THE LIMITS OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO COMPUTER PROGRAMS

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW

Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review Pub Date : 2021-07-12 DOI:10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-2-88-133

A. S. Vorozhevich

{"title":"THE LIMITS OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO COMPUTER PROGRAMS","authors":"A. S. Vorozhevich","doi":"10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-2-88-133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the article, the author examines time, content and object boundaries of exclusive rights to computer programs. It has been substantiated that the meaningful boundaries of exclusive rights should be established through a closed list of cases of free use. At the same time, the balance sheet doctrine of fair use, supplemented by the concepts of “transformative use”, cannot serve as a tool for establishing such boundaries. At the same time, in order to resolve atypical conflicts of interest arising in relation to a specific object of copyright between a person interested in access to such an object and the rightholder, standards for assessing the behavior of the rightholder should be developed – special (in relation to Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) limits for the implementation of exclusive right. With regard to the object boundaries of rights to computer programs, it was concluded that they are established by means of the “traditional” concept of copyright “protected form – unprotected content” and the doctrine of “essential part”. The principle of exhaustion of rights should not apply to such objects.","PeriodicalId":35992,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-2-88-133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the article, the author examines time, content and object boundaries of exclusive rights to computer programs. It has been substantiated that the meaningful boundaries of exclusive rights should be established through a closed list of cases of free use. At the same time, the balance sheet doctrine of fair use, supplemented by the concepts of “transformative use”, cannot serve as a tool for establishing such boundaries. At the same time, in order to resolve atypical conflicts of interest arising in relation to a specific object of copyright between a person interested in access to such an object and the rightholder, standards for assessing the behavior of the rightholder should be developed – special (in relation to Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) limits for the implementation of exclusive right. With regard to the object boundaries of rights to computer programs, it was concluded that they are established by means of the “traditional” concept of copyright “protected form – unprotected content” and the doctrine of “essential part”. The principle of exhaustion of rights should not apply to such objects.

查看原文本刊更多论文

计算机程序专有权的限制

本文探讨了计算机程序专有权的时间边界、内容边界和客体边界。事实证明，专有权的有意义的界限应该通过一份自由使用案例的封闭清单来确定。与此同时，合理使用的资产负债表原则，加上“变革性使用”的概念，不能作为确立这种界限的工具。与此同时，为了解决与特定版权客体相关的非典型利益冲突，有兴趣获得该客体的人与权利人之间，应制定评估权利人行为的标准- - -实施专有权的特别限制(关于俄罗斯联邦民法典第10条)。关于计算机程序权利的客体边界，认为是通过“传统的”著作权“形式受保护-内容不受保护”的概念和“本质部分”原则确立的。权利用尽原则不应适用于这类物品。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review Social Sciences-Law

CiteScore

1.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (CR-CL) is the nation’s leading progressive law journal. Founded in 1966 as an instrument to advance personal freedoms and human dignities, CR-CL seeks to catalyze progressive thought and dialogue through publishing innovative legal scholarship and from various perspectives and in diverse fields of study.