지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The current copyright law does not directly address reverse engineering therein, but appears to admit of black box analysis and decompilation of program codes in its explicit regulations of subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) as well as article 101-4.
Meanwhile the studies hitherto conducted pertaining to subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) have merely covered fundamental interpretations and its corelation with article 101-4, leaving something more desired for concrete interpretation criteria about this regulation.
Therefore, in an aim to suggest concrete interpretation criteria on this regulation, this study has gone particularly over the requirements of limitation to author’s property rights in programs under article 101-3(1), dealt with a permitted scope of reverse engineering of a computer program, and then examined the affairs which might come of an issue in particular.
To support the above, reviews and comparisons have been made in between subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) and article 5 in Clause 3 of the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (, which was thereafter replaced with the Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, hereinafter called “EU Computer Program Directive”), and the judgments by Grand Chamber of the court of justice of the European Union have also been referred to out of EU’s SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd, 2 May 2012, case C-406/10 [2012].
The subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) restricts the rights of temporary or permanent reproduction and permits black box analysis out of reverse engineering.
And this regulation extensively admits the scope wherein free uses are permitted on the assumption of black box analysis. And the subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) was initially legislated with initial reference to the article 3, clause 5 of EU Computer Program Directive, for purpose of “Vitalization of Program Technology Development”, and thus the legal nature of subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) is theoretically an imperative provision, and the authors are not entitled to prohibiting black box analysis by way of contract regulation contrary thereto. However, differently from EU computer program directive article 3 clause 5, restriction of behavior cannot be made by contract, (so far as other terms are satisfied) temporary or permanent reproduction is allowed for all behaviors occurring in the course of program uses regardless of whatever the license may permit. In this aspect, the utilization of what the subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) describes is worth materializing its meaning.
The provisions concerning reverse engineering of a computer program under the copyright law should be construed and amended from the direction that promotes the development of related industries and technologies. Accordingly it is sincerely hoped that any future proposition of either the interpretation or amendment of this regulation will develop under the premise above.
Meanwhile the studies hitherto conducted pertaining to subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) have merely covered fundamental interpretations and its corelation with article 101-4, leaving something more desired for concrete interpretation criteria about this regulation.
Therefore, in an aim to suggest concrete interpretation criteria on this regulation, this study has gone particularly over the requirements of limitation to author’s property rights in programs under article 101-3(1), dealt with a permitted scope of reverse engineering of a computer program, and then examined the affairs which might come of an issue in particular.
To support the above, reviews and comparisons have been made in between subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) and article 5 in Clause 3 of the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (, which was thereafter replaced with the Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, hereinafter called “EU Computer Program Directive”), and the judgments by Grand Chamber of the court of justice of the European Union have also been referred to out of EU’s SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd, 2 May 2012, case C-406/10 [2012].
The subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) restricts the rights of temporary or permanent reproduction and permits black box analysis out of reverse engineering.
And this regulation extensively admits the scope wherein free uses are permitted on the assumption of black box analysis. And the subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) was initially legislated with initial reference to the article 3, clause 5 of EU Computer Program Directive, for purpose of “Vitalization of Program Technology Development”, and thus the legal nature of subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) is theoretically an imperative provision, and the authors are not entitled to prohibiting black box analysis by way of contract regulation contrary thereto. However, differently from EU computer program directive article 3 clause 5, restriction of behavior cannot be made by contract, (so far as other terms are satisfied) temporary or permanent reproduction is allowed for all behaviors occurring in the course of program uses regardless of whatever the license may permit. In this aspect, the utilization of what the subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) describes is worth materializing its meaning.
The provisions concerning reverse engineering of a computer program under the copyright law should be construed and amended from the direction that promotes the development of related industries and technologies. Accordingly it is sincerely hoped that any future proposition of either the interpretation or amendment of this regulation will develop under the premise above.
#블랙박스 분석
#프로그램코드역분석
#리버스 엔지니어링
#디컴파일
#디스어셈블리
#메모리덤프
#컴퓨터프로그램
#저작재산권의 제한
#일시적 복제
#저작권법
#black box analysis
#decompilation of program codes
#reverse engineering
#decompilation
#disassembly
#memory dump
#computer program
#restriction onto the author's property rights
#temporary reproduction
#copyright law
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 제101조의3 제1항 제6호의 저작재산권 제한 요건
Ⅲ. 리버스 엔지니어링의 허용 범위
Ⅳ. 규정의 법적 문제 검토
Ⅴ. 결론
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (55)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (3)
-
대법원 1991. 7. 9. 선고 90다15501 판결
가. 회사의 이사가 채무액과 변제기가 특정되어 있고 다만 채무의 이행기만 수년에 걸쳐 있는 회사채무에 대하여 연대보증계약을 체결한 경우에는 계속적 보증이나 포괄근보증과는 달리 이사직 사임이라는 사정변경을 이유로 연대보증인인 이사가 일방적으로 계약을 해지할 수 없다.
자세히 보기 -
특허법원 2001. 5. 24. 선고 2000허6691 판결
[1]의장과 상표는 배타적, 선택적인 관계에 있는 것이 아니므로 의장이 될 수 있는 형상이나 모양이라고 하더라도 그것이 상표의 본질적인 기능이라고 할 수 있는 자타상품의 출처표시를 위하여 사용되는 것으로 볼 수 있는 경우에는 위 사용은 상표로서의 사용이라고 보아야 한다.
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2006. 9. 14. 선고 2003후137 판결
[1] 서비스표의 구성 부분이 식별력이 없거나 미약한지 여부는 그 구성 부분이 지니고 있는 관념, 지정서비스업과의 관계 및 거래사회의 실정 등을 감안하여 객관적으로 결정하여야 하는바, 사회통념상 자타서비스업의 식별력을 인정하기 곤란하거나 공익상으로 보아 특정인에게 독점시키는 것이 적당하지 않은 경우에는 `식별력 있는 요부’에 해당한다고 볼
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
음악 산업의 차세대 수익모델에 대한 법적 고찰
박정호
콘텐츠재산연구
2011
.11
온라인서비스제공자의 불법행위책임과 저작권법개정의 문제점
양재모
,
김성필
한양법학
2004
.12
게임물의 창작활성화를 위한 게임법상 내용규제 검토 : 게임법상 내용수정신고제도 및 이에 대한 게임법 개정안의 검토를 중심으로
김윤명
법학연구
2011
.05
저작권법적 대응방향에 따른 1인 미디어의 생존 방안 : P2PTV(Peer-to-peer Internet Television)를 중심으로
박세진
,
이종민
콘텐츠재산연구
2010
.11
인터넷의 이용과정에서 컴퓨터 RAM에의 일시적 저장의 복제권 침해문제
배정한
한국무역학회 세미나 및 토론회
2002
.05
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-300-003120947