Research on the Protection of Anonymous Works Online under the Background of Privacy Protection

Abstract： Anonymous works and orphan works differed significantly online， and the normative rules for orphan workscannot be naturally compatible. In the context of the Internet， anonymous works have the strong characteristic of moralrights in the legal subject， creative behavior， and the dissemination of works. Meanwhile， bring about difficulties in au?thorizing works and generalization of infringement. Based on the balance of interests theory， a conflict of interest occursbetween the private interests， consisting of the authors' privacy and the need of copyright protection， and the generalpublic interest in the dissemination and utilization of works. On the premise of reasonably defining the boundaries ofthe author's privacy， the aforementioned conflicting interests shall be balanced. On the implementation path， the eauthorizationefficiency of anonymous works online shall be improved to link the anonymous works system to the or?phan works system at the same time.

Keywords： anonymous works; orphan works; copyright; privacy rights; the balance of interests theory

CLC：D 923 DC：A Article：2096?9783（2023）02?0128?10

The origin of the copyright system is closely related to publishing， and the development of reproduction and com?munication technology has been continuously promoting the innovation of Copyright Law[1]. After the printing and pa?permaking techniques were introduced to Europe， the publishing industry prospered due to the reduction in the cost ofbook printing. In order to protect their own interests， dominant publishers cooperated with rulers to obtain franchisedmonopoly rights at the expense of the freedom of speech. From the exclusive print publishing of the Popes and Kings ofFrance in the 15th century to the printing guilds established by British publishers in the 16th century， these were allkinds of the franchised business. In 1709， the Statute of Anne was approved by the Parliament of Great Britain， estab?lishing an institutional system centering the author as the subject of rights as well as the focus of the legal protection，rather than the publisher， which has been considered to be the starting point of the modern copyright system[2].

Although the copyright concession has been replaced by the modern copyright system due to the gradual develop?ment of printing and dissemination techniques in the long historical process， publishing with professional publishershas been the major way to disseminate works ever since. The publisher， as the link between the authors and the audi?ences， has become a significant medium for dissemination. Publishers consider market factors to screen off and editworks which greatly affects the exercise of the right to publish. Therefore， the threshold for publication has been raisedwhile the quality of published works has been endorsed. Within such a publishing process， the author was only neces?sary to communicate with the publishing agency， finishing the modification， publication， fund settlement， etc.， with noneed to contact the general public. An authorization quotation to utilize the work and some other requests can also beconveyed to the author through the publishing agency. Even if the infringement occurred， the author might authorizethe publishing agency to carry out rights in protection litigation. Clearly， the anonymous work has its own existencespace： the author can publish the work by signing the pen name （pseudonym） or unsigned according to his own pur?pose， and at the same time require the publishing agency to fully keep the secret of the personal information of the au?thor. That is， there has been no conflict between preserving privacy and encouraging the dissemination of works.

However， with the leap of information technology in recent decades， the Internet has become a major channel forthe publication and dissemination of works and has so far significantly challenged the inertia of the model dominatedby traditional publishers. One of the characteristics of the virtualized Internet environment is that it is highly consistentwith the user's privacy protection intention， and a large number of users actively choose to engage in anonymous Inter?net activities， including the publication of anonymous works. That is， anonymous works have changed from the original?ly marginalized phenomena to a class of norms in current publishing and dissemination channels. There are many dif?ferences between anonymously published works on the network and anonymously published works under the traditionalpublishing mode， while the Internet Service Providers （ISPs） serve diversely in various types of network platforms etc.The positioning and functions of traditional publishers are challenged， and it is now particularly important to explorethe new situation of copyright protection of anonymously published works online and to examine the boundaries divid?ing the privacy rights of the anonymous authors and the copyright interests of the authors and the public.

1 The Connotation of Anonymous Works Online

1.1 System Comparison of the Anonymous Works and the Works of Unidentified Authors

Anonymous works traditionally refer to works in which the author does not sign or identify himself or in person[3].China's Copyright Law does not adopt the terminology. Article 13 of the Regulations for the Implementation of theCopyright Law uses a similar term the work of an unidentified author， the definition of which is similar to the scholasticterm orphan work， which is also translated into Chinese literally as \"unowned works\". The above-mentioned terms andrelated rules have been made all with the intention of promoting the utilization of works， but distinct in the specificpath selection in practice.

