory infringement liability, there is a form of participation accompanied by knowledge of the indirect infringer, and thus, it may be simpler to recognize this type of liability through the principles of direct causation and contributory causation.  Given that there is no definitive religious or legal prohibition against recognizing indirect liability in Iran’s legal system, and considering that in certain cases, both the Sharia and the legislature have deviated from this principle, in the copyright legal system, if the goal is to truly protect copyright, this type of liability can be recognized: Because the absence of such liability would effectively render copyright protection meaningless. To delineate the scope of this liability, one can undoubtedly draw on the principles underlying other forms of indirect liability, as well as the concepts of direct causation (Mubasharat) and contributory causation (Tasbib), while also leveraging U.S. judicial precedent, to define the extent of this liability with specific limitations.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Copyright", Indirect Liability", ", Contributory Infringement"
مراجع
کتاب

 

  1. کاتوزیان، ناصر، حقوق مدنی الزام‌های خارج از قرارداد (ضمان قهری)، تهران: مؤسسه چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 1374.
  2. محقق داماد، مصطفی، قواعد فقه بخش جزایی، تهران: مرکز نشر علوم اسلامی، 1389.
  3. محمدی، ابوالحسن، مبانی استنباط حقوق اسلامی، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، چاپ بیستم، 1384.
مقاله

  1. حسینی‌منش، محمدعلی، «ضمان عاقله از دو منظر توجیهی و انتقادی»، مجله مقالات و بررسی‌ها، دوره 36، شماره 5، 1382، صص 102-91.
پایان‌نامه

  1. آرتیدار، طیبه، «مسئولیت مدنی کارفرما موضوع ماده 12 قانون مسئولیت مدنی»، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 1381.
  2. شاد، محمد، «مسئولیت سرپرستان ناشی از افعال زیان‌بار صغار و مجانین در حقوق ایران»، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی،1377.
ب) عربی

  1. حکیم، محمد تقی، اصول العامه للفقه المقارن، قم: مجمع جهانی اهل‌بیت، چاپ دوم، 1427 ه. ق.
  2. سبحانی، جعفر، رسائل اصولیه، تهران: مؤسسه‌ امام‌صادق، چاپ اول، 1425 ه. ق.
  3. مظفر، محمدرضا، اصول الفقه، جلد 2، قم: اسماعیلیان، چاپ سیزدهم، 1425 ه. ق.
  4. هاشمی شاهرودی، محمود، بحوث فی علم الاصول (تقریرات درس شهید صدر)، جلد 4، قم: مؤسسه دایره‌المعارف فقه اسلامی، 1426 ه. ق.

References

Books

  1. Hakim, Mohammad Taghi, General Principles of Comparative Jurisprudence, Qom: Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly, Second Edition, 2006. (in Arabic)
  2. Hashemi Shahroudi, Mahmoud, Studies in the Science of Jurisprudence (Notes from Martyr Sadr’s Lectures), Volume 4, Qom: Institute of the Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, 2005. (in Arabic)
  3. Katouzian, Nasser, Civil Law: Obligations Outside Contracts (Tort Liability), Tehran: Institute of Printing and Publishing, University of Tehran, 1995. (in Persian)
  4. Mohaghegh Damad, Mostafa, Rules of Jurisprudence: Criminal Section, Tehran: Islamic Sciences Publishing Center, 2010. (in Persian)
  5. Mohammadi, Abolhassan, Foundations of Islamic Legal Reasoning, Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 20th Edition, 1995. (in Persian)
  6. Muzaffar, Mohammad Reza, Principles of Jurisprudence, Volume 2, Qom: Esmaeilian, 13th Edition, 2004. (in Arabic)
  7. Sobhani, Ja’far, Jurisprudential Treatises, Qom: Imam Sadegh Institute, First Edition, 2004. (in Arabic)

