我國有線電視產業節目訊號播送之法律問題研究

劉明芳(Ming-Fang Liu)

指導教授 ： 陳文吟

國立中正大學/法學院/財經法律學系/碩士(2015年)

摘要

現今面臨數位匯流及各式新興視訊媒體的競爭，以往傳統的著作權解釋是否隨之調整亟待研議，此亦為本文探討之重心。數位匯流是指透過電視、電信、網路、行動加值等傳播平台，以科技、設備整合與應用之方式做全面性服務的提供。新興媒體OTT產業是一個開放性的平台，利用網路傳送影音內容到用戶所持的終端裝置中即可進行收視，因此對有線電視產業產生極大的衝擊。
有線電視將訊號傳送到收視戶的過程，智慧局以函示拆分為原播送及再播送。本文主張刑事責任的負擔，應從主觀面故意過失來探討，系統業者只提供播送平台，無法事先審查或更動頻道節目播出之內容，故由負責製作節目內容之頻道業者負擔刑事責任為宜。同時，有線電視訊號的傳輸過程不宜形式割裂，應視為完整的一階段公開播送行為。
公開播送及公開傳輸在有線電視產業面臨產品轉型及頻道授權問題。近年集管團體公告的音樂著作使用報酬費率，引起許多系統業者向經濟部智慧財產局申請審議、並針對智慧局做出的行政處分提起訴願及行政訴訟。由於公開播送與公開傳輸行為定義與界線的難題，導致有線電視與IPTV平台之頻道授權爭議不斷，未來是否能從著作權法解套值得觀察。
必載制度之存在因我國有線廣播電視法明文規定不侵害著作權，有線電視也無須支付任何費用給著作財產權人，應有更強烈的公益目的，並考量公共利益及私益之調和。建議應取消必載制度，或者，維持現有必載頻道之數量，而不得要求系統業者應載送無線電視台之所有頻道。

關鍵字

必載制度 ； 公開傳輸 ； 再播送 ； 原播送 ； 系統業者 ； 數位匯流

並列摘要

This study is attempted to research on related legal issues of broadcasting the program signals for the cable TV industry. Currently, it encountered great competition in digital convergence and various emerging video media, thus whether the explanation of traditional copyright shall be adjusted along such phenomenon is the focus of this study. Digital Convergence is communication platforms among televisions, telecommunications, networks, and mobile services, at provides comprehensive services by integrating and applying technology and equipment. In addition, the emerging media, OTT industry, is an open network platform transmitting video and audio content to users’ terminal device for further viewing; as a result, it causes a great impact on the cable TV industry.
The Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) had promulgated an official letter to divide the process into original broadcast and rebroadcast for transmitting signals to viewers’ home by Cable TV system operations (SOs). This study advocates the undertaking of criminal responsibilities that shall be discussed by means of intentional offense subjectively. SOs only provide broadcasting platforms and cannot preview or change the broadcasting content of TV channels and programs, thus it is appropriate that content providers who are responsible to produce program content shall bear those criminal responsibilities. At the same time, the transmitting process of cable TV signals shall not be separated severed as to its form, instead, shall be regarded as a complete one-phase public broadcasting action.
Public broadcast and public transmission in the cable TV industry have also encountered certain issues in products transformation and channel licensing. In recent years, the Compensation for Fair Use of Music Works promulgated by Copyright Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) has caused many SOs to apply deliberations to TIPO, and file appeal and administrative litigation for those administrative dispositions made by TIPO. Due to the difficulties in defining and limiting public broadcast and public transmission actions, disputes about channel licensing between the cable TV and IPTV platforms prolong, thus it is worthy of further observation on whether those difficulties can be overcame from the Copyright Act or not.
Under our Cable Radio and Television Act, the must-carry system does not amount to copyright infringement, and SOs don’t need to pay any royalty to copyright owners. However, these can be existed only if there is stronger purpose of public welfare; in other words, equality of public interests and private interests shall be taken into consideration. Thus, the author suggests that we shall either cancel must-carry system, or, maintain the status quo on certain channels, and not all channel signals of radio TV stations ever.

並列關鍵字

Must-Carry System ； Public Transmission ； Rebroadcast ； Original Broadcast ； System Operations ； Digital Convergence

參考文獻

3. 許忠信，國際著作權公約及發展趨勢，經濟部智慧財產局出版，民國98年1月。

4. 最高行政法院100年度判字第364號判決。

5. 最高行政法院102年度判字第440號判決。

12. 智慧財產法院102年度民著訴字第20號民事判決。

2. 國家通訊傳播委員會101年5月16日第485次委員會會議紀錄。