结 语
在科技领域，研发人员往往追求破坏和更替现有技术之目标，而非满足于对现有技术的小修小补。换言之，技术发展是一个“创造性破坏”的过程，一个新技术的产生，同时意味着以往的技术被破坏或淘汰。技术发展的确带来了新技术背景下个人信息保护、版权保护等方面的一系列法律问题，需要予以应对。[32]一般认为，技术发展会对法律制度构成挑战，关于法律与技术的现有文献一般都假定“新技术等同于法律和法律界的根本变化和不稳定性”。[33]美国一位学者型法官在其著作中论及：“我已经看到法律和技术两个领域之间互相作用，这是必然的，却经常是对立的。就像救生艇上的敌人一样，尽管技术和法律在步调和意图上存在不同，但他们被迫面对对方。”[34]然而，这一图景并非全景。
正如本文揭示，技术与法律之间不是单一的挑战关系，两者之间是可能并且可以形成良性互动关系。面对一些法律问题，可以存在技术驱动型的解决方案。在解决既有法律困境或技术对法律的挑战之时，单纯的技术方案往往不够。技术只是一种工具，其本身并不能构成自给自足的方案。在解决法律问题时，技术方案往往作为法律方案的补充，或与法律方案相互融合。由此可见，“法律被代码／算法取代”的“法律‘死亡’的前景”[35]的担忧是多余的。技术只是人类操纵和利用的手段。人类社会从人治走到法治，在未来，法律之治仍将主宰和维护人类秩序。技术的加入不会导致法律之死亡，也不会走向技术之治，技术只是人类法治秩序中的一个因素，尽管其作用将会越来越重要，但无法取代法律。在解决法律问题和法律困境时，技术的功能恰恰是与法律形成良性互动，以取得更高效的解决方案。
（本文系国家社科基金项目“孤儿作品的版权问题研究”的阶段性成果，项目编号：14CFX077）
注释
[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]吕炳斌：《版权登记制度革新的第三条道路——基于交易的版权登记》，《比较法研究》，2017年第5期，第170～171页。
[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］劳伦斯·莱斯格：《代码2.0：网络空间中的法律》（修订版），李旭、沈伟伟译，北京：清华大学出版社，2018年，第207～208页。
[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]《中华人民共和国著作权法》（修订草案送审稿）（2014年6月）第51条第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、高胜、段美娇：《区块链技术与应用》，北京：机械工业出版社，2018年，第2、209、35、4页。
[24]郑戈：《区块链与未来法治》，《东方法学》，2018年第3期，第75～86页。
[25]尹浩：《区块链技术的发展机遇与治理思路》，《人民论坛·学术前沿》，2018年第12期，第6页。
[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”：人工智能时代的法律功能危机》，《华东政法大学学报》，2018年第2期，第5页。
责 编／郭 丹
吕炳斌，南京大学法学院教授，博导。研究方向为知识产权法、信息法与网络法。主要著作有《建设创新型国家下的知识产权保护》《专利披露制度研究——以TRIPS协定为视角》《网络时代版权制度的变革与创新》《个人信息权作为民事权利之证成：以知识产权为参照》（论文）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