Articles

  1. Almedia, Paulo Andre de, “Unmasking the Mask- Maker: Domain Privacy Services and Contributory Copyright Infringement”, Loyola of Las Angeles Entertainment Law Review, Volume 31, Issue 1, 2010, PP 27-54.
  2. Andrews, Timothy K. “Control Content, Not Innovation: Why Hollywood Should Embrace Peer-to-Peer Technology Despite MGM v. Grokster Battle”, Loyola of Las Angeles Entertainment Law Review, Volume 25, Issue 3, 2005, PP 383-433.
  3. Barthomolew, Mark and Patrick F. McArdle. “Causing Infringement”, Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 63, Issue 3, 2010, PP 675-746.
  4. Bielinski Laura, “Post-Grokster Contributory Copyright Liability and Potential P2P Entitlement to The DMCA ISP Safe Harbors”, 6 va Sports & Ent. L. J. 209, 2006-2007.
  5. Carmichael, John, “In Support of the White Paper: Why Online Service Providers Should Not Receive Immunity from Traditional Notions of Vicarious and Contributory Liability for Copyright Infringement”, Loyola of Las Angeles Entertainment Law Review, Volume 16, Issue 3, 1996, PP 759-788.
  6. Cavazos Edward A. and G. Chao Chin, “System Operator liability for a User`s Copyright Infringement”, 4 Intell. Prop. L. J. 13, 1995-1996, PP 1-17.
  7. Chetson, Damon, “Perfect 10 and Contributory Liability: Can Search Engines survive?”, NCJOLT, Volume 9, Issue 3, 2007, PP 1-16.
  8. Dailey Holt, Kathryn, “Grokster and Beyond: Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement During Live Musical Performances”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Volume 19, Issue 1, 2011, PP 173-200.
  9. Heymann, Laura A. “Knowing How to Know: Secondary Liability for Speech in Copyright Law”, Wake Forest Law Review, Volume 55, 2020, PP 333-380.
  10. Hoffmann Gretchen McCord, “Recent Development in Copyright Law”, 12 Intell. Prop. L.J. 111, 2003-2004.
  11. Hosseini-Manesh, Mohammad Ali, “Liability of ‘Aqila from Justificatory and Critical Perspectives.” Journal of Articles and Reviews, Volume 36, Issue 5, 2003, PP 91-102. (in Persian)

Thesis

  1. Artidar, Tayyebeh, “Employer’s Civil Liability Under Article 12 of the Civil Liability Law”. Master’s Thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, 2002. (in Persian)
  2. Shad, Mohammad, “Liability of Guardians Arising from Harmful Acts of Minors and the Insane in Iranian Law”, Master’s Thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, 1998. (in Persian)

Judicial Procedure

  1. A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896, 918-919 - Dist. Court, ND California 2000.
  2. A & M RECORDS, INC. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F. 3d 1004, 1020-1021 - Court of Appeals, 9th, Circuit, 2001.
  3. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Aveco, Inc., 800 F. 2d 59 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 1986.
  4. Ellison v. Robertson, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1057-58 - Dist. Court, CD California,
  5. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F. 3d 1072, 1077 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2004.
  6. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F. 3d 259, 264 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 1996.
  7. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 1492, 1494 - Dist. Court, ED California, 1994.
  8. Gershwin Pub. Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 581, 583 - Dist. Court, SD New York,1970.
  9. Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artiste Man., Inc., 443 F. 2d 1159, 1162 – Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit, 1971.
  10. In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 252 F. Supp. 2d 634, 650 - Dist. Court, ND Illinois, 2002.
  11. In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F. 3d 643, 650 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 2003.
  12. Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 US 55 – Supreme Court, 1911.
  13. LUVDARTS, LLC v. AT & T MOBILITY, LLC, 710 F. 3d 1068, 1073 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2013.
  14. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1038-1041 - Dist. Court, CD.
  15. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster Ltd., 380 F. 3d 1154,1163-64 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2004.
  16. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1169-1170 - Dist. Court, CD California, 2002.
  17. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intern. Service Ass'n, 494 F. 3d 788 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2007.
  18. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 503, 514 - Dist. Court, ND Ohio, 1997.
  19. Screen Gems - Columbia Music, Inc. v. Mark - Fi Records Inc., 256 F. Supp. 399 Dist. Court, SD New York , 1966.
  20. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 US 417 - Supreme Court 1984.
  21. Sony Music Entertainment v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, 426 F. Supp. 3d 217, 231-235, - Dist. Court, ED Virginia 2019.
  22. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS NET., 384 F. Supp. 3d 743, 767-768, Dist. Court, WD Texas 2019.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,324
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 520