The author's right of attribution means that the author can sign or not sign the work. The only requirement for ananonymous work is that the author does not indicate his civil identity on the work. It is not a question of whether theowner of the copyright is clear， whether the identity of the copyright owner can be known to the public， or whether theutilization of the work requires the obligation to search diligently. The copyright ownership of an anonymous work mayor may not be clear in contrast to a work of an unidentified author whose authorship is unclear.

The term orphan works are derived from the U.S. Copyright Office Report on Orphan Works （2006） and refer toworks for which the copyright owners are unidentified or identified but cannot be contacted[4]. Under the prior authoriza?tion request by the Copyright Law， the use of this type of work is susceptible to infringement resulting in a large scaleof sleeping copyright， which is contrary to the legislative purpose of the Copyright Law. In order to address the issue ofauthorized use and effective dissemination without excessively harming the interests of copyright holders， differentcountries have adopted different legislative models around the user's duty to search diligently.

Some scholars believe that orphan works shall be introduced into China as unowned works because the latter canbe applied in concert with the unowned property rules in China's civil legal system， avoiding conceptual burden andconfusion[5]. The reason is that China's current legislation treats the work of the unidentified author as a type of un?owned property， which is not the same as the specific path selection of foreign orphan works system in revitalizing copy?right resources， but focusing on determining the right holder of the work. That is why Article 13 of the Regulations forthe Implementation of the Copyright Law says， \"in the case of a work of an unidentified author， the copyright， exceptthe right of authorship， shall be exercised by the owner of the original copy of the work. Where the author is identified，the copyright shall be exercised by the author or his successor\"[6]. In terms of the transfer of specific rights， it is alsosubject to the provisions of Article 19 of the Copyright Law and Article 1160 of the Civil Code. The public's inability toknow the identity of the author is only the appearance of a work of an unidentified author， behind which the copyrightholder is unknown and rights are in an unstable state. Therefore， although Article 13 of the Regulations for the Imple?mentation of the Copyright Law is roughly equivalent to orphan works in terms of definition， the former is to promotethe use of works by specifying the right holder and the latter is to promote the use of works by regulating the user. So inthis sense， it seems that the unowned work should not be defined as a conceptual equivalent of the orphan work but canbe used to refer to the work of an unidentified author in China.

1.2 The Relationship between the System of Anonymous Works and the System of Works of UnidentifiedAuthors Online

The criterion for an anonymous work is whether the civil identity of the author is clear. Anonymity means hidingachieve the effect of hiding one's civil identity. Unless the author took the initiative to claim the identity， it was diffi?cult for the public to establish an identity between the pseudonym and the identity of the author. However， in the Inter?net environment， the use of screen names is a common phenomenon under the authentication provisions of \"Back?ground legal name， foreground free will\" in rules China. Even ISPs hold the user's real-name information， they usuallydo not have the function or willingness to operate copyright. The practice of identifying pseudonyms as anonymous canno longer adapt to the reality of current developments but should comprehensively consider the degree of connectionbetween pseudonyms and authors， that is， whether they have the identity of directly pointing to the author and whetherthey can make the public be able to know the civil identity of the author.

Anonymous works in the online environment are divided into broad and narrow senses. Anonymous works in thenarrow sense of the online environment only refer to works published through the Internet in anonymous form for thefirst time， and anonymous works in a broad also include the upload of published works to the network more than beinginitially published online. Before the work is uploaded， it may be published anonymously or not. Still， after being up?loaded， the author's information turns unknown due to anonymous upload or reproduction， or usage without indicatingthe source. Unauthorized uploading， reprinting， and usage is regulated by laws such as the Copyright Law， the Regula?tion on the Protection of the Right of Communication to the Public on Information Networks， and so on. In this study，anonymous works in the narrow sense have been mainly explored based on the Internet environment， i.e.， the work pub?lished by the author himself in an anonymous form via the Internet has been discussed.

