數位時代著作權刑法的挑戰與因應

The Challenge and Reaction of Copyright Criminal Law in the Digital Age

系所名稱：法律研究所 學位別：博士 畢業學年：96年 指導教授：林東茂 由於重製行為的簡易性與普及化，著作權人的控制力也逐漸減弱，科技所帶來的威脅，相應產生了新的著作保護技術，例如加密，然而，新技術固然限制了「使用」，卻總也有更新的技術得以突破此一限制，例如解密；結果是，保護與規避之間，成了惡夢般的輪迴；至於提供網路服務平台的業者，由於介面的不可或缺，亦屢屢成為挨告的對象。值此數位科技蓬勃發展的時代，法律規範如何回應？針對網路環境下的著作權，又該如何予以保護，自成為重要課題。同時，網路著作權侵害不僅與科技發展關係密切，更往往超越國境，對於現行的立法、司法體系產生衝擊。擺盪在數位化與犯罪化之間，刑事政策上如何抉擇？刑法上的犯罪類型目錄，能否圓滿解釋與回應？我國與外國對於相關的著作權侵害犯罪有何發展？政府在這當口，應否管制？如何管制？我國著作權法面對數位化環境的挑戰，先是「科技保護措施」條款於2004 年8月經立院三讀通過，並更名為防盜拷措施（第80 條之2）。隨後，立法院更於2007年6 月修正著作權法，於第87 條第1 項第7 款與同條第2 項增加了「視為侵害著作權」的新類型，正式將P2P 與網路服務業者的侵權問題明文化。本篇論文主要處理的是，著作權面臨數位時代衝擊下的刑事立法，所可能衍生的疑義，架構上始終緊扣數位著作權的相關議題，尤其是與刑法保護相關的措施，也因此，圍繞著科技保護措施與點對點傳輸兩大討論主軸。首先，各國著作權法中，關於科技保護措施產生了奇怪的結果—禁止有權複製者解密。從刑法解釋論而言，對科技措施或著作權人的控制權予此極端的刑罰前置保護，以預備行為保護財產法益，價值判斷上，確有失衡的疑慮，遑論其在告訴乃論的要求下，不僅找不到被害人，更由於著作權法第91 條的刑度最輕為三年以上，而依第96 條之1 規定，第80 條之2 第2 項的刑責為一年以下，如此豈不反過來確認「製造、輸入、提供」是最輕微的幫助行為類型？次者，對於個人侵害著作權的使用行為發動刑罰，相應於智慧財產權鼓勵發明、創作與促進文化的權利存在目的，不僅是一種諷刺，更非保護著作權人利益的有效方法，遑論以此達成政策的目標。而刑法在這個領域中是否根本能做出什麼？我認為，數位時代的著作權法應在法律規範、科技創新與保護、適當的權利人補償方數位時代著作權刑法的挑戰與因應案間尋求平衡點，所考量者，不外乎商業上的可行性、終端使用者的選擇代價與社會公益的確保。在此階段，較好的作法，應是避免使用刑法規範強行介入或執行廣泛立法以控制數位著作在網路上的使用與移轉，而是讓市場本身，去達成權利人和終端使用者間的內部利益和諧。同時，我國著作權法草案第51 條之1，參考德國對於「硬體」業者「強制授權的補償金」制度，亦不可採。再者，第五章介紹了以美國為主的網路服務業者責任架構後，認為士林地院對ezPeer 案的判決固然精彩詳盡，結論卻難以令人信服。我由業者不成立正犯的論證前提切入，分別檢視系爭判決提及的中性行為與不作為幫助問題，並提出個人意見。就個案而言，業者應成立不作為幫助犯。最後，考量到規範設計可能進一步限縮使用者對受著作權保護作品的合理使用空間，甚至侵犯到隱私權，我國並無必要引入網路服務業者的免責規定（如DMCA的「安全港」）。2007 年7 月著作權法第87 條第1 項第7 款與同條第2 項的修正，從解釋論而言，不僅構成要件有欠明確，兼且意圖透過立法推定，倒置舉證責任，將風險移轉給網路服務提供者，由其自行舉證犯罪事實不存在，根本違反罪疑唯輕原則，誠值檢討。此外，我認為，為避免該條箝制言論自由、引發不公平競爭，不宜將著作權法第87 條第1 項第7 款的立法結構解為「抽象危險構成要件＋客觀處罰條件」。我心儀的結論因此是：合理使用應定性為「容許風險」的行為，阻卻其著作權侵害行為的構成要件該當性；同時，由重製罪的故意認定問題出發，從Kuro 與ezPeer的判決中，可以看出難以釐清。解決數位時代重製問題的對案，因此不應該是在迴避複雜的合理使用判定與未考慮社會大眾的價值態度下，將刑法介入的時點前移，透過危險構成要件予以入罪。事實上，對數位著作的科技保護措施與網路服務提供者所設計之刑罰規定，所處理者均係「重製罪的犯罪參與」問題，根本不需再做立法，綜合上述，新增的相關規定，允宜全數刪除。惟此略顯不切實際，如欲針對本論文所提意見，在制度面大幅修法，似又遙不可及，有鑑於此，結論末尾乃試擬「現實可行」的小幅度修改對案。

