從電子商務論著作權法「通知／取下」程序之不實通知爭議

False Takedown Notice Copyright Disputes in E-Commerce

林利芝(Li-Chih Lin)

電子商務 ； 「通知／取下」程序 ； 重複侵權者政策 ； 三振條款 ； 侵權通知 ； 不實通知 ； 回復通知 ； 網路服務提供者民事免責事由 ； 數位千禧年著作權法 ； e-commerce ； notice/takedown procedure ； repeat infringer policy ； three-strike policy ； false takedown notice ； counter notice ； limitations on liability for internet service providers ； DMCA

東吳法律學報

33卷4期（2022 / 04 / 01）

1 - 33

繁體中文

近年來，電商平台已成為現代民眾購物的主要管道，社群媒體行銷也是各家商品或服務的主要廣告或銷售模式。電商平台或是社群媒體平台屬於著作權法規範的網路服務提供者，因此必須遵循「通知／取下」程序，然而衍生出不少商業競爭者假著作權保護之名，向跨境電商平台或是社群媒體平台發送不實侵權通知並要求平台取下競爭對手之內容或商品，以阻礙交易進行或排除商業競爭的問題。即使我國和美國著作權法皆明定不實通知之損害賠償規定，但是法條實際適用之認定標準仍待法院累積定見。本文鑑於電子商務乃是現今消費常態，一旦這類事件層出，必然影響市場競爭秩序甚鉅，致使著作權法「通知／取下」程序成為不正競爭工具，所以本文整理美國司法實務上關於著作權法「通知／取下」程序之不實通知爭議的案例，例如Cal. Beach Co. v. Han Xian Du案，以及第512條（f）項不實陳述訴訟的賠償要件，然後本文提出修補我國「通知／取下」程序缺失之建議。

In recent years, e-commerce platforms have become the main channel for people to shop, and social media marketing is also the main advertising or sales venue for various products or services. E-commerce platforms are Internet service providers regulated by the Copyright Law, so they must follow the notice-and-takedown procedure. However, many commercial competitors in the name of copyright protection abuse the notice-and-takedown procedure to send false takedown notices to cross-border e-commerce platforms and require the platforms to takedown competitors' content or products in order to hinder business transactions or eliminate commercial competition. Although the Copyright law in Taiwan and the United States clearly specify the misrepresentation provision for claiming damages for false takedown notices, the actual application of the misrepresentation provision still needs to be determined by courts. In view of the fact that e-commerce becomes the norm of consumption nowadays, once such false takedow n notices proliferate, they will inevitably affect the order of market competition and make the notice-and-takedown procedure of the copyright law a tool of unfair competition. Intending to help the competent authority and courts in Taiwan to handle issues of false takedown notices in the future, this paper addresses relevant U.S. copyright law and case law regarding false takedown notices, such as the case of Cal. Beach Co. v. Han Xian Du and Section 512(f) misrepresentations, and then proposes some possible solutions to the procedure loophole in Taiwan's copyright law.

