結 語

在科技領域，研發(fā)人員往往追求破壞和更替現有技術之目標，而非滿足于對現有技術的小修小補。換言之，技術發(fā)展是一個“創(chuàng)造性破壞”的過程，一個新技術的產生，同時意味著以往的技術被破壞或淘汰。技術發(fā)展的確帶來了新技術背景下個人信息保護、版權保護等方面的一系列法律問題，需要予以應對。[32]一般認為，技術發(fā)展會對法律制度構成挑戰(zhàn)，關于法律與技術的現有文獻一般都假定“新技術等同于法律和法律界的根本變化和不穩(wěn)定性”。[33]美國一位學者型法官在其著作中論及：“我已經看到法律和技術兩個領域之間互相作用，這是必然的，卻經常是對立的。就像救生艇上的敵人一樣，盡管技術和法律在步調和意圖上存在不同，但他們被迫面對對方。”[34]然而，這一圖景并非全景。

正如本文揭示，技術與法律之間不是單一的挑戰(zhàn)關系，兩者之間是可能并且可以形成良性互動關系。面對一些法律問題，可以存在技術驅動型的解決方案。在解決既有法律困境或技術對法律的挑戰(zhàn)之時，單純的技術方案往往不夠。技術只是一種工具，其本身并不能構成自給自足的方案。在解決法律問題時，技術方案往往作為法律方案的補充，或與法律方案相互融合。由此可見，“法律被代碼／算法取代”的“法律‘死亡’的前景”[35]的擔憂是多余的。技術只是人類操縱和利用的手段。人類社會從人治走到法治，在未來，法律之治仍將主宰和維護人類秩序。技術的加入不會導致法律之死亡，也不會走向技術之治，技術只是人類法治秩序中的一個因素，盡管其作用將會越來越重要，但無法取代法律。在解決法律問題和法律困境時，技術的功能恰恰是與法律形成良性互動，以取得更高效的解決方案。

（本文系國家社科基金項目“孤兒作品的版權問題研究”的階段性成果，項目編號：14CFX077）

注釋

[1]WIPO, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works from 1886 to 1986, Geneva: WIPO Publication No. 877( E), 1986, pp. 94-148.

[2]Shira Perlmutter, "Freeing Copyright from Formalities", Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 1995, vol. 13, no.2, pp. 581-583.

[3]呂炳斌：《版權登記制度革新的第三條道路——基于交易的版權登記》，《比較法研究》，2017年第5期，第170～171頁。

[4]Jake Goldenfein, Dan Hunter, "Blockchains, Orphan Works, and the Public Domain", Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 2017, vol. 41, no.1, pp. 1-2.

[5]Katharina de la Durantaye, "Finding a Home for Orphans: Google Book Search and Orphan Works Law in the United States and Europe", Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 2011, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 232.

[6]Ian Hargreaves, "Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth", UK Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011, p. 38.

[7]［美］勞倫斯·萊斯格：《代碼2.0：網絡空間中的法律》（修訂版），李旭、沈偉偉譯，北京：清華大學出版社，2018年，第207～208頁。

[8]Alexander Peukert, "Das Urheberrecht und die zwei Kulturen der Online Kommunikation", Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht - Beilage, 2014, helf 1, p.82.

[9]Jeremy De Beer & Mario Bouchard, "Canada's 'Orphan Works' Regime: Unlocatable Copyright Owners and the Copyright Board", Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 2010, vol. 1, no.2, p. 220.

[10]《中華人民共和國著作權法》（修訂草案送審稿）（2014年6月）第51條第1款。

[11]Orphan Works Act of 2006, H.R. 5439, 109th Cong, 2006, https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/5439/text.

[12][13][18]Orphan Works Act of 2008, H.R. 5889, 110th Cong, 2008, https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/5889, § 2(b)(1)(A); Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, S. 2913, https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2913/text; § 2(b)(1)(A)(i).

[14][15]U.S. Copyright Office, "Notice of Inquiry: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization", Federal Register, 2012, vol. 77, no. 204, p. 64555.

[16]United States Copyright Office, Orphan Works and Mass Digitization: A Report of the Register of Copyrights, 2015.

[17]U.S. Copyright Office, Report on Orphan Works: A Report of the Register of Copyrights, 2006, pp. 112-114.

[19]Katharina de la Durantaye, "Finding a Home for Orphans: Google Book Search and Orphan Works Law in the United States and Europe", Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 2011, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 233.

[20]Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 25, 2012, on certain permitted uses of orphan works, Official Journal of the European Union, Oct. 27, 2012, L299/5–L299/12.

[21]Anna Vuopala, Assessment of the Orphan works issue and Costs for Rights Clearance, European Commission, May 2010, pp. 5-23.

[22]Satoshi Nakamoto, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", November 1, 2008, https://perma.cc/4B6X-9ZUD.

[23][26][27][28] 朱建明、高勝、段美嬌：《區(qū)塊鏈技術與應用》，北京：機械工業(yè)出版社，2018年，第2、209、35、4頁。

[24]鄭戈：《區(qū)塊鏈與未來法治》，《東方法學》，2018年第3期，第75～86頁。

[25]尹浩：《區(qū)塊鏈技術的發(fā)展機遇與治理思路》，《人民論壇·學術前沿》，2018年第12期，第6頁。

[29]Laurent Carrière, "Unlocatable Copyright Owners: Some Comments on the Licensing Scheme of Section 77 of the Canadian Copyright Act", 1998, http://www.robic.ca/admin/pdf/277/103-LC.pdf, p. 6.

[30]Katharina de la Durantaye, "Finding a Home for Orphans: Google Book Search and Orphan Works Law in the United States and Europe", Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 2011, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 287.

[31]Eleonora Rosati, "The Orphan Works Directive, or Throwing a Stone and Hiding the Hand", Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2013, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 310.

[32]Neal Katyal, "Disruptive Technologies and the Law", Georgetown Law Journal, 2014, vol. 102, no. 6, p. 1689.

[33]Ezra Dodd Church, "Technological Conservatism: How Information Technology Prevents the Law from Changing", Texas Law Review, 2004, vol. 83, no.2, p. 561.

[34]Curtis E. A. Karnow, Future Codes: Essays in Advanced Computer Technology and the Law, Boston: Artech House, 1997, pp. 1-2.

[35]余成峰：《法律的“死亡”：人工智能時代的法律功能危機》，《華東政法大學學報》，2018年第2期，第5頁。

責 編／郭 丹

呂炳斌，南京大學法學院教授，博導。研究方向為知識產權法、信息法與網絡法。主要著作有《建設創(chuàng)新型國家下的知識產權保護》《專利披露制度研究——以TRIPS協定為視角》《網絡時代版權制度的變革與創(chuàng)新》《個人信息權作為民事權利之證成：以知識產權為參照》（論文）等。

Can Blockchain Technology Solve the

Copyright Problem of "Orphan Works"?

Lv Bingbin

Abstract: Behind the emerging legal frontier issues related to the Internet, data and artificial intelligence, there are basic theoretical issues about the relationship between technology and law. The relationship between technology and law can not only be challenging, but also be interactive. With the example of the dilemma of contemporary copyright system – the "orphan works", there is an interaction between technology and law in the formation of the dilemma, yet the development of information network and digital technology exposes the problem of how this works can be utilized. We can follow the way of interaction between technology and law to obtain the optimal solution to this problem, and the introduction of blockchain technology is expected to solve it, which is essentially a technology-driven solution. This shows that technology can be supplementary to legal schemes, and bring about a positive interaction between them.

Keywords: technology, law, copyright system, orphan works, blockchain