If the statute makes an institutional distinction between anonymous works and works of unidentified authors， it isnot difficult to find that although the definition of these works all related to unidentified authorship， the identity of theauthor is only the appearance of the system， in fact， it is the inability to contact that leads to the lack of authorizedchannels for the utilization of works： in the Internet environment， this can be better understood that people anonymous?ly published an article written by himself on an ISP platform， his civil identity on the public side of the online platformremains unknown， and there is no doubt that the work is anonymous to the public， but whether it is a work of unidenti?fied an author is uncertain. If the platform ISP provides communication functions such as comments or private messag?es， or even the ISP provides copyright agency services for the author， the potential users of the work are able to directlyor indirectly establish contact with the author. The work is the work of identifying an author.

However， when the online platform on which the author publishes anonymously and ISP does not provide any com?munication function， or the author has closed the communication pathway， due to the ISP is not allowed to disclose theuser's personal information from the background side to the public according to relevant service contracts as well asthe legal regulations on the protection of personal information. The anonymous work is also the work of an unidentifiedauthor. Therefore， in the Internet environment， whether the author's civil identity is known to the public is not the crite?rion to judge whether works are of identified authors or not.， but whether there exists an author's authorization channelbecomes the criterion， thus returning to the purpose of the current law： to solve the problem of promoting the use ofcopyright resources when not being able to contact the author to obtain authorization.

2 The Characteristics and Dilemmas of Anonymous Works in the Internet En?vironment

2.1 Non-Specialization of the Creative Subjects

Cultural rights and freedom of expression have long been concepts of the same category[7]. In international humanrights conventions， the freedom of cultural creation， such as freedom of expression， is also incorporated into culturalrights①. Article 47 of the Constitution of P. R. China stipulates that those citizens of P. R. China have the freedom toengage in scientific research， literary and artistic creation， and other cultural pursuits， showing that there is a conceptu?al coupling between cultural rights and freedom of expression. So literary and artistic creation is a basic right of citi?zens， a fundamental need for self-expression， and an important kind of social activity. In order to expand the scope ofdissemination of works， authors need to publish works on some media with strong communication ability so that thepublication and the distribution behaviors are closely combined to present the work to the public. In the traditionalpublishing model， influential communication media have developed into highly specialized industries; in order to en?sure their own professionalism and audience stickiness， these media need to screen off and edit the works obtained，and the author's creative level and the quality of the works determine whether the works can eventually be accepted forpublication and distribution.

The information dissemination mode online is based on technical principles and underlying logic that are com?pletely different from traditional media. Still， in fact， it provides great convenience for non-professional creators to cre?ate and publish. The publication of works no longer actually has professional requirements for creators， so it brings dif?ficulties in protection， especially for anonymous works published online， which is a huge institutional difference fromtraditional publishing. In the traditional publishing model， the selection of works by the publisher is also based on thepublisher's own taste and goodwill to endorse the quality and value of the works， so when the rights of works are in?fringed， the publishers are willing to combine with the author to become a community of interests， in order to claimrights actively on behalf of the author， where the author can maintain anonymity. The quality of works published anony?mously online is huge; if the ISP selects high-quality and high-value works to act for the author's rights protection， al?though it is in line with the commercial goal of pursuing profits， it violates the values of the principle of online userequality. Still， more importantly， the ISP is unable to practice because almost any ISP platform with visibility holds amassive number of users and works which is greater in order of magnitude compared to any traditional publishing agen?cy， undoubtedly resulting in difficulties for the ISP to protect copyrights on behalf of the authors.

2.2 Non-Profit Activism

In explaining the legitimacy of economic rights， utilitarianism is mainly adopted. Utilitarianism holds that copy?right is the right created by legislators through legislation in order to encourage socially beneficial activities-the cre?ation of works， which is not naturally enjoyed by the author when he creates works but assumes that encouraging cre?ation and dissemination can cause the result of that promoting the development and prosperity of cultural and scientificundertakings. Copyright under utilitarianism uses copyright as a policy tool， and giving authors a certain monopolyright is a low investment and high return for society as a whole. Such a setting provides a legal guarantee for the profes?sionalization of the author： the author exports the work to society， and the professional creator can obtain a stable in?come through the creation of the work. Society provides remuneration for the author， and after the expiration of thecopyright period， the work enters the public domain and becomes a public good.

