浙江省高级人民法院知识产权庭副庭长王亦非（中）。本报见习记者 隋明照 摄
近年来，区块链的概念时常被人们提起。6月28日，浙江杭州互联网法院对一起侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案进行了公开宣判，首次对采用区块链技术存证的电子数据的法律效力予以确认。
In recent years, the concept of block chains has often been raised. On 28 June, the Zhejiang Hang County Internet Court issued a public judgement in a dispute over violations of the right to distribute information networks about works, confirming for the first time the legal validity of electronic data recorded using block chain technology.
那么，案件背后究竟有怎样的具体情况，这起案件为什么会成为备受关注的案件？在8月4日举行的“2018版权相关热点问题媒体研修班”上，浙江省高级人民法院知识产权庭副庭长王亦非从法院判决的角度对此案进行了详细的分析。
So, what are the specific circumstances behind the case, and why is the case a matter of great concern? At the Media Study Course on Copyright-Related Hotspots, held on 4 August, the Vice-President of the Intellectual Property Division of the Zhejiang Provincial High People's Court, Wang, did not analyse the case in detail from the point of view of the court's decision.
区块链具有难以被篡改与删除的特点
王亦非首先对区块链做了生动详细的解释。她谈道，区块链作为一种去中心化数据库，是一串使用密码学的方法相关联而产生的数据块。每个数据块当中都包含了一次网络交易的信息，它可以用来验证这个信息的有效性。
The King did not first explain the block chain in a vivid detail. She said that the block chain, as a decentralised database, was a series of data blocks that were linked by cryptography.
“区块链”这三个字已经表明了它的内在含义，即它是由多个机构或者多个公司的服务器作为节点构成的一个网络，这个网络当中某一个节点会对一个时间段内产生的数据打包，形成一个块。然后把这个块同步到整个区块链网络上，网络上其他节点接收到这个块之后要对这个块进行验证，验证通过以后，就把这个块加到自己的本地服务器上面。之后，某个节点就会把新产生的数据和本地服务器上已经有的块的信息又加在一起打包，形成第二个块。
The word "block chain" already indicates its intrinsic meaning, i.e. it is a network made up of servers of multiple agencies or companies as nodes in which one node packs the data generated over a period of time, forming a block. It is then synchronized to the entire block node network, and when the other nodes on the network receive the block, they verify the block and then add it to their own local server. A node then wraps the newly generated data together with the information that already exists on the local server and forms a second block.
第二个块形成之后，其他节点接到这个块之后，也会对这个块进行验证。验证通过以后，就把第二个块又加到本地服务器上面，第一个块和第二个块相连。之后网络内部所有的数据都通过相同的方式来打包成块，块和块之间是相连的，也就形成了区块链。从其本身的操作流程及背后的技术原理来看，如果要修改其中一个块链数据的话，就需要修改这个区块之后所有的区块内容，同时，也需要把区块链网络当中所有机构以及其他服务器上的备份数据进行修改。因此，区块链具有难以被篡改和难以删除的特点，作为一种存证方法，它在保存电子证据内容完整性方面还是具有非常高的可靠性的。
Once the second block is formed, the other nodes receive the block, and then the block is validated. Once certified, the second block is added to the local server, the first block is connected to the second block. After that, all data within the network are packaged in the same way, and the blocks and blocks are connected, forming a chain of blocks. From its own operating process and the technical principles behind it, it is necessary to modify the contents of all blocks after the block and, at the same time, to modify the backup data on all institutions and other servers in the network of blocks. Thus, the block chain has a feature that is difficult to tamper with and remove, and as a means of proof, it has a very high level of reliability in preserving the integrity of the content of electronic evidence.
区块链作证据，还需经历完整性与真实性审查
The
在6月28日宣判的这起案件中，原告为了证明被告在其经营的网站上发表了原告享有著作权的相关作品，选择区块链存证方式，也就是通过第三方存证平台，进行了侵权网页自动抓取和侵权页面原代码识别。同时，把侵权网页截图和原代码这两项内容和调用日志等做成压缩包，把压缩包计算成哈希值，上传到两个区块链当中，分别是公证通和比特币区块链，通过这种方式，原告认为已经完成了相应的电子证据取证。
In this case, which was handed down on 28 June, the plaintiff, in order to prove that the defendant had published on the website in which he operated the works relating to the plaintiff’s right to authorship, chose the block chain to be documented, i.e. through the third-party record-keeping platform, automatic tort page grabs and tort page original code recognition. At the same time, the tort page screens and the original code and call logs were computed as compressed packages, and the compressed package was added to the Hashi value and uploaded to the two sector chains, notarized and Bitcoin, respectively, and in this way, the plaintiff considered that the corresponding electronic evidentiary evidence had been completed.
王亦非说，互联网法院认定证据有效的判断标准主要有三方面，第一，存证平台资质；第二，侵权网页取证技术手段可信度；第三，电子证据保存的完整性。王亦非介绍，法院重点审查此案电子证据上传内容的完整性，而这项审查从两个方面展开，即电子数据是否真实上传以及上传的电子数据是不是本案当中所诉争的电子数据。
Nor does the King argue that the criteria for determining the validity of evidence in the Internet courts are three main: first, the qualifications of the evidence-repository platform; second, the credibility of tort web-based forensic techniques; and third, the integrity of the preservation of electronic evidence. Nor does the King introduce that the courts focus on examining the integrity of the electronic evidence uploaded in the case, and that this review is carried out in two ways, namely, whether the electronic data were actually uploaded and whether the electronic data uploaded were the electronic data contested in the case.