1. 李治安(2014)。失衡的承諾：著作權法責任避風港規範之立法政策評析。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，43(1)，143-207。
   連結：
2. 陳聰富(2000)。侵權行為法上之因果關係。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，29(2)，175-307。
   連結：
3. (1998).H.R. Rep. No. 551, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. Pt. 2 (1998) (House Report)..
4. Take Down Abuse: Fighting Back Against False Copyright Claims on the Internet, FisherBroyles (Mar 15, 2017), https://www.fisherbroyles.com/news/take-abuse-fighting-back-false-copyright-claims-internet (last visited Dec. 28, 2021)
5. (1998).S. Rep. No. 190, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 19 & n.20 (1998) (Senate Report)..
6. Reply comments, https://ww.eff.org/document/reply-comments-0 (February 21, 2017) (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
7. Diebold Coughs Up Cash in Copyright Case, Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15 (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
8. NINTH CIRCUIT 512(F) DMCA BAD FAITH CLAIMS REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF “SUBJECTIVE” STATE OF MIND? https://www.vondranlegal.com/ninth-circuit-512f-dmca-bad-faith-claims-require-evidence-of-subjective-state-of-mind (last visited Dec. 28, 2021)
9. Responding to a DMCA Takedown Notice Targeting Your Content, Digital Media Law (Sep. 10, 2021), https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
10. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Safe Harbor Provisions for Online Service Providers: A Legal Overview, Congressional Research Service, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11478 (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
11. Section 512 Study, U.S. Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/(last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
12. Asp, Emily M.(2017).Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: User Experience and User Frustration, Notes.IOWA L. REV.,103,751.
13. Beaty, Tiffany N.(2009).Navigating the Safe Harbor Rule: The Need for a DMCA Compass.Intellectual Property L. Rev.,13,207.
14. Bridy, Annemarie(2016).Copyright’s Digital Deputies: DMCA-Plus Enforcement by Internet Intermediaries.RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE LAW
15. Bridy, Annemarie and Keller, Daphne, U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Study: Comments in Response to Second Notice of Inquiry (February 21, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2920871 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2920871 (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
16. Burk, Dan L.(2011).Toward an Epistemology of ISP Secondary Liability.Phil. & Tech.,24,437.
17. Chen, Dena,Durkee, Musetta,Friend, Jared,Urban, Jennifer(2011).,未出版
18. Cobia, Jeffrey(2009).The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Takedown Notice Procedure: Misuses, Abuses, and Shortcomings of the Process.Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech.,10,387.
19. Darrow, Jonathan J.,Ferrera, Gerald R.(2007).Social Networking Web Sites and the DMCA: A Safe-Harbor from Copyright Infringement Liability or the Perfect Storm?.Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop.,6,1.
20. Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF 512 Study Comments, https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/document/eff-512-study-comments (April 1, 2016)
21. Lisa Fickenscher, Christmas smear: Etsy craft sellers say they’re unfairly elbowed off site, New YORK POST (December 12, 2021 8:29pm), https://nypost.com/2021/12/12/etsy-craft-sellers-say-theyre-unfairly-elbowed-off-site/ (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
22. Eric Goldman, How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?, TECHNOLOGY& MARKETING LAW BLOG (April 10, 2019), https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/04/how-have-section-512f-cases-fared-since-2017-spoiler-not-well.htm (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
23. Loren, Lydia Pallas(2011).Deterring Abuse of the Copyright Takedown Regime by Taking Misrepresentation Claims Seriously.Wake Forest L. Rev.,46,745.
24. Jennifer McAdams, The Growing Importance of Ecommerce During COVID-19 & Benefits of Online Selling, Progress (Aug. 24,2021), https://www.progress.com/blogs/the-growing-importance-of-ecommerce-in-a-post-covid-19-world (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
25. Reid, Amanda(2021).Readability, Accessibility, and Clarity: An Analysis of DMCA Repeat Infringer Policies.Jurimetrics,61(4)
26. Rachael Rettner, 10 ways COVID-19 changed the world, LIVE SCIENCE (Dec. 31, 2020), https://www.livescience.com/ways-covid-19-changed-the-world-2020.html (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
27. Scott, Mike(2006).Note, Safe Harbors Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.N.Y.U. J. LEGIS. & PUB. POL’Y,9,99+110-115.
28. Brian Solis；朱師右；洪可欣，COVID-19讓電子商務成為鎂光燈焦點，MIC AISP情報顧問服，https://mic.iii.org.tw/aisp/Reports.aspx? id=CDOC20201020001
29. UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE, SECTION 512 OF TITLE 17 A REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS (2020), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/section-512-full-report.pdf (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).
30. Urban, Jennifer M.,Karaganis, Joe,Schofield, Brianna,Schofield, Brianna(2017).Notice and Takedown: Online Service Provider and Rightsholder Accounts of Everyday Practice.J. Copyright Soc’y,64,371.
31. Urban, Jennifer M.,Karaganis, Joe,Schofield, Brianna,Schofield, Brianna(2017).UC Berkeley Public Law Research PaperUC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper,未出版
32. Urban, Jennifer M.,Quilter, Laura(2006).Efficient Process or ‘Chilling Effects’? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal,22,621.
33. Vasudeva, V. N.(2011).The Notice and Takedown Procedure under Copyright Law: Developing a Measured Approach.U. Notre Dame Austl. L. Rev.,13,193.
34. Wilson, Benjamin(2010).Notice, Takedown, and the Good-Faith Standard: How to Protect Internet Users From Bad-Faith Removal of Web Content.St. Louis University Public Law Review,29(613)
35. 江雅綺,陳俞廷(2021)。從電子商務指令到歐盟數位服務法草案論歐盟 ISP 責任架構之演變。全國律師，25(7)，31-44。
36. 李治安(2014)。網路服務提供者免責事由之要件分析。國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討
37. 姚信安(2011)。論我國著作權網路服務提供者責任規範之發展與實踐。科技法學評論，8(2)，167-218。
38. 國泰投顧，後防疫時期的新常態電子商務的消費趨勢大解密，https://www.catha-yconsult.com.tw/market/fund-topic/38259 （最後瀏覽日：2021 年 12 月 28 日)。
39. 章忠信(2009)。二○○九年新修正著作權法簡析─網路服務提供者之責任限制。月旦法學雜誌，173，5-24。
40. 馮震宇(2012)。從間接侵權責任與三振條款立法看 ISP 責任之商榷。月旦民商法雜誌，38，5-22。
41. 經濟部智慧財產局，新修正著作權法第六章之一「網路服務提供者(ISP)民事免責事由」之施行，會不會造成冒名通知或濫發通知的問題？，https://topic.tipo.gov.tw/copyright-tw/cp-472-859107-b9684-301.html ，最後瀏覽日：2021 年 12 月 28 日)。