Interpretation Of "Public Interest" In Article 53 Of The Copyright Law In China

Article 53 of the current Copyright Law is the foundation for law enforcement by China’s copyright administrative organs,but the “public interest” element set forth in this article is a rather vague legal concept and raises many questions.At present,the theoretical basis for introducing the premise of “public interest” is still unclear,and it is urgent to discuss whether the “public interest” should continue to be retained,how to interpret the it in the case of reservation,and how to clarify the identification requirements of “harming the public interest at the same time” in Article 53.After all,the administrative protection of copyright is a way for public power to intervene in private rights,so setting a premise of “harming the public interest” when enforcing the law seems to be able to make the intervention of public power justified,and can also effectively curb piracy and seek benefits for the right holder and society;But at the same time,the problem is that the notion of the “public interest” itself is too indistinct,leaving law enforcers in confusion.If this premise is directly deleted,it will not be possible to restrict the use of the power of administrative organs,which will lead to the risk of power expansion and make it become a tool of private rights,and also will waste the law enforcement resources.So as to make better the copyright administrative authority to enforce the law on a well-founded and reasonable basis,and to bridge the gap between legislation and practice,it is necessary to theoretically clarify the essence of the expression “public interest”,explore the logical ideas and theoretical support behind the addition of this element,and reveal the specific criteria of “harming the public interest at the same time”,that is,clarifying the “public interest” in copyright administrative law enforcement.Along the logic vein of “raising problems-analyzing problems-solving problems”,this paper is spread out.The first part traces the experience of copyright administrative protection legislation and amendments in China,then analyzes the changes in the expression of the preconditions for “harming public interests at the same time”;simultaneously,summarizes two mainstream views of “public interest”premise abolition theory and reservation theory in academia,in order to clarify the core and current situation of research problems.The second part is to justify the introduction of the “public interest” element in copyright administrative law enforcement.On the one hand,from the perspective of institutional genesis,there is a historical close relationship between copyright administrative law enforcement and public interest,and its generative nature is derived from the balance between“private rights” and “public power”.On the other hand,from the angle of view in law and economics,public interest elements play an important role in optimizing the efficiency of administrative law enforcement,and are also the key to promoting the value goal pursued by law-social justice.The third part is based on Article 53 of the Copyright Law itself,and deconstructs the clause.Firstly,analyzing the specific connotation of “public interest” by means of literal interpretation.The objects of its legal relationship include copyright market order interests,consumer interests,The interests of copyright management order and the development of copyright culture;secondly,using functional interpretation to explain the legislative positioning of“public interest” in Article 53,and it is a positive clause as “the basis for behavior”;and finally,through systematic interpretation,we obtain the limited meaning of“public interest”,which has guiding effect for the connection between“administrative and criminal protection” of copyright infringement by law enforcement organs.The fourth part points out the anomalies in the practice of copyright administrative organs.Starting from specific law enforcement cases,we summarize the wrongful punishment of “individual infringement” and the abuse of“replacing punishment with punishment” in law enforcement.The fifth part is to set the criteria for the determination of “harming the public interest at the same time”.There are two ways to set the criteria.One is general criteria,that is,starting from the expression of laws and regulations and summarizing the basic elements;the other is typological criteria,which can be summarized as repeated infringement,illegal content infringement and commercial infringement with large scale.In order to provide reference for copyright administrative organs to understand the connotation of “public interest” and enforce the law reasonably and appropriately.