However， the act of creation itself does not rely entirely on the incentive of interests but the sincere expression ofhuman nature. The Copyright Law incentivizes the distribution of the benefits of works but does not exert a targeted in?fluence on the production of works as the policy claims. Since the authors of anonymous works online cannot directlyobtain remuneration for the use of any contribution fee， the production of their works is more expressed as the needs ofthe author's self-expression. However， the fact that authors do not expect to benefit from the exploitation of works has atwo-way effect between authors and the public： anonymous works published through online platforms are more difficultfor the public to use under the existing Copyright Law system. Disseminating knowledge instead of keeping secrets orpricing in knowledge is a reward for the inventor of knowledge. Releasing anonymous works that are likely to be value?less to authors from the dilemma of not being able to be legally disseminated is protecting not only the purpose but alsothe social basis of the Copyright Law[8].

In addition， it should be mentioned that Article 8 of the Copyright Law about copyright collective management or?ganizations' main function is also to license the users of works on behalf of the right holder and to stop the infringe?ment， which is based on the practical value of the economy. Hence， it is not suitable for the copyright protection ofanonymous works online. The existing copyright collective management organizations in China are membership sys?tems. If the author wants to obtain the protection of the work， he also needs to become a member of his real civil identi?ty， which is also out of step with the current status quo of anonymous works online.

2.3 The Ease of Dissemination of Works

Works in the Internet environment are separated from tangible carriers such as paper and become information inthe form of data， so works are also disseminated in accordance with the mode of information dissemination. Informationdissemination follows the core-edge dissemination model， with the publisher as the core of information. After the pri?mary dissemination from the core to the edge， the new receiver will become a connection point， continue to forward theinformation and form the second and third. Higher levels of dissemination， thus finally an information transmission net?work formed， through which the scope of information dissemination is greatly expanded[9].

The dissemination of works that follow the mode of information dissemination will not only carry out multi-leveldissemination but also be used in this process， including adaptation into other forms of works and secondary creation.This ease of communication is a double-edged sword： from the perspective of the public， the original work is used inthe process of dissemination， which greatly promotes innovation， makes the public common good rise， and is also inline with the purpose of the Copyright Law to stimulate creation; however， from the perspective of anonymous authors，ease of dissemination means that once anonymous works are published on the online platform， they will have to facethe risk of not only the infringement of unauthorized reprinting and use but also the dissolution of self-expression sincethe anonymous works have strong characteristics arising from the author's self-expression needs and therefore cannotbe tolerated. It is also noticed that during the process of information dissemination， a composition of unidentificationmay be added to anonymous works， which is an affront to the personality of anonymous authors.

3 The Balance of Interests of Anonymous Works Online： in between the Pri?vacy Protection and the Copyright Interests

The special feature of copyright protection of anonymous works online is that the Internet gives everyone a chan?nel for self-expression so that non-professional creators can also publish their experiences， thoughts， feelings， etc.anonymously while free from being known their civil identities by others. There is no doubt that such works need to beprotected by the Copyright Law meanwhile the privacy of authors should be respected. However， under the rule of preauthorizationfor the utilization of works， the way of authorizing works is limited and even blocked， which obviously vio?lates the purpose of the Copyright Law to encourage the public to provide more works.

3.1 Shifting from the Content of the Work to the Author's Identity When Referring to the Privacy

The right to privacy was originally considered to be the right of individuals to be alone. Later， with the deepeningof cognition， the mainstream view of the right to control personal information gradually formed. There was no need tomake a strict distinction between personal information and privacy[10]. In general， privacy refers to information， personalactivities， or personal spheres that are not related to the public interest and the public domain， and the parties do notwant others to know， interfere with or invade[11]. The right to control the privacy of personal information can be subdivid?ed into the right to privacy concealment， the right to use privacy， the right to control privacy， and the right to maintainprivacy[12]. When creating， the author can add his own privacy to the content of the work， to control the degree of priva?cy involved， and can also protect the privacy beyond the public part. From the history of the copyright system， the au?thor's control over the right to publish the work is actually a way to protect the right to privacy[13].

