摘要
虽然技术的发展日新月异,但其变化并没有冲击到最底层的法律体系。由于数据产品与知识产品有着极强的共性,对于数据产权的制度构建往往可以借鉴已经较为成熟的知识产权基础理论,不必“白手起家”,也不必“旧瓶装新酒”。洛克劳动财产理论在证立知识产品与数据产品的赋权时存在着相同的难点未予解决;“客体—对象”区分论不仅可以解释“唯数据不足以确权”的问题,也能解释“未产生新的利益关系也不足以设权”的问题;邻接权制度可以在数据产权相关问题悬而未决之时为数据产品提供栖身之所。在新时代出现新问题之时,法学研究应退回到其背后的法律体系中寻找与现有问题的共通之处,不必急于另立山头。
Although the development of technology is ever-changing,these changes do not disrupt the foundations of the legal system.As data products and intellectual products have strong commonality,the construction of a data property right system can often draw on established theory of intellectual property rights,avoiding the need to"start from starting point",or to"use old bottles with new wine".Locke's labor theory of property,in justifying rights of intellectual products and data products,faces same unresolved difficulties;the distinction between object and subject matter can not only address the problem of"mere data is insufficient to establish rights",but also explain why"it is insufficient for establishing rights if the new interest relationship is absent";the neighboring rights system can provide a shelter for the data products when data property rights issues remain unsolved.When new issues emerge in a new era,legal research should return to find common ground with the existing issues behind the legal system,rather than hastily establishing separate new rule.
出处
《知识产权》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第11期112-126,共15页
Intellectual Property
关键词
数据产品
知识产权
洛克劳动财产理论
“客体—对象”区分论
邻接权
data products
intellectual property rights
Locke's labor theory of property
distinction between object and subject matter
neighboring rights
