数据确权的难题溯因、立法空间与二分体系

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (11)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Data right confirmation is the premise and foundation for data resource allocation, but the data right confirmation plan has long been controversial. The existing data right confirmation plan does not distinguish between secret data and open data, and does not recognize the complexity of the hierarchical structure of information right and data right. Unified data legislation that does not distinguish between them is not in line with reality. Different levels of data protection have long existed. Traditional trade secret, copyright, and anti-unfair competition protection all set up certain protection for data of varying sizes, which can effectively solve most of the current data protection and utilization problems. Only in the field of open data collection, there is still an institutional gap that needs to be filled by special legislation. Special legislation for the protection of open data collection can concretize many principles and clauses that have been practiced in the judiciary and enhance the certainty of data protection, and is therefore reasonable. A feasible data right confirmation scheme in the future should be a dichotomy system of trade secret protection mechanism and special legislation for open data collection. On the one hand, the trade secret protection mechanism needs to be further improved, including optimizing the confidentiality identification standard and supporting technical measures independently adopted by data controller; on the other hand, core issues such as the object threshold, right content, and right duration of open data collection need to be determined through the formulation of a special “Open Data Collection Protection Law”.

Key words： data right confirmation data collection trade secret protection open data collection protection dicho-tomy system

Received: 10 April 2025

PACS:

D923

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	WEI Ning
	WANG Wei

Cite this article:

WEI Ning,WANG Wei. The Problem Attribution, Legislative Space and Dichotomy System of Data Right Confirmation[J]. , 2025, 42(3): 108-116.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2025/V42/I3/108

[1] Charles I. Jones, Christopher Tonetti.Nonrivalry and the Economics of Data[J].American Economic Review,2020,(9):2819-2858.
[2] 刘雅君,张雅俊.数据要素市场培育的制约因素及其突破路径[J].改革,2023,(9):21-33.
[3] 杜牧真. 数据难以确权的误区澄清[J].中国法律评论,2024,(4):131-148.
[4] (美)亚伦·普赞诺斯基,(美)杰森·舒尔茨.所有权的终结:数字时代的财产保护[M].赵精武译.北京:北京大学出版社,2022.256.
[5] 许可. 数据爬取的正当性及其边界[J].中国法学,2021,(2):166-188.
[6] 张素华,李雅男.数据保护的路径选择[J].学术界,2018,(7):52-61.
[7] 程啸. 区块链技术视野下的数据权属问题[J].现代法学,2020,(2):121-132.
[8] 陈越峰. 超越数据界权:数据处理的双重公法构造[J].华东政法大学学报,2022,(1):18-31.
[9] 吴汉东. 数据财产赋权的立法选择[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2023,41(4):44-57.
[10] 林广海,李剑,杜微科.系列解读之一《最高人民法院关于审理侵犯商业秘密民事案件适用法律若干问题的规定》的理解与适用[J].法律适用,2021,(4):13-18.
[11] 崔国斌. 新酒入旧瓶:企业数据保护的商业秘密路径[J].政治与法律,2023,(11):2-23.
[12] 申卫星. 论数据产权制度的层级性:“三三制”数据确权法[J].中国法学,2023,(4):26-48.
[13] 徐翔,厉克奥博,田晓轩.数据生产要素研究进展[J].经济学动态,2021,(4):142-158.
[14] 王利明. 数据何以确权[J].法学研究,2023,45(4):56-73.
[15] 张新宝.论作为新型财产权的数据财产权[J].中国社会科学,2023,(4):144-163+207.
[16] 孔祥俊. 论反不正当竞争法“商业数据专条”的建构 ——落实中央关于数据产权制度顶层设计的一种方案[J].东方法学,2022,(5):15-29.
[17] 孙莹,禹政远.竞争关系反思与数据确权路径再思考[J].科技与法律(中英文),2024,(5):25-36.
[18] 申卫星. 论数据用益权[J].中国社会科学,2020,(11):110-131.
[19] 刘晓魁,肖树鹏.开放网络环境下的反爬虫技术研究[J].网络安全技术与应用,2024,(7):19-22.
[20] Amy Kapczynski.The Public History of Trade Secrets[J].UC Davis Law Review,2022,55(3):1367-1443.
[21] Tommaso Fia.Resisting IP Overexpansion:The Case of Trade Secret Protection of Non-Personal Data[J].IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Com-petition Law,2022,53(6):917-949.
[22] Stewart E. Sterk.Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Uncertainty about Property Rights[J].Michigan Law Rev-iew,2008,106(7):1285-1335.