網路資訊儲存服務提供者著作權侵權免責事由之探討-以美國Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.案為中心

Abstract

在這個網路快速發展與言論自由高漲之時代，科技言論工具逐漸興起，成為這個世代溝通的工具，全球第一大的YouTube平台即為適例。而當最大的網路資訊儲存服務提供者遇上媒體巨擘，一場訴訟外到訴訟內的法律攻防戰就此展開，美國的Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.一案正是因此而生的判決，此一判決在美國甚至全世界受到矚目。本文將以此判決為中心，探討網路資訊儲存服務提供者之著作權侵權免責事由，且在各章節之中皆會緊扣此一中心案例。 為使網路資訊儲存服務提供者及著作權人能在著作權間接侵害案件中得各自評估實際風險，本文提出一著作權間接侵權之抗辯圖作為探討的主軸，先從合理使用部分探討，整理美國學說與我國實務見解後歸納出「科技合理使用」之可能性；再從著作權法安全港條款著力，以美國與我國比較法之觀點切入，研擬我國著作權法上安全港條款之適用觀點，並論述安全港條款與間接侵權相關規定之關係。 最後，以美國就安全港條款判決之實證研究作結，檢驗本文前述所提出之著作權間接侵權之抗辯圖，進而瞭解整個安全港條款目前適用之事實面，並回到Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.一案以帶出本文之結論。

In the times of network highly developing and freedom of speech rising, the speech technology springed up gradually and became the tool of comm -unicate in this generation, such as platform of YouTube is the great exam -ple. When the biggest Internet Information Storage Service Provider encounters the media monster, a war from business to lawsuit is rising. In fact, Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. which gets everyone’s attentions in America as well as the world is due to above circumstance. This essay will focus on Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. and study the exemption revision on copyright liability limitation for Internet Information Storage Service Provider. The discussions of each chapter will be based on this case. For Internet Service Providers and copyright owners to estimate the actual risk in secondary infringement lawsuit, this essay provider a flowchart of affirmative defenses to be the weight-bearing point. First, focusing on fair use and sorting out the theory of America and court practice of our country to infer the possibility of technology fair use. Second, this thesis focuses on the safe harbor provision at comparative point of view to analyze the application of safe harbor provision in our copyright law, and expounds the relation between safe harbor provision and secondary infringement. Lastly, according to an empirical study on cases of American safe harbor provision, this thesis inspects the above flowchart of affirmative defenses. Furthermore, having acknowledged the real application of safe harbor provision, this theis goes back to Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. for conclusion.