合理使用的理論與應用之研究-從市場失靈的觀點出發

Abstract

本研究以Wendy Gordon教授三要件市場失靈理論為核心-即(一) 市場失靈的狀況現實存在，（二）支持被告的使用模式對社會而言利多於弊，以及（三）允許合理使用抗辯不會對於創作者的創作誘因產生實質損害-試圖以美國實務判決為藍本勾勒出可能的觀察構面與命題，並以此為基準以音樂產業為例推演可能的管理意涵，最後從制度面的角度檢討現行合理使用判決所出現的問題與可能的解決方式，研究結果及建議分述如下：\n觀察構面與命題的發展\n 本研究以美國近二十年來重要合理使用判決為藍本，並將市場失靈區分為交易成本過高與正向外部性兩種類型，歸納出以下命題及觀察構面：\n命題一：與著作權利人進行交易的交易成本越高，主張合理使用成功的機會越高。\nH1:系爭著作物在使用當時若屬於無法尋得權利人的孤兒著作，成功主張合理使用的機會較高。\nH2:系爭著作物若有著作權仲介團體代理或有交易成本低廉的授權平台，成功主張合理使用的機會較低。\nH3:系爭著作物若有著作權管理資訊，成功主張合理使用的機會較低。\n命題二： 被告利用型態對社會創造的正向外部性越高，成功主張合理使用的機會越高。\nH4:系爭著作的利用方式若屬於對原著作物的諷刺或批評，成功主張合理使用的機會較高。\nH5: 使用者使用的模式若能減少資訊流通障礙而非單純販售著作重製物圖利，成功主張合理使用機會較高。\n \n市場失靈對著作權人的管理意涵\n 就正向外部性導致的市場失靈而言，當被告的利用模式產生的正向外部性越大，著作權授權交易無法完成對整體社會造成的效率損失越大，依據市場失靈理論的討論架構，法院支持被告合理使用主張的機會也越大。此時，權利人最佳的管理策略應該是更積極進行授權，並避免過度利用優勢談判地位抬高交易條件，最後導致授權交易無法進行。面對交易成本過高可能導致市場失靈，對權利人來說最佳的管理策略應該是使用各種可能的機制創造最有效率的授權市場，當市場的運行越具效率，交易成本越低，市場失靈的風險越低，法院支持利用人合理使用抗辯的機會也越低。管見以為，授權著作權仲介團體進行授權交易、自建授權平台、創新商業模式或與主流流通平台建立策略聯盟，是對權利人來說降低交易成本最佳的管理策略之一。\n 此外，從音樂與出版產業的發展歷程可以發現技術、法律與管理是彼此互為影響的構面，對於企業經營者來說，應有任何一項變動即牽一髮而動全身的敏銳，假定任何一項要素恆久不變或外生於其他兩構面的變化，均可能成為策略錯誤的原因。以上發現可歸納為三個命題：\n命題三:著作利用產生的正向外部性越大，權利人越應該積極進行授權，避免過度利用優勢談判地位抬高交易條件，導致授權交易無法進行。\n命題四: 權利人應積極建立便於使用的授權機制，降低交易成本及合理使用的風險。\n命題五：技術、法律與管理模式三構面互相影響，任何一項要素變動，都可能驅動其他兩項要素的變化。\n\n現行合理使用判決的問題與制度面的修正芻議\n 若市場失靈理論及本研究提出的命題與觀察構面被接受，本研究建議現行著作權法第六十五條第二項規定可修正如下：\n著作之利用是否合於第四十四條至第六十三條規定或其他合理使用之情形，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下列事項，以為判斷之基準：\n「一 利用之目的及性質，包括係為商業目的或非營利教育目的。\n二 著作之性質。\n三 所利用之質量及其在整個著作所占之比例。\n四 利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響。\n五 利用結果產生的公共利益。\n六 覓得著作權人以及取得授權的難易與成本。」\n 現行法下，法院在合理使用與判斷被告需賠償權利人全額損害兩者間沒有其他選擇，若法院考量正向外部性的存在後，認為被告的利用方式對整體社會有極大利益，並將正向外部性所帶來的好處納入最適授權金的計算，其數額或許將遠低於客觀上填補權利人所失利益與所受損害的價額，判定被告需賠償全額損害有悖於分配效率的要求。反面言之，若被告的利用嚴重損及該著作物最主要的經濟收益，判定合理使用對權利人又將衝擊過大。此時，法院將被迫在合理使用與全額損害賠償間進行二擇一的選擇。為給予法院更多救濟市場失靈的彈性，本研究建議在制度上應盡可能補足全額損害賠償與合理使用光譜的空缺，在立法上似可考慮將現行著作權法第六十五條第三項、第四項規定移至第四項與第五項，並增訂第三項條文如下：著作之利用雖不符合第四十四條至第六十三條規定或其他合理使用情形，但法院審酌一切情狀，尤應注意前項所列事項，得酌減損害賠償金額，若行為人利用方式未達商業規模者，並得免除或酌減行為人違反本法所需負擔的刑事責任。\n 嚴重市場失靈發生時，因為著作權人的市場利益未受影響，應支持著作利用人合理使用的主張。本此，對於特定類型的嚴重市場失靈，著作權法可以明定為合理使用。本研究建議現行著作權法第五十一條修正如下：「著作於個人或家庭或其他類似範圍內之使用為目的者，若該使用不影響著作權人可合理預期的市場利益者，不構成對著作財產權的侵害。」

