歐體著作權法制研究－以數位著作權法為中心

Abstract

本文研究歐體數位著作權法制，著重「網路服務提供者責任」、「科技保護措施」、「權利管理電子資訊」等三大議題討論，藉由「2001年著作權指令」等歐體相關著作權指令，以及歐洲法院和美國法院判決分析，以便了解網路發達，科技進步下，歐體如何調和各會員國間的法律適用，以因應新興科技法律爭議。最後回歸至臺灣法律面和實務面討論。 本文首先介紹歐體著作權法制以及相關指令，透過文獻分析與比較法，此部分主要結論包含：（1）雖有眾多調和指令，歐體本身各會員國在指令的適用上仍有歧異（2）「2001年著作權指令」公佈施行後，會員國雖陸續轉化指令至國內法中，但實際適用該指令解決紛爭的國家仍為少數（3）「2001年著作權指令」本身欠缺強制力（處罰條款授權各會員國自行制訂），且為解決此問題而生的「2004年智財執行指令」執行力不彰（4）歐體體系中的歐洲法院判決雖無既判力，不拘束後案判決，但對於各會員國法院的判決有拘束力，且傾向以歐盟條約、法律原則等解釋個案，不像美國法院在個案中發展出檢驗方法（test），可提供實務判斷的基礎。 臺灣著作權法關於「網路服務提供者責任」、「科技保護措施」、「權利管理電子資訊」規定，主要參考美國「數位千禧年著作權法」以及歐體「2001年著作權指令」，前述歐體現況可為借鏡，特別是對2008年「著作權法部分條文修正草案」中「網路服務提供者之責任限制立法」提供建議。因此，本文第二部份透過實證研究做法院判決分析與法官訪談，希冀了解實務實際出現的數位著作權侵權型態為何？法官對於侵權判斷標準為何？法院需要新法提供哪些較為實際的判斷方式，以便利審判工作進行。本文希望能針對實務真正迫切需要解決的議題，加以修法輔助，使得數位著作權問題在臺灣不再停留在理論層面，即不斷強調科技中立與著作權保護平衡，但束手無策，而是能透過研究實證限縮侵權類型，經由貼切的立法，和法院執行力，以解決這些日新月異的數位著作權問題。

The topic of the thesis concerns the digital copyright law in the European Community (EC). I simply concentrate on three main issues: the responsibilities of the Internet service providers, and DRM (digital right management), including the anti-circumvention measure as well as the electronic rights management information. The purpose of the thesis is to find out the solution of how to settle the conflicts caused by new technology between copyright owners and the public. I hope the conclusion will help the latest amendments of Taiwan Copyright law, and facilitate the judgments of courts. My research methods are hybrid. My typical resources are the basic principles derived from international conventions, and the EC legal documents. I strive to a frame of the EC digital laws. Second, by comparing case law of US courts and the European Court of Justice (ECJ), I organize the differences and commons between two legal systems. Since Taiwan introduce both of them to its national laws, their experiences will be valuable for solving expecting problems in Taiwan. Finally, I do empirical studies by interviewing two judges of Intellectual Property Court. According to my observation, first of all, there is no unified copyright law in EC. Therefore, EC promulgates directives to harmonize the national laws and thus unifies the common market; however, those merely provide the minimum principles, and have no absolute binding force, like regulations to obligate EC members. Most important all of, the enforcement power is not obvious. Even the directives are ratified, discrepancies among member states due to each country’s domestic policies disturb the unification. Besides, ECJ has authorities to explain the European laws by giving preliminary rulings, which the national court must be bound theoretically; nevertheless, compared with the US Supreme court, ECJ tends to provide abstract principles without concrete tests to deal with the digital issues.