3.1.1 The Relationship between the Content of the Work and the Privacy

The relationship between the content of works and personal privacy mainly includes the authors' privacy in un?published works， as well as the content of published works discovering the privacy of others. China's Copyright Law isconsistent with mainstream international practice， stipulating that copyright arises from the completion of the work， notthe date of registration. Therefore， in the period between the completion of the work and the time when the author exer?cises the right of publication， the author actually enjoys two rights in respect of the work， one is the copyright of thework， and the other is the right to privacy probably existing in the content. For example， in the Zhongshu Qian's LettersCase② ， Mr. Zhongshu Qian， Mrs. Jiang Yang， and their daughter Ms. Yuan Qian who have been friends of Mr. GuoqiangLi. The Qian family has sent Li more than 100 personal letters which were kept by the latter. In May 2013， a companyannounced that it would publicly auction the above-mentioned letters and held preview activities and theme seminarsbefore the auction， where it published a number of photo shots of letters detailing some of the manuscripts. This causedMrs. Yang strong dissatisfaction， believing that the company and relevant personnel who disclosed private letters hadconstituted an infringement of the copyright and privacy of members of the Qian family③.

In this case， Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court， on the one hand， has recognized that the letters all met therequirements of originality of the works and were protected by the Copyright Law; on the other hand， it ruled that thedefendant's company and Li had shown， provided， and allowed the network to disseminate the relevant private contentscontained in the private letters of the Qian family to the Internet without permission， constituting an infringement of theprivacy rights （interests）， and should bear the responsibility of stopping the infringement and making a formal apologyand compensation. It can be concluded that when the author exercises the right of publication， the public can accessthe work， and it is difficult for the author to claim his right to privacy in the content of the work. Still， there is a clearpossibility of conflict between the content of the work and the privacy of others. When exercising the right of publica?tion， it can only waive the privacy of the author himself， and the privacy of others involved in the content of the workmay still constitute infringement without the permission of the parties.

3.1.2 The Conflict between the Protection of Works and the Privacy of Users Online

After entering the Internet environment， the Internet's strong communication ability reduces the cost of copyrightinfringement， and the infringement becomes more hidden and difficult to detect. Some scholars have proposed the intro?duction of copyright filtering techniques trying to solve the problem of copyright infringement online. Under new tech?nology and market conditions facing the heavy pressure of online piracy， it is a reasonable choice for Copyright Law torequire information storage and publishing service providers to adopt copyright content filtering techniques to preventdirect infringement by users[14]. However， at the same time， some scholars pointed out that copyright content filters willdamage the basic rights and interests of users， endanger freedom of speech， and improperly use users' personal infor?mation and privacy[15]. In the Scarlet Extended SA v. SABAM Case， the Court of Justice of the European Union （CJEU）pointed out that the filtering system will identify the user's electronic communication and the documents claiming intel?lectual property rights， then identify the documents that are not legally shared， and block the documents determined il?legal. This monitoring system requires the ISP to monitor all electronic communications and all the user's data， then an?alyze the content， and collects and identifies the network protocol address of the user sending illegal content， whichcan accurately identify the user④.

As a result， the focus on copyright and privacy protection has shifted from the privacy issues involved in the con?tent of works to the conflict between the protection of works and the privacy protection of online users. The protectionof personal control over privacy interests by law is limited， and the boundaries are not clear. According to the CoaseTheorem， in the event of a conflict of rights， the law should allocate rights to avoid more serious damages and allocaterights as much as possible to produce a more common good[16]. Therefore， in the context of the conflict between thecopyright and privacy protection of anonymous works online， the privacy of the author carried by the unpublished work，in addition to considering the traditional statement of the privacy of the author in the content of the work， people mustalso consider the importance of the anonymity of the author， or so-called the privacy of the author's own civil identity.In 2015， the State Internet Information Office of China issued the Provisions on the Administration of Account Namesof Internet Users. Article 5 stipulates that Internet information service providers shall， under the principle of \"registra?tion of legal names of users in background programs and use of legal names as screen names of a user's free will in fore?ground programs\"， require Internet information service users to register accounts after validation of their true identityinformation. After the promulgation of the regulations， China's Internet environment has entered the era of absolute re?al-name.

