論提供網路侵權連結的著作權法責任－以電話亭KTV為例

Shall Providing Copyright Infringing Links be Responsible for Copyright Infringements-With Special Reference to the Case of Mini Karaoke Booth

江雅綺(Ya-Chi Chiang)

著作權 ； 侵權連結 ； 公開傳輸 ； 間接侵權 ； 擬制侵權 ； copyright ； infringing links ； public transmission ； indirect infringements ； fictitious infringements

高大法學論叢

17卷2期（2022 / 03 / 01）

191 - 195+197

繁體中文

近年來，數位科技與應用持續發展，不斷改變人們的生活型態與娛樂模式。以電話亭KTV的出現為例，有別於一般KTV包廂歡唱的模式，它以個別消費者為目標族群，街角巷口擺設一具有如電話亭般的小空間，內裡提供個人上網和歡唱所需的配件，便利消費者隨時隨地的高歌一曲。然而電話亭KTV的經營模式，有些是業者先行建置雲端歌曲檔案資料庫供消費者選擇點選，有些則是消費者付費後透過網路搜尋歌曲點唱，倘若業者資料庫內含侵權連結、或是消費者點選網路搜尋所得未經授權的影音內容連結；則電話亭KTV業者是否應負一定的侵權責任？相關業者曾以「僅是提供超連結至未經授權的串流伴唱音樂，若拔下網路，就無法使用該機台」，作為沒有侵害著作權的抗辯事由，但論者常有認為此類商業模式，乃是間接透過連結中的侵權內容而營利，若一律免責，於著作權利保護似有失衡。本文即擬以電話亭KTV涉及提供侵權連結之模式為核心，透過比較分析法與文獻分析法，首先探討美國與歐盟的法律規定與相關判決：其次由我國立法及司法實務面，分別整理探討我國於2019年新增著作權法第87條第1項第8款規定，以及法院對於提供侵權連結行為是否應負侵權責任的見解。最後，本文將就此問題提出研究心得與建議。

The prevalence of digital technology has changed many aspects of people's lives and entertainment models. Taking Mini Karaoke Booth as an example, unlike traditional karaoke attracting groups of people, it aims to serve individual consumers, providing the complete set of equipment for singing in a limited space that only allows one person to stay in. The strength of Mini Karaoke Booth is the flexibility and freedom for one to sing alone at will. Nonetheless, these Mini Karaoke Booths operate in various ways. Some of them preinstalled songs in the computer for consumers to select, others offer the access to the internet for users to search. If consumers click on links that lead to unauthorized audio-video content, whether the owner of Mini Karaoke Booth shall be held responsible for users who click on the copyright infringing content via the internet access in the booth? It is common for owners of Mini Karaoke Booths to claim that they only show copyright infringing links accessed by users, yet the question arises whether it is fair when someone profited from this business model with no one being held responsible for copyright infringements? This article intends to focus on whether providing copyright infringing links shall be held responsible for copyright infringements. It will begin with exploring the relevant legislations and rulings in the US and European Union. Subsequently, this article will discuss the new Article in Copyright Act added in 2019 and relevant judicial decisions in Taiwan. Lastly, this article will draw a conclusion on this issue based on the analysis of the new regulations and rulings.

