比較法觀點論我國網路服務提供者著作權間接責任及責任限制

Abstract

網路於現代社會中之快速發展實際上有賴於網路服務提供者提供之各項重要服務，使用者運用這些服務傳遞各種資訊亦使網路使用人口大幅上升。惟網路服務亦可能被用作侵害權利之途徑，藉由網路快速且大量傳遞之特性，使用者可能藉由網路流通侵權資訊並產生大規模之侵害。另由於網路服務使用者通常隱藏於虛擬帳號之下，且相對於網路服務提供者通常清償能力較低。故權利人通常偏向追究網路服務提供者法律責任 。惟若令網路服務提供者動輒承擔法律責任，不僅可能使網路服務提供者卻步於提供服務，亦可能使之對其服務上之資訊流通作嚴格控管以致產生額外成本且營運效率低落，實不利於網路產業發展。如何權衡權利人權利之保護與網路之發展，為本文所研究之主要目標。\n\n 我國參考美國相關規定制定著作權法第六章之一之網路服務提供者民事免責事由。惟由於我國並未有如同美國一般之明確間接侵權責任類型。直接移植之下造成部分免責條款並未有對應之歸責類型。加上部分判決對於免責規定之錯誤理解，甚至反而可能有增加網路服務提供者義務之嫌。\n\n 本文以比較法之觀點，首先就網路服務提供者所可能承擔之責任類型以我國之現行規定與美國、中國大陸、日本之相關規定作類比，期能為網路服務提供者之責任承擔方面歸納出合適於我國之規定。就網路服務提供者責任限制部分，本文亦擬探討美國之避風港規則(safe harbor)以及深受該規定影響之中國大陸以及日本之相關網路服務提供者免責條款為一系列之討論。於結論部分，本文總結網路服務提供者責任承擔之可能立法方向，另對於著作權法第六章之一之現行規定部分，本文亦提出具體之修法建議。

The internet service provider or the ISP may be one of the major factors that contributed to the widely spread of the use of internet in the modern society. In recent years, however, ISP became breeding ground for numerous crimes. In terms of copyright infringement, with the instant delivery nature of internet, an infringer can easily produce a large scale of massive infringements in a split second. While as the direct infringer can hardly compensate the enormous damages, the copyright holders tend to take legal action toward ISP (secondary liability), which, on the contrary is more likely to be able to make reasonable compensation. However, if the responsibilities are overwhelmingly imposed to the ISP, the incentive of providing internet service may lessen as a result and thus harm the internet related industries as a whole.\n\n The regulations in Taiwan related to the mentioned issue are listed in the 1st section of the 6th chapter. The regulations were amended referring to the DMCA 512 of the U.S. code. In Taiwan, though we do have comparatively complete regulations limiting the responsibility of the ISP, we do not have clear definition of secondary liability in terms of copyright infringement. The article 185 of the civil code in Taiwan defining the liability of joint tortfeasors may be a possible approach to clarify the liability of ISP under the kind of circumstances. However, since no civil judgment has been made so far, whether the article is applicable still remain vague. \n\n Problems arose when the regulations came into application. When there is no clear responsibility, the existence of the regulations of responsibility limitation itself does not make much sense. Moreover, with misinterpretation of the nature of responsibility limitation regulations by some judges who defined them as much like obligations that ISP must follow, the regulations somehow imposed extra burden to the ISP.\n\n This article compared the related regulations of the U.S., China and Japan and the practical applications of those in these countries. As a conclusion, this article gave precise legislative suggestions to the copyright law of Taiwan.