\"Background legal name， foreground free will\" means that the foreground facing the general public can be anony?mous， and the background for the network platform is non-anonymous. From a regulatory point of view， online plat?forms and government can obtain the real identity information of each network user[17]. At the same time， the authoriza?tion of network users to the platform includes two aspects， firstly the ISP can obtain the user information， and secondly，the ISP may disclose the user information to other users. The first type of information authorization is based on theneeds of platform operation and data use， as well as judicial and national network security requirements， and the con?tent is relatively fixed; The second type of information authorization gives users more autonomy， i.e.， users can chooseto disclose or disopen information content. The author himself is also a network user， and when introducing the copy?right filtering mechanism， the author is constrained by the user's privacy protection. Privacy protection requires not on?ly internally that the relevant technical measures of the ISP cannot obtain the privacy of the author at will but also to re?main anonymous to the external.

Modern law recognizes the domination of an individual over his or her body， personality， dwelling， and propertywhile at the same time the negative obligation of others not to infringe upon him. The physical nature of the actual pub?lic space itself， that is， combined with a particular place， the boundaries between public and private are relativelyclear， and under this legal system， the protection of the private sphere can be achieved only by external intervention toprevent others. But in the online environment， such physical boundaries are eliminated， all the actions of users are re?corded digitally， posing great challenges to privacy protection， and open public spaces and ever-expanding socialspheres make individual autonomy almost nonexistent[18]. This private sphere， which is physically separate from thecommons， becomes difficult to achieve. The anonymity of the individual acquires unprecedented importance in the or?der of society. The guarantee of anonymity can isolate oneself into an imaginary space， making it possible for an indi?vidual to maintain a private sphere under his own control. Hence， anonymity exists as a new dividing line between thepublic and private spheres.

3.2 The Expansion of the Public Interest in the Copyright Law

Interests are the most direct embodiment of rights and the most substantive factors behind the law[19]. In the caseof anonymous authors online， anonymously published works should enjoy benefits in terms of both work and privacy， re?spectively. On the one hand， the interests enjoyed by the author of the work are expressed as a monopoly right on thework stopping unauthorized use and obtaining property benefits while fulfilling own expressed needs. On the otherhand， authors can protect their privacy by not disclosing their civil identities. The idea of consideration is derived fromthe social contract theory， which is an important principle in Anglo-American contract law. The study of considerationin the field of intellectual property began with constitutional arguments against Digital Millennium Copyright Act（DMCA）[20]. Consideration theory holds that there is a certain exchange between the public and the copyright holder.Consideration means a mutual promise， which is a compromise between public interests and private interests in the sys?tem of the Copyright Law， embodied as a promise between the public and the copyright holder， and is a dynamic bal?ance between public interests and private interests. From the perspective of public interests， what the public can obtainis to obtain knowledge and information through works to meet their own spiritual needs or to recreate works. The bene?fit of obtaining work includes both gratuitous uses at the end of the term of protection and paid use during the term ofprotection. It is acceptable for the public to acquire works on paid terms， but the author's anonymity has hindered theauthorization path while the public's demand for works cannot be met. However， if the author does not use the workduring the protection period， nor does he allow others to use it， so that the public's access to the work during this peri?od is limited or even impossible to obtain the work， does this infringe on the public interest？ With the development ofthe copyright system， the increase in public benefits brought by merely stipulating the entry of work into the public do?main after the expiration of the term of protection is obviously no longer sufficient to meet the requirements of consider?ation， compared with the expansion of personal interests brought by the increasingly long term of protection. Thus， thecopyright system began to seek encouragement for the dissemination of works[21]， and let the public use or contact moreworks during the protection period， and create more works through secondary creation and adaptation. From the pointof view of consideration theory， the publication and dissemination of the work allowing the public to access is the con?sideration for the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Acts that hinder the dissemination of works by copyright hold?ers， such as preventing anyone from using works， including anonymous authors obstructing the use of anonymous workson the grounds of privacy protection， may run counter to the purpose of the Copyright Law.

