著作權法網路服務提供者侵權責任限制之研究

系所名稱：法律學研究所
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：99年
指導教授：蔡明誠
網路科技的發展激化科技、文化發展與保護著作權利益的矛盾。我國於民國98年增訂著作權法第六章之一網路服務提供者民事免責事由，以劃定界線，控制網路服務提供者在經營過程中可能面臨的著作權間接侵權責任之風險。然而在我國著作權間接侵權責任法制不備、實務見解不全之前，即以免責事由繩之，不難想見未來在解釋和適用上，將遭遇諸多問題。此為本文探討之主題。
本文於第二章先從傳統著作權理論討論「著作權」、「著作權法」究竟為何？接著自歷史的沿革觀察著作權法的演變，尤其著作權面臨科技的變革時，著作權法如何調整、因應。在此本文觀察到著作權法揭示著幾種不同層面的對抗關係，在這些對抗關係之中，著作權法變化的幅度均未超越界定權利－合理使用這一條界線。如此一來免責事由的制定是否具備合理性？本文認為網路科技改變了散布和重製的本質，則著作權法需以「質變」因應之，如將免責事由作為一政策性規定，則尚稱合理。
接著，自第三章開始，本文探討美國早期（即千禧年數位著作權法制定之前）實務見解的演變，並介紹千禧年數位著作權法中第512條關於網路服務提供者免責事由之規定，以及當代學者的批評。於第四章繼續探討千禧年數位著作權法制定後，法院如何處理網路服務提供者間接侵權責任及免責事由於個案中的解釋適用。法院漸次透過文字解釋，擴張免責事由的空間，甚至超越立法者的原意。
第五章則以美國實務見解之結果來解釋我國法未來可能於訴訟中面臨的文字攻防時，法院應採取何種解釋方向，在我國法制環境下，在解釋上需注意哪些問題？配合本國與外國學者對本法之觀察，本文一一針對要件說明。最後，由於我國間接侵權責任法制不備，引進美國法時則有部分規定造成矛盾，此等矛盾是否有違我國法制，應如何修正？

The development of Internet technology stimulates the conflicts between the progress of science and culture, and protection of the interests of copyright. In 2009, Copyright Law was amended Chapter VI -1, ”Limitations on Liability for Internet Service Providers”, to demarcate boundaries, controlling the risk of indirect infringement liability which the internet service provider may face. However, owing to the indirect copyright infringement which results from the incomplete legal system and lacks of cases or judgments in Taiwan, it is easy to anticipate that the application and explanation related this issue would face problems and challenges in the future. This is the theme of this paper. In chapter II this thesis discussed the theory of copyright, what is "copyright" and "Copyright Law"? Then it mentioned the observation of the process of evolution in copyright law from history, especially when copyright faced with changes in technology, how did copyright adjust and cope? This thesis discovered that copyright law revealed confrontations among different levels, however, in these confrontations , the magnitude of changes in copyright law were not beyond the line of definite rights – fair use. Thus is “Limitations on Liability for Internet Service Providers” reasonable? This thesis argued that the Internet technology has changed the nature of distribution and reproduce, so the copyright law will need to "qualitative change" in response to technology. Hence if we treat the rule of “Limitations on Liability” as a policy requirement, it is still known as reasonable.In chapter III, this thesis began the case study from judgement of United States before 1998, then introduced the DMCA Section 512, and criticism from contemporary scholars. In chapter IV, I futher explored that the courts how to deal with the explanation of section 512 applied to each case. In sum, the courts extended the space of limitation of liability through explaining the text of section 512, even beyond the original intent of the legislators.In chapter V, this thesis placed the judiciary opinion of United States in our Copyright Act to deal with the controversies we may face in the litigation. In our legal environment, should the courts explain the text of Chapter VI in our Copyright Act? This thesis contrasted the observation of domestic and foreign scholars, discussing the elements of limitation of liability.Finally, because our legal system is incomplete in the structure of indirect infringement liability, the introduction of DMCA would make some conflicts, are such conflicts are contrary to our legal system? how to amend?