网络流媒体时代，表演的呈现方式与表演的录制技术、传播技术等一不断更迭与普及，这对表演者权利制度提出了诸多挑战。虚拟现实技术下“表演”的界定，网络直播表演中“表演者”的判断，以及表演者权利范围的界定等问题，都亟需表演者权制度做出回应。鉴于我国表演者权制度主要由相关国际公约推动，且尚存不少制度空白，而通过法解释路径的已有研究依旧难以解决这些新出现的问题，本文尝试从“表演者”“表演”和“表演者权利”的相关制度变迁着眼，透过相关国际公约的发展与实施过程，对作者权体系与版权体系进行比较法考察，以探究表演者权制度的产生及扩张与技术进步、媒介变迁、产业发展之间的关系，试图揭示表演者范围及其权利的扩张趋势与规律，进而为表演者权制度对新技术的回应提供部分启示及理论支撑。录制技术激发了表演者寻求除合同法之外的法律保护措施，表演者的权利诉求表现出与作品和版权的相关性。表演者保护被置于邻接权制度之内，通过《罗马公约》在国际层面确立而后在国内法中推行。表演者权利在国际公约中的扩张，反映出表演的权利诉求与技术发展的关系，以及各缔约国及相关利益主体之间的博弈与利益平衡。首先，相关国际条约中“表演者”范围不断扩张的现象，以及自表演者制度产生至今“表演”与“作品”之间仍未厘清的关系，指引着本文重新审视邻接权保护下“表演”的内涵与外延。本文认为，作为一种交流方式，表演可以成为作品以及作品之外，但与作品存在共性的信息的表达媒介，表演不以具有独创性为保护标准，因此表演者权制度在保护文化传承、承认特定表演劳动及保障相关投资方面能够发挥其制度功能。其次，对于表演者在现场表演中的权利随着无线广播、卫星广播、有线电视与网络广播技术的发展而不断扩张。该项权利控制的是“向表演发生时不在现场的观众传播表演”的行为，按此扩张趋势，表演者“向公众传播其现场表演”的权利应延及网络实时传播行为。最后，有关国际公约对于录音制品中表演的保护、视听表演的保护，充分体现出以欧美国家为主的国家之间以及相关利益主体之间的博弈。在视听表演保护问题上，欧美制度的差异主要是视听产业发展差异所致，但考虑到表演者个体在合同谈判中议价能力弱的现实，欧美都在制度层面上做了相应考虑。结合我国现状，欧盟授予表演者“基于权利转让不可放弃的获得合理报酬的权利”可为我国著作权法所借鉴。

In the era of online streaming media, the presentation of performances is constantly evolving and popularizing along with the recording and transmission technologies, which poses many challenges to performers’ rights systems. Issues such as the definition of "performance" under virtual reality technology, the determination of "performers" in live streaming, and the definition of performers’ rights scope all require a response from the current legal system. Given that China‘s performer rights system is mainly driven by relevant international conventions, and there are still many institutional gaps, and existing studies through legal interpretation paths is still unable to solve these newly emerging issues, this article attempts to explore the emergence and expansion of performer rights systems and the relationship between technological progress, media changes, and industry development by focusing on the relevant institutional changes of "performers" "performances" and "performers’ rights" and conducting a comparative legal examination of the author rights system and copyright system through the development and implementation process of relevant international conventions, in an effort to reveal the expansion trend and rules of performer scope and their rights and provide some inspiration and theoretical support for the response of performer rights systems to new technologies.Recording technology has prompted performers to seek legal protection measures beyond contract law, and their rights claims show a correlation with works and copyright. Performers’ protection has been placed under the neighboring rights system, which was established internationally through the Rome Convention and later promoted in domestic law. The expansion of performer rights in international conventions reflects the relationship between the rights claims of performances and technological development, as well as the games and balance of interests between contracting parties and relevant interest parties. Firstly, the phenomenon of the continuous expansion of the "performer" scope in relevant international treaties, and the relationship between "performances" and "works" that has yet to be clarified since the inception of the performer system, guides this article to re-examine the connotation and extension of "performances" protected by neighboring rights. This article believes that as a means of communication, performances can be both works and information expression media that share commonalities with works. Performances are not protected based on originality standards, so performers’ rights systems can play their institutional functions in protecting cultural heritage, recognizing specific performance labor, and safeguarding relevant investors. Secondly, the rights of performers in live performances have expanded continuously with the development of wireless broadcasting, satellite broadcasting, cable television, and webcasting. This right controls the act of "broadcasting performances to audiences who are not present at the performance," and following this expansion trend, the right of performers to "broadcast and communicate to the public of their unfixed performances " should extend to real-time online broadcasting behavior. Finally, the protection of performances in phonograms and the protection of audiovisual performances in international conventions fully reflects the games between countries, mainly European countries and the United States, and relevant interest parties. The differences in European and American systems on audiovisual performance protection are mainly due to differences in the development of audiovisual industries, but considering the reality that performers have weak bargaining power in contract negotiations, both Europe and the United States have made corresponding arrangements at the institutional level. Considering China’s current situation, the EU’s granting of performers the "unwaivable right to equitable remuneration" based on rights transfer can serve as a reference for China‘s copyright law.