In the context of the balance of interests， priority should be given to meeting the needs of the public without exces?sively harming the interests of authors. The purpose of the Copyright Law is to encourage the creation and dissemina?tion of works. Under the relationship of consideration， the channels for the dissemination of works should not be artifi?cially obstructed. At the same time， the privacy protection needs of authors should be respected， and the protection ofauthors' privacy can be achieved through manipulating information authorization on the network platforms. Authorsare allowed to protect their privacy to the extent possible. Still， they shall provide channels for communication withpotential users through online platforms to avoid their works becoming unusable or difficult to spread.

4 Realization of a Balance of Interests

4.1 Improve the Way of Authorizing Works Online

The existing methods of authorizing works are mainly collective management of copyright， centralized authoriza?tion， and decentralized authorization. The copyright collective management organization is the only institution in Chinathat is directly defined by law and manages the works of the copyright owner， which has both trust and administrativecolors and is the most direct and effective way to commercialize and utilize the works. However， due to the excessiveadministrativeization of China's copyright collective management organizations， the scale and commercial operationare limited. Centralized authorization means that the user inquiries about the status of rights of various works and theinformation of the right holder through the online trading platform and obtains authorization according to the way ofrights and licenses provided[22]. Similarities shared by the centralized authorization and the collective copyright manage?ment， and in the current Internet environment， centralized authorization is more inclined to complete market transac?tions， realized through commercialized intermediaries.

Compared with the one-to-many model of centralized authorization， the one-to-one model of centralized authori?zation is more in line with online anonymous works. In the early days， the way of authorizing works was mainly decen?tralized. Later， with the increase in the number of works and the need to facilitate authors to authorization， copyrightcollective management organizations and centralized licensing trading platforms began to appear. Given the character?istics of anonymous works and the technical conditions of online platforms， the use of decentralized authorization canboth fully respect anonymous authors and give the work the possibility of dissemination and use. The fact that the ISPcan obtain the real civil identities of all users does not mean that it can directly provide relevant information about theauthors to potential users of the work. At the same time， it can add a work authorization channel between anonymousauthors and audiences so that potential users can directly apply for authorization， which not only protects the privacy ofauthors but also facilitates the dissemination of works.

4.2 Complete Legal Systems for the Protection of Anonymous Works

The protection of anonymous works online needs to clarify the systems of unowned works， orphan works， andworks of unidentified authors in the Copyright Law and improve the legislation on anonymous works. First， the authordoes not exercise the right of attribution for the time being， and works published in anonymous form enjoy the same pro?tection as ordinary works. The author can indicate his identity and copyright at any time. Secondly， when the platformfor publishing works is clear and the source is clear， anonymous works are protected in the same way as ordinaryworks， and the relevant provisions on unowned works should not be applied. Thirdly， when the publication platform ofworks is clear， the source is clear， and the technical conditions for applying for authorization are met， it is appropriateto adhere to the rule of pre-authorization， and no rules of orphan works shall be applied. Finally， when the platform forpublication of the work is not clear， the source is not clear， or the author does not provide a contact channel， in order toencourage the dissemination of the work， the rules of orphan works can be applied conditionally.

From a legislative point of view， the complete system of anonymous works begins with the provisions on the rightof attribution. China has clearly stipulated the right of attribution in the Copyright Law. The system of unowned workshas a problem in that the moral rights and economic rights are not well separated， and the attribution of the uninheritedworks to the state is also not conducive to the dissemination or use of the work. It is recommended to adopt the publicdomain theory that moral rights other than the right of attribution are owned by the state. In contrast， economic rightsare classified in the public domain and can be used by the public free of charge. It is also recommended to introducethe orphan works system， referring to the life cycle of network users and online platforms， adopt a limited liability mod?el for works that could not contact the author for more than a certain period of time， and limit the liability of the infring?er who has done the best to find the author.

When anonymous authors protect their rights， they can use different channels according to different demands. Theauthor's appeal is only to stop the infringement. Under the premise of maintaining the confidentiality of the anonymousauthor's identity， the judicial channels are complicated and are not conducive to the author's rights protection. The ISPcan accept applications through technical measures and promptly filter the infringement on the platform. Such filteringby the ISP is not only a right but also an obligation. When the author has a claim that is not just limited to stopping theinfringement but also includes compensation etc.， it is necessary to defend the rights through a lawsuit in his real nameand civil identity.

