公開傳播權之研究

Abstract

摘 要 數位化科技伴隨著網路的快速發展，挑戰了傳統的著作權法制，我國著作權法第一條即開宗明義稱：「為保障著作人權益，調和社會利益，促進國家文化發展，特制定本法。．．．」由此可見，著作權法制定之目的，除了為保障著作人之權益外，尚有調和社會利益，並進而促進文化發展的目的，網際網路與數位科技的快速發展，造成著作權人與利用人間的失衡，應如平衡二者間的權益，實在是當今著作權法極為重要的課題，而網路上傳播的問題即是首當其衝。 世界智慧財權組織於一九九六年十二月底，通過「世界智慧財產權組織著作權條約」，及「世界智慧財產權組織表演及錄音物條約」等二項國際條約，其中為因應網路互動式傳播，及伯恩公約歷史性的限制，而創設了「公開傳播權」、「對公眾提供權」。我國現行著作權法「公開播送權」之規定，是否涵蓋網路上互動式傳播？有無增設「公開傳播權」之必要？如果有必要，應如何修正？增設「公開傳播權」後，應如何調整合理使用的規定？而國內實務對公開播送權、公開演出權等著作權之無形利用，發生混淆時有所聞，且爭議不斷，如再創設「公開傳播權」，使問題更形複雜，如何解決則是刻不容緩的問題。 而網路傳播的問題，是當今世界各國都面臨的相同問題，各國亦正為因應世界智慧財產權組織所通過的二項條約而修正其內國法，由於著作權法係全球性的法律，我國修法很難不受著作權國際公約的影響，而各國著作權法制度雖有不同，但卻有相當大的共通性，所謂他山之石，可以攻錯，外國法即有可供參考之處。本文擬借鏡日本、大陸、歐盟、美國、澳洲等國家，關於公開傳播權之立法，比較各界對「公開傳播權」之具體立法建議，評析其優缺點，進而分析我國修正草案之利弊得失與可行性，最後提出具體修法建議，期供立法與實務之參考。

Abstract The rapid development of digitalized technology and the internet challenge the traditional copyright law. Article 1 of the R.O.C. Copyright Law clearly stipulates: “This Law is specifically enacted for the purposes of protecting the rights and interests of authors with respect to their works, harmonizing society's common benefit, and promoting the development of culture.”This manifests, the purpose of copyright law is not only to protect the rights and interests of authors with respect to their work, but also to harmonize society's common benefit, and promote the development of culture. Due to the rapid development of digitalized technology and the internet shook the balance of interests between copyright owners and users. The most important issue at present is how to balance the interests of the above-mentioned owners and users. As a result, the problem of communication the copyrighted works to the public on the internet is the one of most critical issues and examples thereunder. The World Intellectual Property Origanization [hereafter “WIPO”] has approved “the WIPO Copyright Treaty” and “The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty” on December 1996. The treaties created the rights of communication to the public and the right of making available to the public in order to cope with the interactive on-demand acts of communication over the internate, and the historic restrictions of the Berne Convention. And the question of whether the right of public broadcast can include the interactive on-demand acts of communication over the internet? Is it necessary to create the right of communication to the public? If confirmative, How to implement? How to adjust the fair use doctrine of the right of communication to the public? There have been many diffusions and arguements between the right of public broadcast and the right of public performance in the practice. There will be more complicated issues if we create the right of communication to the public. It demands the immediate attention towards the solution of the problem. Howerer, evry country encounters with the same issue of the communication to the public on the internet. The major developed countries are reviewing their copyright law in order to comply with the rule of WIPO’s above two treaties. Due to the copyright law is the globally-recognized law, it is difficult not to be influenced by the international copyright treaties when reviewing our copyright law. Although each country has different copyright statute, there exist many similarities on common. It is said that“ An experience form others may help avoid one’s defect.” Therefore, it is a good way to consult other country’s copyright law. This article intends to refer to the legislations of Japan, China mainland, the European Union, the United States, and Australia, regarding the right of communication to the public, by comparing the possible resolutions and directions of scholars and lawyers for legislators, analyzing the advantages and disadvantages, critizing the advantages and disadvantages of the draft of legislation. Finally, it’s attempted to address the possible resolutions and directions for the reference of our legislators and the practice in Taiwan.