1. 吳建興(2017)。論歐盟法院判決中之超連結與公開傳輸權－以 GS Media 案判決為中心。科技法律透析，29(8)，44-70。
   連結：
2. 程法彰(2019)。方法專利侵權當事人適格性與管轄權爭議之研究。高大法學論叢，14(2)，184。
   連結：
3. Ginsburg, Jane C.(2017).Columba Law & Economics Working PaperColumba Law & Economics Working Paper,未出版
4. Ginsburg, Jane C.,Budiardjo, Luke(2018).Liability for Providing Hyperlinks to Copyright-Infringing Content: International and Comparative Law Perspectives.The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts,41,153-219.
5. Grossman, C. A.(2005).From Sony to Grokster, the failure of the copyright doctrines of contributory infringement and vicarious liability to resolve the war between content and destructive technologies.Buffalo Law Review,53,141-268.
6. Hancock, G.(2006).Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.: Inducing Infringement and Secondary Copyright Liability.Berkeley Technology Law Journal,21,189-212.
7. Kariyawasam, Kanchana(2019).To Link or Not to Link: The Use of Hyperlinks and Copyright Infringement.Intellectual Property Journal, Toronto,31(2),157-185.
8. Klaris, Edward & Bedat (2018), Alexia, Copyright Liability for Linking and Embedding: An E.U. Versus U.S. Comparison and Guide, at https://klarislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/klarislaw-copyright-liability-for-linking-and-embedding.pdf (last visited 08/03/2021).
9. Liptak, Andrew (2016), Europe’s Court of Justice rules that hyperlinking can infringe on copyright, The Verge, at https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/11/12877872/eu-court-of-justice-hyperlinking-infringe-copyright (last visited 08/02/2021).
10. Long, J.(2018).Different Solutions for Similar Questions: Hyperlinks and the Right of Communication to the Public in China and the EU.International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,49,413-435.
11. Martínez, Iris López (2020), The Reconciliation of Secondary Liability for Trademark and Copyright Law Through Tort Law in Different E-Commerce Situations. a Comparative Study Between Us and EU Systems, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3771170 (last visited 08/02/2021).
12. Papadaki, Evangelia(2017).Hyperlinking, making available and copyright infringement: lessons from European national courts.European Journal of Law and Technology,8(1),1-24.
13. Radcliffe, M. F.(2006).Grokster: The new law of third party liability for copyright infringement under United States law.Computer Law & Security Review,22(2),137-149.
14. Rosati, Eleonora(2020).When Does a Communication to the Public Under EU Copyright Law Need to Be to a ‘New Public’?.European Law Review,45(6),802-823.
15. Saw, Cheng Lim(2018).Linking on the internet and copyright liability – A clarion call for doctrinal clarity and legal certainty.International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,49(5),536-564.
16. Smith, Graham & Smith, Will, CJEU's GS Media copyright linking decision draws a line: ordinary internet user or commercial website?, Bird & Bird (2016), at https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2016/global/cjeu-decision-in-gs-media-copyright-linking-decision-draws-a-line (last visited 10/21/2021).
17. 王詩銘(2007)。國立交通大學科技法律研究所。
18. 宋皇志(2005)。從 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.案看 P2P 業者之侵權責任。科技法學評論，2(2)，241-270。
19. 林睿思(2020)。國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學系。
20. 姚信安(2011)。從美國法角度探討我國著作權民事間接侵權責任相類制度。中正財經法學，2，139-201。
21. 張懿云,姚信安,陳思廷(2015)。經濟部智財局委託計畫經濟部智財局委託計畫,經濟部智財局。
22. 陳俊宏(2000)。試論網頁超連結與著作權法的關係（下）。智慧財產權月刊，24，56-73。
23. 陳俊宏(2000)。試論網頁超連結與著作權法的關係（上）。智慧財產權月刊，23，1-7。
24. 陳曉慧,陳皓芸,王怡蘋(2019)。數位機上盒之著作權法增修條文評析。月旦法學雜誌，293，165-178。
25. 章忠信（2019）。〈電話亭 KTV 的著作權爭議，著作權筆記〉，載於http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=2&aid=2866（最後瀏覽日：08/04/2021）。
26. 章忠信（2021）。〈著作權法逐條釋義第 87 條，著作權筆記〉，載於http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=11&aid=145（最後瀏覽日：08/04/2021）。
27. 楊智傑(2018)。新聞報導遷入連結 Twitter 照片侵害照片著作權？2018 年美國 Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC 案。北美智權報，231
28. 楊智傑(2014)。網路電視是否侵害無線電視節目的公開傳輸權？－美國 ABC v. Aereo 案探討。北美智權報，109
29. 劉江彬,耿筠(2002)。美國著作權合理使用之重要判例研究。智慧財產權月刊，44，54-77。
30. 劉奕伸(2020)。國立政治大學法律科技整合研究所。
31. 蔡蕙芳、潘怡伶（2008）。〈網路時代之新型態侵權責任-著作權法第 87條第 1 項第 7 款誘引侵權〉，載於 http://web.nchu.edu.tw/~hftsai/downloads/course/info/3.pdf（最後瀏覽日：08/10/2021）。