5 Conclusion

The online environment facilitates the anonymity of the creation， publication， and dissemination of works. In con?trast， anonymity increases the cost of obtaining copyright licenses for potential users， thereby hindering legitimate pub?lic access to works. The existing copyright system does not solve the contradiction between the protection and exploita?tion of anonymous works. From the perspective of creators of anonymous works， anonymous works in the network envi?ronment are often created by non-professional creators. From the perspective of creative behavior， it is more in linewith the purpose of creating to express oneself than just making a profit. An in-depth breakdown of the author's priva?cy appeal shows that the purpose of the author's anonymity is to protect the real identity from the public， so as long asthe work can be authorized and disseminated without revealing the author's identity， the balance between the author'sinterests and the public interest can be achieved. The existing network service providers can provide potential usersand authors with authorization channels that do not show their civil identities.

References：

[1] ZHENG C S. Copyright law[M]. Beijing： China Renmin University Press， 2009： 5.

[2] WANG Q. Copyright law[M]. Beijing： China Renmin University Press， 2015： 4.

[3] WU H D. Intellectual property law[M]. Beijing： Law Press， 2017.

[4] WANG Q. A brief introduction to the design of the \"orphan works\" system[J]. China Copyright， 2013（1）： 30-33.

[5] XIAO S Q. The path selection and institutional construction of copyright protection of unowned works in China[J].Political Science and Law， 2016（8）： 112-125.

[6] LIU T G. The dual structure of the copyright subject and its rights allocation： comment on the subject systemamended by the Copyright Law in 2020[J]. Intellectual Property， 2021（8）： 75-85.

[7] SHEN S W. The logic of cultural constitution[J]. Legal Forum， 2016， 31（4）： 45-52.

[8] LI C. Criticism of the basic theory of copyright[M]. Beijng： Intellectual Property Publishing House， 2013

[9] DAI Y M. An interpretation of the we media from the perspective of communication studies[J]. Journalism amp; Com?munication， 2011， 18（5）： 4-109.

[10] WANG L M. Legal protection of personal information： centered on the line between personal information and pri?vacy[J]. Modern Law Science， 2013， 35（4）： 62-72.

[11] WANG L M. A new theory of personality rights law[M]. Chanchun： Jilin People's Press， 1994.

[12] YANG L X. Personality rights law[M]. Beijing： Law Press， 2011.

[13] JING H J. On the property rights， copyrights and privacy rights in letters and their interrelationships： starting fromthe \"qian zhongshu letter auction case\"[J]. Law Science， 2013（10）： 64-73.

[14] CUI G B. On the copyright content filtration obligation of cyber service providers[J]. China Legal Science， 2017（2）：215-237.

[15] TAN Y. General filtering obligations of online content sharing service providers： base on EU directive on copyrightin the digital singles market[J]. Intellectual Property， 2019（6）： 66-80

[16] ZHU X R. Copyright content filtering measures and user privacy conflicts and balances[J]. Intellectual Property，2020（10）： 64-76.

[17] QI E P.Game between real-name policy and private rights protection[J].Law Science Magazine，2013，34（7）：60-67.

[18] LAO D Y. Fundamental goal and imputation mechanism of the personal information protection law system[J]. Tri?bune of Political Science and Law， 2021， 39（06）： 3-17.

[19] FENG X Q. The balance of interests theory in intellectual property law[M]. Beijing： China University of PoliticalScience and Law Press， 2006.

[20] XU X. On the theoretical framework of consideration in intellectual property rights-the intellectual property lawprovides condition for the drive mechanism of the human common knowledge activity[J]. Nanjing University LawJournal， 2009（1）： 89-104.

[21] MA Z G， ZHAO L. Value conflict： the decline of public domain theory and the limits of copyright expansion pro?tection[J]. Shandong Social Sciences， 2020（10）： 134-182.

[22] HUA Y. Research on legal system of digital publishing copyright protection[M]. Beijing： China Science Publishingand Media， 2018.