無載體提供著作內容模式與權利耗盡原則

Copyrighted Work in Digital Form and Exhaustion Doctrine

權利耗盡原則之目的在於處理著作權與所有權衝突之問題，而我國著作權法之權利耗盡原則係以所有權移轉為適用之要件，然數位化科技迅速發展後，著作內容的提供方式不再僅限於以有體物為載體，而可能透過網路傳輸方式提供，由利用人自行下載於自己之電腦等儲存設備中，近期則更發展出雲端科技，利用人可將其購買之著作內容儲存於雲端中，此等新型交易態樣固然使利用人能更方便利用著作內容，但由於欠缺有體物作為著作內容之載體，交易過程中即不存在所有權移轉之法律關係，而無法直接適用過去有體物時代發展出來之權利耗盡原則，因此，此類以數位化方式提供著作內容之新型交易模式是否適用權利耗盡原則，以及權利耗盡原則應如何調整，均產生相當多的爭議。歐盟法院於 2012 年針對電腦程式著作作出 UsedSoft 判決，肯認權利耗盡原則亦適用於無載體提供著作模式；德國 Hamm 高等法院則於 2014 年作出 Hörbuch-AGB 判決，認為電子書不適用權利耗盡原則。有鑑於此二則判決之見解不同，本文將以此為出發點，呈現判決中之相關論述與二則判決之歧異處，再依此探究權利耗盡原則是否適用於無載體提供著作模式。

Article 59-1 and Article 60 of Copyright Act are the Regulations about the Exhaustion Doctrine which is to solve the conflict between Copyright and Ownership. Hence, transfer of ownership of the original or the copy is the important condition of the Exhaustion Doctrine. The development in the digital area is a big challenge for the Exhaustion Doctrine. The copyright holder can offer a copyrighted work in internet and let users download it in their equipment such as computer. Recently the users can also store works in the cloud. It is convenient for users to get the copyrighted works and enjoy them. On the other hand, in this process there is no material copy to transfer. That is the reason for the dispute in many countries whether the Exhaustion Doctrine is applied for these new business models. In 2012 the European court made a judgement called “UsedSoft” to apply the Exhaustion Doctrine for resale of digitized copy. But in 2014 the Germany court made a judgement called “Hörbuch-AGB” with the opposite opinion. According to the different results this article will discuss the implement of the Exhaustion Doctrine for the online works in regard of different business models and different types of works.