著作技術保護措施之互通性之法律研究

Legal Study on Interoperability of Technological Protection Measures of Copyrighted Works

著作權利人為遏止猖獗的網路侵權活動，於國際與各國立法遊說制訂關於技術保護措施（TPM）之法律保護（即反規避條款），影響著作權法利益衡平之立法目的，除可能創造任由權利人主宰控制著作接觸之「超著作權」（paracopyright）外，也因TPM在技術上引發互通性問題。互通性的概念在法律上可定義為「一種交換資訊與相互利用所交換資訊之能力」，但有效保護著作的TPM具有秘密性特徵，本質上即與互通性的開放要求相衝突，如今以反規避條款禁止破解TPM，不啻加劇此一衝突，反而導致著作難以流通之障礙，立法設計上必須從各方面減少或調和TPM與反規避條款之負面影響。本文分析不同規範強度的反規避立法後，認為保護越嚴格的反規避條款，必須處理越多的負面影響，藉由分析法國、臺灣、美國與日本法制設計，可知透過著作權法既有規範自助達成互通性之方式各有差別。此外，法國、美國案例發展亦說明了TPM互通性需求者可主張競爭法、契約法（消費者保護），以「非正規」（著作權法以外）方式促進消弭TPM對於市場利益的不當壟斷，並維護消費者利益。

Interoperability, a technological term, can be legally defined, by the EU “computer programs” Directive (91/250/EEC), as the “ability to exchange information and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged”. At the implementation of technological protection measures (TPM) on copyrighted works, interoperability requires an accessibility of those digital works through any available accessing device in the market. However, the interoperability is not easy to be acquired in the industry. A conflict can be found in the “secret/ locked” purpose of TPM and the “open” purpose of its interoperability: TPM aiming more effective protection is likely to prevent the stakeholders who need the system’s interoperability from accessing source code of their TPM interface. Furthermore, the recent legislations of anti-circumvention clauses (prohibiting the circumvention of TPM) have sharpened the conflict to the extent that normal activities pursuing the interoperability would be banned by such clauses. The abuse of TPM de facto and of anti-circumvention clauses de jure also generates anti-competitive effects. Several legal solutions to obtain the interoperability of TPM may be possible. This study analyzes and distinguishes them into two groups. The first group refers to the self-help interoperability (chapter 2): the de-compilation or reverse engineering of a computer program, permitted by the copyright law as “fair use”, by which the user can use by itself to access to the source code of TPM, without any legal intervention. The second group consists in the procurement by public intervention (chapter 3). Solutions in the angle of competition law and consumer protection law may mitigate the anti-competitive effect of TPM. It is worth notice that the new French author’s right law (codified in the CPI and with its amendments of 2006 & 2009) introduced, for the first time in the world, a system of interoperability regulation by granting a “right to interoperability”.