The author has fewer and fewer control over his publication because of theconvenience and generalization of reproduction. Encryption, for example, is a newprotection technique to defend reproduction. The Encryption technique indeed restrictsthe access; however, there will always be other ways to break the rule, which is thedecryption. It becomes a déjá-vu between protection and circumvention. As for theinternet service providers, they often are the ones to be blamed for giving decryption toolsfor the interface. It is now a time that digital technology develops rapidly; hence it isimportant that we should think about how to respond those legal questions and how toprotect copyright on the internet. Internet copyright is not only closely relative totechnology development, but also across the borders. There are conflicts betweencurrent legislation and justice system. There are questions for how to make decisionsbetween digital and criminal policies. It raises doubts for criminal type cataloguewhether it is complete or not. There are concerns worldwide over how to punish ifviolating copyright. Therefore, what and how should our government do for this matter? When dealing with the digital monster, our government first passed technicalprotection measures in august, 2004, and renamed it as Article 80 -2. TechnologicalProtection Measures. Later, the Legislature amended copyright law of Article 87,Section Ⅰ-⑦and Section Ⅱ for adding new category, which is “Regarding as copyrightinfringement.” in June 2007. This action brings up the infringement issues exist in P2P andinternet service providers. This study is mainly about the doubts for criminal lawmaking of copyright in thedigital age. The whole structure is closely associated with digital copyright issues,especially the ones relative to criminal protection. There are two main parts in this study,one is technical protection measures and the other is P2P transmission.First of all, there is something strange about technical protection measures in eachcountry, which is prohibition of decryption by copyright owner. To explain it by criminallaw, it is somewhat not fair to give this kind of extreme advanced punishment protection totechnical measures or authors. In other words, use the preparative act to protect propertylegal interests is not without a doubt. Besides, under the Telling is theory rule, It is數位時代著作權刑法的挑戰與因應impossible to find victims. By the Copyright law of Article 91, the least penal is 3 yearsand above, or by Article 96-1 and by Article 80-2Ⅰall says the penal is under 1 year, so itmeant to tell that action of production, import, and supply will be the least accessory type.Second, it is such sarcasm for punishment by personal violation of copyrights as tointellectual property rights which encourages invention, creative work and culturepromotions. It is not effective to protect the authors’ interests or to meet the policyobjectives. What can we do to use the criminal law in the digital environment? It isbetter to find a balance among law enforcement, technology invention, and authors’protection and compensation. The regarding factors are business feasibility, end-user’sdecision cost and social profits. During this stage, we should use few law to intervene ormake laws to control digital copyright transmissions on the internet. Instead, let the freemarket bring out the profit balance between the authors and the end-users. Thus, Article51 -1 in the Revisions of Copyright Law, which referred to the system of hardwaresuppliers’ compulsory licensing levy regime in Germany, is not practical.Third, chapter 5 will discuss America-based internet service providers’responsibilities structures. Then, analyze the ezPeer case at Shihlin District Court. Theruling is very detailed and exceptional, but the verdict is unpersuasive. I will argue aboutthe case by presuming taterschaft not established. Next, prove the questions of neutralbehaviors and aluetter, criminal of omission (unterlassungsdelikte) and give personalopinions. According to this case, the provider should be established as criminal ofomission and abetment (unterlassungsdelikte). Last, we do not need to introduce DMCA for internet service providers, consideringthat the enforcement could limit more end-users’ fair use of publications that are protectedby copyright law, even could invade privacy. The amendment for the Article 87 SectionⅠ-⑦and Section Ⅱ of copyright law in July, 2007, from the explanation, the normativeelement is not clear. Also the law was purposefully passed and misused burden of proofin order to transfer the risks to internet service providers. We need to think over thematter that allows the defendant himself to prove the evidence not exist is against in dubiopro reo. Besides, it is suggested not to make Article 87 Section Ⅰ-⑦ of copyright lawas constitution elements of abs and risk(abstrakte Gefaechrdungstatbestand) and objectiveconditions of punishment, or there will have gag law and as a result of unfairABSTRACTcompetitions.Consequently, my best verdict is that fair use should be explained as behaviors ofallowable risks, which is the main factor for stopping copyright violation. On the otherhand, I will evaluate the presumption issues about the crime of unauthorized reproductionfrom the case Kuro vs. ezPeer. When dealing with the reproduction cases in the digital age,it is a must to consider the rules of fair use and social profits. From the case, we canunderstand that it is difficult to tell them apart, we should not just retracting the timing ofcriminal law intervention, and then make someone be guilty. As the matter of fact, it is notnecessary to make laws for technical protection measure of digital publication and internetservice provider because it is all about the association of reproduction violation.It will be perfect if we could nullify all the newly amended related articles, but it isnot practical. Amending laws for the standards will be another impossible work byconsidering what this study says. Hence, in conclusion, I suggest making feasible, realistic,and slight changes for the law.