數位資產繼承之法律爭議研究

數位資產之性質與定義為何，隨著科技進步，其範圍與類型亦快速變化中，數位資產之使用與一般人生活息息相關，有些具有高度經濟價值，甚至，有些已成為個人識別化的表徵而具人格權特質，當數位資產之帳號持有人死亡後，是否可以將其當成一般財產權標的加以繼承，我國目前並無相對應的完整法制可以解決此一問題。本文介紹美國對於數位資產之法制發展，數位資產為帳號持有人財產，得以生前以信託法理等方式指定，將數位資產（狹義而言僅指電子通訊類型數位資產）透過受指定人，繼續加以管理使用該數位資產，並分析其利弊得失以及從中獲得的啟發，作為我國將來立法借鏡。由於美國法只處理帳號持有人生前透過指定方式，對於其死後數位資產的管理加以規範，在欠缺生前指定場合，則預設回歸契約自由原則依照網路規約加以處理，此使得網路業者成為唯一保管者，而德國則基於概括繼承以及利益權衡原則，在個案中認為死者之繼承人，可以對網路業者主張完全接近使用死者之網路帳號。
有關數位資產規劃所引起之爭議很多，其中以網站平台使用規約對於數位資產之移轉限制爭議最大，起因在於基於契約自由原則之下，每一家公司的使用規約限制寬嚴未盡相同，當被繼承人死亡時，繼承人是否可以直接依照繼承法的規定對該數位資產主張繼承，此涉及對數位資產之定性問題，在我國，其究竟是否屬於民法第1148條的財產上權利而被繼承，或者是屬於但書專屬於被繼承人本身之權利而不得繼承，值得探討。而且，基於數位資產的隱密特性，網路業者以保護當事人隱私權為由，拒絕提供相關登入資訊給繼承人，在程序與實質正當性要求下，是否有當事人適格，皆是將來當被繼承人死亡時，在被繼承人、繼承人與網路業者三方間權利義務的調合上，有待透過具體清楚的法制規範，始可杜絕日後紛爭。

This study intends to explore how laws to resolve the disputes over digital inheritance, by referring to the experience in other jurisdictions, such as the U.S. and Germany. The internet and computers facilitate nearly every aspect of the personal lives. The use of online accounts has created a new asset known as“digital assets”, including an individual's email accounts, personal webpages, blogs, social networking sites, documents, videos, or photo storage sites. Technological innovations will most likely expand this list in the future, and digital assets are becoming more economically valuable.
However, through private contracts, internet service providers determine if an asset is descendible and how it is distributed without direction from an account holder. Normally, by agreeing to use the service, account holders bind themselves to the contractual terms and policies of the service provider. Service providers are free to change or update their policies regarding whether the assets are descendible at any time. Therefore, some digital assets are subject to deletion upon the death of an account holder. If nothing is changed, digital assets of all kinds will be lost to future generations.
Based on the secrecy of digital assets, the internet service providers refuse to provide relevant login information to the heirs on the grounds of protecting the privacy of the parties, and whether it is justified under the requirements of substantive rights or due process is that when the decedent dies in the future, in the reconciliation of the rights and obligations of the decedent, the heirs and the internet service providers, it is necessary to resolve possible disputes through specific and clear legal development.
Finally, the main issues relevant to the dilemma between privacy policy and succession law, will be reviewed to see whether there are lessons that Taiwan can learn draw on.