|
|
|
| Resolutions to the Dilemma of Criminal Law Protection of Virtual Property in the Perspective of Digital Assets |
| Gao Yandong, He Zihan |
| Guanghua Law School, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310008, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Empirical research shows that the criminal law protection of virtual property has prominent problems in practice, including the confusion of conviction and unfair sentencing. The same criminal behavior may be convicted as a crime against property or a computer crime. Theoretically, the controversy over the legal nature about virtual property falls into the misunderstanding of the binary opposition between property and data. At present, Chinese scholars have not reached a consensus on the concept and characteristics of virtual property. The prevailing view divides virtual property into three categories: “account virtual property”, “item virtual property” and “monetary virtual property”. However, this method of classification lacks substantive standards and ignores the differences in functions and characteristics between different types of virtual property. Therefore，the classification method of now is not beneficial to the identification of the legal nature disputes of virtual property.In fact, virtual property is a misleading concept. Neither “virtual” nor “property” can limit the scope of virtual property, which leads to the ambiguity of the meaning. The concept of virtual property not only fails to highlight its data nature but also ignores some data resources that have no property value. Therefore, it is necessary to redefine virtual property as digital assets, which means data resources with value and relative independence. This concept is more in line with the requirements of the times for the diversity of data resources types. In addition, digital assets have formed a mature secondary market, and criminal law should also recognize the value of digital assets. However, traditional criminal law theory believes that property should meet the requirement of tangibility. Because of intangibility, criminal law cannot regard digital assets as property, but the function of tangibility is to set the boundaries of strangers’ obligations. In the industrial age, tangibility was an efficient, intuitive, and easy-to-grasp criterion. In the digital age, there are other ways to replace the function of tangibility and delineate the boundaries of data resources. Criminal law is bound to break through the shackles of legal concepts in the industrial age, abandon the doctrine of “things must have a body”, and evaluate some digital assets as property.Due to the diversity of digital assets，the criminal law should set a substantive standard of classification to protect various digital assets differently. We should establish the dual judgment criteria, classify digital assets by rivalrousness and exclusivity. Rivalrousness refers to the limited supply of digital assets, on account of the limitations of algorithms or the capabilities of the Internet service providers. Exclusivity includes the state of excluding others’ possession in fact or the right to exclude others' possession in norms.According to the dual judgment criteria of rivalrousness and exclusivity, digital assets can be divided into “property digital assets” “service digital assets” “intellectual property digital assets” and “public welfare digital assets”. Property digital assets are both rivalrousness and exclusive, and belong to the protection domain of the crime against property. Service digital assets are only competitive, not exclusive, and belong to the protection domain of computer crime. Intellectual property digital assets, which are exclusive and noncompetitive, are protected by intellectual property crimes and other crimes, such as the crime of infringing citizens’ personal information. Public welfare digital assets are neither competitive nor exclusive, and access to such data resources does not commit crimes. This classification method can provide an operable plan for the selection of charges, and effectively solve the problem of confusion of convictions in practice.
|
|
Received: 11 May 2022
|
|
|
|
1 美］布莱恩·比克斯： 《法理学：理论与语境》，邱昭继译，北京：法律出版社，2008年。
2 Cohen J. E. & Lemley M. A.， “Patent scope and innovation in the software industry，” California Law Review， Vol. 89， No. 1 （2001）， pp. 1-57.
3 Cifrino C. J.， “Virtual property， virtual rights： why contract law， not property law， must be the governing paradigm in the law of virtual worlds，” Boston College Law Review， Vol. 55， No. 1 （2014）， pp. 235-264.
4 Lastowka F. G. & Hunter D.， “The laws of virtual worlds，” California Law Review， Vol. 92， No. 1 （2004）， pp. 1-74.
5 Fairfield J. A.， “Virtual property，” Boston University Law Review， Vol. 85， No. 4 （2005）， pp. 1047-1102.
6 Decunha N.， “Virtual property， real concerns，” Akron Intellectual Property Journal， Vol. 4， No. 1 （2010）， pp. 35-72.
7 Gong J.， “Defining and addressing virtual property in international treaties，” Boston University Journal of Science & Technology， Vol. 17， No. 1 （2011）， pp. 101-137.
