封鎖外國侵權網站得否為著作權人的救濟手段－－從歐洲法院2014年UPC案判決反思

GRANTING A WEBSITE-BLOCKING INJUNCTION AS A RELIEF FOR COPYRIGHT OWNERS－WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE 2014 UPC DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

歐洲法院於2014年3月27日做出UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH案，認為法院得核發禁制令以命令網路服務提供者（ISP業者）阻擋其使用者連結具侵害著作權之內容物之網站。UPC案與歐洲聯盟之《資訊社會中著作權與相關權利之調和指令》第8條第3項之適用有關，該項規定各會員國必須讓權利人得對ISP業者提出禁制令，以防止侵權行為。在UPC案判決中，歐洲法院以基本權利權衡、營業自由之權、網路使用者之資訊自由權、和智慧財產權之保護等四個層次來闡述合乎第8條第3項意旨的封網禁制令。根據UPC案判決，ISP業者只須採取合理的封網手段即可，不須要採取最有效的封網手段。此外，網路使用者接觸合法內容物的權利必須要被保障。本文認為我國法院若要引入UPC案判決做為法理，必須將准許封網禁制令的理由和限制一併引進。在具體個案審查時，應平衡權利人、ISP業者和網路使用者三方的權利。

On March 27, 2014, the European Court of Justice issued UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH which grants an injunction which requires an Internet service provider to block a website that makes unauthorized works available to the public. The UPC decision relates to the application of Article 8, Paragraph 3 of the Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Under Article 8, Paragraph 3, member states should permit an injunction against ISPs to stop infringing activities. In UPC, the European Court of Justice discussed a proper injunction that complies with Article 8, Paragraph 3 and based its conclusion on four concerns, such as the balance between fundamental rights, freedom to conduct business, Internet users’ freedom to receive information, and protection of intellectual property. According to UPC, Article 8, Paragraph 3 only requires an ISP to take a reasonable measure instead of a measure that completely stops infringement. Additionally, users’ rights must be taken into consideration. This article argues that if courts want to follow UPC, they must absorb reasons for a website-blocking injunction and limitations thereof. When applying to a case, court should balance the interests of copyright owners, ISPs, and Internet users.