從電子商務論著作權法「通知／取下」程序之不實通知爭議

近年來，電商平台已成為現代民眾購物的主要管道，社群媒體行銷也是各家商品或服務的主要廣告或銷售模式。電商平台或是社群媒體平台屬於著作權法規範的網路服務提供者，因此必須遵循「通知／取下」程序，然而衍生出不少商業競爭者假著作權保護之名，向跨境電商平台或是社群媒體平台發送不實侵權通知並要求平台取下競爭對手之內容或商品，以阻礙交易進行或排除商業競爭的問題。即使我國和美國著作權法皆明定不實通知之損害賠償規定，但是法條實際適用之認定標準仍待法院累積定見。本文鑑於電子商務乃是現今消費常態，一旦這類事件層出，必然影響市場競爭秩序甚鉅，致使著作權法「通知／取下」程序成為不正競爭工具，所以本文整理美國司法實務上關於著作權法「通知／取下」程序之不實通知爭議的案例，例如Cal. Beach Co. v. Han Xian Du案，以及第512條（f）項不實陳述訴訟的賠償要件，然後本文提出修補我國「通知／取下」程序缺失之建議。

關鍵字

電子商務；「通知／取下」程序；重複侵權者政策；三振條款；侵權通知；不實通知；回復通知；網路服務提供者民事免責事由；數位千禧年著作權法

並列摘要

In recent years, e-commerce platforms have become the main channel for people to shop, and social media marketing is also the main advertising or sales venue for various products or services. E-commerce platforms are Internet service providers regulated by the Copyright Law, so they must follow the notice-and-takedown procedure. However, many commercial competitors in the name of copyright protection abuse the notice-and-takedown procedure to send false takedown notices to cross-border e-commerce platforms and require the platforms to takedown competitors' content or products in order to hinder business transactions or eliminate commercial competition. Although the Copyright law in Taiwan and the United States clearly specify the misrepresentation provision for claiming damages for false takedown notices, the actual application of the misrepresentation provision still needs to be determined by courts. In view of the fact that e-commerce becomes the norm of consumption nowadays, once such false takedow n notices proliferate, they will inevitably affect the order of market competition and make the notice-and-takedown procedure of the copyright law a tool of unfair competition. Intending to help the competent authority and courts in Taiwan to handle issues of false takedown notices in the future, this paper addresses relevant U.S. copyright law and case law regarding false takedown notices, such as the case of Cal. Beach Co. v. Han Xian Du and Section 512(f) misrepresentations, and then proposes some possible solutions to the procedure loophole in Taiwan's copyright law.

並列關鍵字

e-commerce ； notice/takedown procedure ； repeat infringer policy ； three-strike policy ； false takedown notice ； counter notice ； limitations on liability for internet service providers ； DMCA

參考文獻

Bridy, Annemarie and Keller, Daphne, U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Study: Comments in Response to Second Notice of Inquiry (February 21, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2920871 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2920871 (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).

Urban, Jennifer M. and Karaganis, Joe and Schofield, Brianna and Schofield, Brianna, Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice (March 22, 2017). UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2755628, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2755628 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2755628 (last visited Dec. 28, 2021)

江雅綺和陳俞廷，從電子商務指令到歐盟數位服務法草案論歐盟 ISP 責任架構之演變，全國律師，第 25 卷第 7 期，2021 年 7 月，頁 31-44。