8 Dong K.， “Developing a digital property law regime，” Cornell Law Review， Vol. 105， No. 6 （2020）， pp. 1745-1773.
9 杨立新： 《我国民法典对类法典化立法的规则创新》，《中外法学》2020年第4期，第916-932页。
10 张明楷： 《非法获取虚拟财产的行为性质》，《法学》2015年第3期，第13-25页。
11 陈兴良： 《虚拟财产的刑法属性及其保护路径》，《中国法学》2017年第2期，第146-172页。
12 李岩： 《“虚拟财产权”的证立与体系安排——兼评〈民法总则〉第127条》，《法学》2017年第9期，第145-157页。
13 侯国云、么惠君： 《虚拟财产的性质与法律规制》，《中国刑事法杂志》2012年第4期，第51-64页。
14 刘明祥： 《窃取网络虚拟财产行为定性探究》，《法学》2016年第1期，第151-160页。
15 江波： 《虚拟财产司法保护研究》，北京：北京大学出版社，2015年。
16 Odinet C. K.， “Bitproperty and commercial credit，” Washington University Law Review， Vol. 94， No. 3 （2017）， pp. 649-706.
17 德］卡尔·拉伦茨： 《法学方法论》，黄家镇译，北京：商务印书馆，2020年。
18 Lawrence D. E.， “It really is just a game： the impracticability of common law property right in virtual property，” Washburn Law Journal， Vol. 47， No. 2 （2008）， pp. 505-549.
19 Bell A. & Parchomovsky G.， “A theory of property，” Cornell Law Review， Vol. 90， No. 3 （2005）， pp. 531-616.
20 Penner J. E.， “The bundle of rights picture of property，” UCLA Law Review， Vol. 43， No. 3 （1996）， pp. 711-820.
21 Nelson J.， “The virtual property problem： what property rights in virtual resources might look like， how they might work， and why they are bad idea，” McGeorge Law Review， Vol. 41， No. 2 （2010）， pp. 281-310.
22 Quadrini M.， “Caveat cloudster： why traditional common and civil property law should apply to virtual property and how it will change the legal realities of the internet，” Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies， Vol. 24 （2015）， pp. 55-99.
23 Merrill T. W. & Smith H. E.， “What happened to property in law and economics，” Yale Law Journal， Vol. 111， No. 2 （2001）， pp. 357-398.
24 Quinn P. J.， “A click too far： the difficulty in using adhesive american law license agreements to govern virtual worlds，” Wisconsin International Law Journal， Vol. 27， No. 4 （2009）， pp. 757-789.
25 李华林： 《非同质化代币为何成为“网红”》，《经济日报》2021年4月22日，第8版。
26 于蒙蒙： 《NFT概念产品受追捧 国内上市公司布局引关注》，《中国证券报》2021年12月28日，第7版。
27 刘俊海： 《网络虚拟财产的权利属性及继承》，《人民司法》2020年第4期，第4-8页。
28 Cohen J. E.， “Cyberspace as/and space，” Columbia Law Review， Vol. 107， No. 1 （2007）， pp. 210-256.
29 陈吉栋： 《超越元宇宙的法律想象：数字身份、NFT与多元规制》，《法治研究》2022年第3期，第43-54页。
30 Locke J.， Two Treatises of Government， New York： Hafner Press， 1947.
31 刘明祥： 《论窃取财产性利益》，《政治与法律》2019年第8期，第58-77页。
32 Douglas S. & McFarlane B.， “Defining property rights，” in Penner J. & Smith H. E. （eds.）， Philosophical Foundations of Property Law， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2013， pp. 219-243.
33 Marinotti J.， “Tangibility as technology，” Georgia State University Law Review， Vol. 37， No. 3 （2021）， pp. 671-738.
34 何德旭、姚博： 《人民币数字货币法定化的实践、影响及对策建议》，《金融评论》2019年第5期，第38-50，116-117页。
35 保建云： 《主权数字货币、金融科技创新与国际货币体系改革》，《人民论坛·学术前沿》2020年第2期，第24-35页。
36 意］保罗·格罗西： 《财产：“现代”与“后现代”之间的发展路径》，乌兰译，《比较法研究》2019年第4期，第188-200页。
37 陶乾： 《论数字作品非同质代币化交易的法律意涵》，《东方法学》2022年第2期，第70-80页。
38 Barnes D. W.， “A new economics of trademarks，” Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property， Vol. 5， No. 1 （2006）， pp. 22-67.
39 Fairfield J. A.， “BitProperty，” Southern California Law Review， Vol. 88， No. 4 （2015）， pp. 805-874.
40 周俊强： 《无形财产权的类型化与体系化研究：基于信息哲学的分析》，北京：北京大学出版社，2018年。
41 Posner R. A.， “Transaction costs and antitrust concerns in the licensing of intellectual property，” The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law， Vol. 4， No. 3 （2005）， pp. 325-335.
42 徐凌波： 《虚拟财产犯罪的教义学展开》，《法学家》2017年第4期，第44-57，176页。
43 德］托马斯·魏根特： 《论刑法与时代精神》，樊文译，《刑事法评论》2006年第2期，第283-306页。
44 德］阿图尔·考夫曼： 《法律哲学》，刘幸义等译，北京：法律出版社，2011年。 |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 52 
