論資訊儲存服務中介者著作權法之角色—以音樂著作為中心

A Study on the Role of Hosting Service Intermediaries in Copyright Law—Focusing on Music Works

許家寧(Chia-Ning Hsu)

指導教授 ： 謝銘洋

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201703588

摘要

因應數位化發展而誕生的「影音分享平台」，隨著網路普及使得其重要性與日俱增，並成為現今音樂著作傳播的主要管道。數位化浪潮雖然對於音樂產業帶來嶄新的發展可能性，但也因為重製與傳輸成本大幅下降，致使未經權利人同意的著作侵害行為層出不窮，音樂產業反倒面臨著作價值無法與實際收益相稱的價值差距困境 ; 然以使用者的角度而言，使用者亦能同時身兼創作者的角色，因此亦不容忽視「使用者生成內容」應受到著作權法合理使用原則以及憲法上表現自由保障的必要性。
作為「資訊儲存服務中介者」（以下簡稱「中介者」）的影音分享平台，勢難自外於此一緊張關係。近年來權利人團體持續遊說立法者應重新審視現行以民事免責為核心的安全港條款，並應課予中介者特定義務以求其更積極地介入侵權的控管 ; 另一方面，使用者則要求中介者宜扮演合理使用守門人的角色，故著作權法是否應介入處理、居於特殊地位的中介者應否及如何扮演衡平兩方利益的角色，同時確保其營運自由不受過度限制，即為本文所欲探討的焦點。本文將著重於在著作權法的框架下中介者如何協助數位環境裡著作關係的利益衡平，並以美國、歐盟的法制與案例作為主要比較法素材，從現有的中介者法制、研擬中的中介者法制,以及外於強行規範的自制機制為三大方向進行研究。
本文認為資訊儲存服務中介者在實質上或是規範上都存有擔當「調節者角色」的正當基礎，就網路中介者所得發揮的功能，宜聚焦在如何填補著作價值差距以及確保利益衡平。對於三大研究方向的結論與建議如下：第一、對於既有法制的安全港條款，除了肯定其對於中介者具有風險控管的重要意義外，宜修正安全港條款中「通知—取下」機制關於侵權舉發審查與停權終止政策的缺漏。第二、目前研擬中的法制聚焦在「通知—停留」與「特定技術措施義務」的創設，然必須嚴加避免監控或過濾義務的形成，並建議法制設計上不妨採取一平行於免責事由的協力義務，要求中介者在各階段落實對於權利人與使用者的「通知」，以盡可能達成價值差距填補與利益衡平的目標。第三、在自制機制（如 YouTube 的 Content ID 技術）的層面上，除鼓勵中介者自願開發與採行能達到上述兩大目標的措施外，基於自制機制尚未受到實證法的規制，因此小型、個別權利人採取救濟的可能性亦不容忽視，並應強化使用者在知的權利與正當程序的保障，以確保合理使用與表現自由的充份展現。

關鍵字

資訊儲存服務中介者 ； 價值差距 ； 安全港條款 ； 使用者生成內容 ； 合理使用 ； 自制機制

並列摘要

The "video-sharing platform", which was born in the light of the digital development, has become increasingly important as the popularity of the Internet and turned into the crucial channel for the dissemination of music works. Although the wave of digitalization brings new opportunities for the music industry (hereinafter referred to as "rightholders"), copyright infringements of music works have been emerging in an endless stream due to much lower cost of reproduction and transmission. Rightholders are confronted with the difficulty of “value gap”, which means that the actual income could not be proportional to the true value of works. However, from users’ point of view, users can also act as creators nowadays, so the necessity of protecting “user- generated contents” under the doctrine of fair use and free speech should not be ignored.
Since video-sharing platforms serve as “hosting service intermediaries” (hereinafter referred to as "intermediaries"), it’s inevitable for platforms to face the tense relationships between rightholders and users. Recently, rightholders have been lobbying for reassessing “safe harbor” and imposing certain kinds of obligations on intermediaries in order to make them more actively engaged in the control of copyright infringements; the other hand, users have been urging intermediaries to be the gatekeepers for defending fair use.
Therefore, whether the copyright law should deal with this difficulty, whether intermediaries should play any role in balancing the interests of both parties, and how to ensure the freedom to conduct a business are the main points of this paper. This paper will focus on analyzing the legislations (including existing legislation of “safe harbor”, pending legislation, and self-regulation) and the related cases of the United States and the European Union, trying to conclude how intermediaries can assist in balancing the interests of both parties in the framework of the copyright law.
This paper suggests that hosting service intermediaries have legitimate basis of serving as mediator, and that their functions could aim at how to fill the value gap and how to balance different interests. Three conclusions of this paper are as follows: First, as for existing legislation of “safe harbor”, though its function on risk control is certainly meaningful for intermediaries, deficiencies in takedown notice review and termination policy under the “Notice-and-Takedown” mechanism should be clearly amended. Second, pending legislations concentrating on “Notice-and-Staydown” and “measure obligation” should avoid turning into monitoring or filtering obligation, and the obligation to implement “notice”, which is parallel with “safe-harbor”, is also one practicable option of legislative amendments. Third, since there is no legislative restraint on self-regulation, the possibilities for individual rightholders to seek remedies should not be ignored when encouraging the voluntary adoption of self-regulation. Besides, the legislation should be reinforced in the aspect of the protection of the right to know and due process for users to ensure fair use and free speech as well.

並列關鍵字

Hosting Service Intermediary ； Value Gap ； Safe Harbor ； User-generated Content ； Fair Use ； Self-regulation

參考文獻

李治安（2012）。〈著作權法中的灰姑娘：利用人地位之探討〉，《臺大法學論叢》，41卷3期，頁931-979。

李治安（2014）。〈失衡的承諾：著作權法責任避風港規範之立法政策評析〉，《臺大法學論叢》，43卷1期，頁143-207。

林利芝（2012）。〈影音網站著作權侵害與過濾機制衍生爭議之研究〉，《東吳法律學報》，23卷4期，頁89-124。

郭戎晉（2011）。〈網路言論傳播中介者責任與其免責規範之研究－以美國通訊端正法實務發展爲中心〉，《科技法律透析》，23卷4期，頁20-44。

彭賢恩、劉怡靖、彭筱珍（2006）。〈刑法應用於網路誹謗案例之分析〉，《資訊社會研究》，11期，頁245-273。