Along with the enlargement of the scope and duration of copyright, it is generally believed that barriers to continual innovation and knowledge distribution also increase. How to leverage fair use to best preserve public interest thus becomes a very important issue. Nevertheless, fair use is called the most unpredictable and difficult problem in copyright law. Using the market failure theory proposed by Wendy Gordon to explain the scope of fair use, this research collects landmark U.S. fair use cases as the basis to develop propositions that help the judiciary to deal with fair use cases, makes management suggestions to copyright holders and proposes several legal reforms to the current Taiwanese fair use law . \n This study suggests that a defendant’s chance to prevail on his fair use defense increase as the transaction cost increases. For illustration, if the work in dispute is an orphan work, a defendant has a stronger fair use case because the transaction cost he has to incur to find the copyright owner and reach a deal is higher. Similarly, if the work in dispute carries with it clear copyright management information, is managed by efficient intermediaries or placed on an efficient transaction platform, a defendant has a weaker fair use case. The reseach also argues that the higher the positive externality brought by a defendant’s uses, the stronger fair use case he has. If a defendant uses the work in dispute to create a parody or to facilitate information exchange, the defendant has a stronger fair use case due to the positive externality he creates. \n As managerial suggestions to copyright owners, this study maintains that copyright owners should make their best efforts to reduce transaction costs in connection with licensing and copyright transfers and actively engage in licensing to uses creating significant positive externalities. This helps reduce the possibility that potential users rely on fair use and end up paying nothing to copyright owners. To reduce transaction cost, copyright owners may consider building a licensing platform themselves, using intermediaries or forming strategic alliances with primary sale channels. As for positive externalities, it is suggested that copyright owners pay attention to the public interests recognized in the copyright law. This study also finds that technology breakthroughs, legal reshuffles and innovations in business model and management are inter-related. It is simply a mistake to regard one of the three constructs as being static if another construct has been changing.\nThis research also proposes the following amendments to the current fair use law in Taiwan. As a matter of practice, Taiwanese judges rarely consider factors outside the four listed factors in Article 65(2) of the Taiwanese Copyright Law, even though the statute gives them wide discretion to consider other factors. To encourage the Taiwanese judiciary to apply the market failure theory in fair use cases, it is suggested that “the cost at which a user must incur to obtain a license” be added as the fifth factor and that“the public interests a user creates” be added as the sixth factor in Section 65(2). Secondly, to give judges more flexibility in close cases, it is suggested that judges should be given discretion to reduce the damages a defendant has to compensate copyright holders and discretion to reduce or release him from his criminal duty, even if the criteria for fair use are not fully satisfied. Lastly, if serious market failure occurs, it will be Pareto superior to allow defendants to use the work in dispute free of charge. It is generally recognized that most types of personal uses fall within the scope of serious market failure. This study thus proposes that Article 51 of the Taiwanese Copyright Law be amended to the effect that personal or familial uses are allowed so long as the profits copyright holders can reasonably expect are not adversely affected.