对于判断电子数据是否真实上传，需采取两个步骤。之前原告所提供的证据就是存证的过程，而法院真正要做的首先是要检查存证过程的技术原理，确定原告所提供的证据是不是真实的上传。同时，确定上传的这些数据是否没有被篡改。对于审查电子数据是不是真实上传，需要经历两个步骤：第一步，原告提供的交易哈希值，可以在公证通区块链上面进行搜索，搜索之后，便能够察看这条交易值当中的交易所对应的哈希值存放的内容和生成的时间。同时，根据原告提交的区块链区块高度，也可以从区块高度上来查询哈希值存放的时间和内容上传时间。这两者之间显示出来的时间有一定的前后顺序，但这个顺序是具有合理性的。通过区块链本身时间生成的规则，法院认为区块链高度、生成时间符合调用日志当中的生成时间以及公证通的区块链打包规则时间，三者之间存在着一定的逻辑关系。第二步，则要把另外一个区块链和两个区块链相互之间做一个比对。原告是把相应的哈希值同时绑定到两个区块链当中，所以区块高度在比特币区块链当中也同样能够产生出一个交易的哈希值。这时法院不需要再针对它们之间的生成时间做逻辑上的比对，只需把区块链中的哈希值和公证通存放的哈希值进行比对，发现两者之间存放的哈希值是完全一致的，从而认定电子数据当时是真实上传到了两个区块链当中。
There are two steps to be taken to determine whether the electronic data were actually uploaded. The evidence provided by the plaintiff before was the evidence of the record, and the court was first to examine the technical principles of the certificate process and to determine whether the evidence provided by the plaintiff was genuinely uploaded. At the same time, it was determined whether the data uploaded were not altered. As a first step, the transaction value provided by the plaintiff could be searched on the chain of notarized public areas, and the search would allow for the search of the contents and the time of creation of the corresponding Hashi value of the exchange in the value of the transaction. At the same time, there is a logical relationship between the value of the chain and the time of the contents of the chain submitted by the plaintiff.
对于审查上传的电子数据是不是本案当中诉争的电子数据，则是通过哈希值比对，把网页截图包括代码通过谷歌开源程序获取源代码，再用调用的一个日志打包成一个压缩包，进行哈希值计算。这个哈希值数值与区块链当中所保存的哈希值数值是一致的，这种情况之下，法院认为可以确定涉案数据已上传到两个区块链当中，内容一直是完整的，且从来没有被修改过，这是法院对于电子证据完整性的审查标准。
For the purpose of examining whether the uploaded electronic data were the electronic data contested in the case, the Hashi value was compared by using the Hashi value matching, the web screen including the code obtained through the Google Open Source application, and a call log was packed into a compressed package to calculate the Hashi value. The Hashi value was consistent with the Hashi value maintained in the block chain, in which case the court found it possible to determine that the data in question had been uploaded into the two blocks chain, that it had been complete and had never been modified, which was the court’s standard for reviewing the integrity of electronic evidence.
对于新型存证手段，法院持开放和中立态度
其实，这起案件是一起简单的著作权侵权案件，不过，因为原告采用区块链技术作为电子证据的存证方式，并且这种方式被法院支持和认可，法院也据此认定了被告相应的侵权行为，从而使此案成为全国首例区块链存证案。
In fact, the case was a simple copyright infringement, but because the plaintiff used block chain technology as evidence in electronic evidence, which was upheld and accepted by the court, the court found the corresponding violation by the defendant, thus making the case the first case of a chain of blocks in the country.
王亦非认为，这起案件的特殊之处在于法院在判决中首次对区块链技术进行了诠释，同时通过对证据的认证标准对区块链技术证明力大小作出判断，具有一定的标志性意义，所以这样一起小案件成了备受关注的案件。
The King is not convinced that the particularity of this case lies in the fact that the court, for the first time in its judgement, interpreted block chain technology and judged the technical probative weight of the block chain by means of a standard for the authentication of evidence, thus making such a small case a case of concern.
总结这起案件，王亦非表示，对于包括区块链存证在内的电子证据，法院还是秉承开放和中立的态度进行个案分析和认定。对新技术所产生的新问题还是坚持以个案认定的标准，既不会因为区块链技术本身属于一种新类型的技术手段就排斥或者提高它的证据认定标准，也不会因为它的技术具有难以篡改性或者难以删除的特点就降低相应的认定标准，还是会根据电子证据的相关法律规定来判断它的证据效力。
In summing up this case, Wang does not mean that the court analyses and determines electronic evidence, including the chain of blocks, on a case-by-case basis and in an open and neutral manner. The new issues raised by the new technology, or the criteria that are determined on a case-by-case basis, do not exclude or raise the standard of proof because the block chain technology itself is a new type of technical tool, nor do they reduce the criteria for identification because its technology is difficult to tamper with or remove features, or determine its evidentiary validity in the light of the relevant legal provisions on electronic evidence.
分享让更多人看到 
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论