100-07-20網路著作權之合理使用

1、網路著作權之合理使用,報告人：陳正鎔,大 綱,壹、前言貳、本文一、數位千禧著作權法二、電腦軟體複製三、合理使用之解釋四、合理使用相關法條五、資料下載合理使用六、網拍之合理使用七、網址轉貼之合理使用八、數位權利管理,大 綱,九、三百多字之官司十、轉載之合理使用十一、參議員之提案十二、未實際獲利十三、未引用姓名十四、明知合理使用？十五、賞金獵人參、結論與建議,壹、前 言,著作

2、權法於特定情形下，對著作人之法定權益作些許限制與除外之規(guī)定，允許社會大眾(含政府機關)為學術、教育、個人(含家庭)利用等非營利目的，得於適當範圍內逕行利用他人之著作(亦即平衡著作人之著作財產權)，謂之合理使用(Fair Use)。,壹、前 言,Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, incl

3、uding such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), s

4、cholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — § 107. Limitat

5、ions on exclusive rights: Fair use, Copyright Act.,貳、本文：一、數位千禧著作權法,SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge handed Google Inc. a major victory Wednesday by rebuffing media company Viacom Inc.'s attempt to collect more than $1

6、 billion in damages for the alleged copyright abuses of Google's popular YouTube service.,一、數位千禧著作權法,The ruling by U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in New York embraces Google's interpretation of a 12-year-old l

7、aw that shields Internet services from claims of copyright infringement as long as they promptly remove illegal content when notified of a violation.Viacom Loses To YouTube In Landmark Copyright Case http://www.huffin

8、gtonpost.com/2010/06/23/youtube-viacom-lawsuit-se_n_623256.html，2011/7/15,一、數位千禧著作權法,Digital Millennium Copyright Act，DMCA(1) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing; upon obtaining s

9、uch knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service pr

10、ovider has the right and ability to control such activity.,一、數位千禧著作權法,(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove. (DMCA)§ 512. Limitation

11、s on liability relating to material online，Cornell University Law School，http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html，2011/7/15,一、數位千禧著作權法,Copyright Act, Section (DMCA)1201, U. S. A.：

12、Circumvention of copyright protection systemsCircumvention of copyright protection systems)No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.,一、數位千

13、禧著作權法,OSLO, Norway -- A Norwegian teenager has been cleared of DVD piracy charges in a landmark trial brought by major Hollywood studios.The Oslo court said Jon Johansen, known in Norway as "DVD Jon," had not

14、broken the law when he helped unlock a code and distribute a computer program enabling DVD films to be copied. "Johansen is found not guilty," Judge Irene Sogn told the court. She said prosecutors could appeal

15、 against the unanimous verdict. Johansen said after the ruling that he would celebrate by "watching DVD films on unlicensed players.",一、數位千禧著作權法,Prosecutors had asked for a 90-day suspended jail term for Johan

16、sen, 19, who developed the program when he was 15. The teenager has become a symbol for hackers worldwide who say making software such as Johansen's -- called DeCSS -- is an act of intellectual freedom rather than t

17、heft. DeCSS defeats the copyright protection system known as Contents Scramble System (CSS), which the entertainment industry uses to protect films distributed on DVDs.,一、數位千禧著作權法,Johansen created and published DeCSS so

18、 that he would be able to view DVDs on his Linux computer. He said the program meant the film industry no longer had a monopoly on making DVD players. The prosecution was brought after a complaint was filed by the Motio

19、n Picture Association (MPA), which represents the major Hollywood studios. The studios argued unauthorised copying was copyright theft and undermined a market for DVDs and videos worth $20 billion a year in North Americ

20、a alone.,一、數位千禧著作權法,But Johansen argued his code was necessary to watch movies he already owned, on his Linux-based computer, for which DVD software had not yet been written. He said since he owned the DVDs, he should b

21、e able to view them as he liked, preferably on his own computer. The court, citing consumer laws which protect consumers' fair use of their own property, agreed. The court ruled there was "no evidence" tha

22、t Johansen or others used the decryption code called DeCSS for illegal purposes. Nor was there any evidence that Johansen intended to contribute to illegal copying.,一、數位千禧著作權法,The court also ruled that it is not illegal

23、to use the DeCSS code to watch DVD films obtained by legal means. In the United States, Johansen's case raised concerns among Internet users of what they see as a constitutional right to freedom of expression. A bat

24、tle is raging in the U.S. over a 1998 copyright law that bans software like DeCSS. Even though Johansen's software is now outdated, it was the first to give the so-called source codes, or instructions, for how to de

25、cipher DVD codes.,一、數位千禧著作權法,Tuesday, January 7, 2003 Posted: 8:28 AM EST (1328 GMT), CNN.com/TECHNOLOGY,http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/01/07/dvd.johansen/index.html,二、電腦軟體複製,依著作權法之規(guī)定，著作人專有重製權，將電腦軟體複製於軟碟兩份以上，已涉及重製之行為。

26、符合著作權法合理使用規(guī)定之情形，不會違反著作權法；事先徵得該電腦程式著作財產權人或經其授權之人之同意或授權，不生違反著作權法之疑慮。事先未取得著作財產權人之同意而重製軟碟二份以上，無論時間而用之於不同個人電腦(Personal Computer，PC)上，均係侵害重製權之行為。重覆此種情況，則產生另一侵害重製權行為。侵害重製權而符合著作權法所定之犯罪構成要件時，恐罹違反著作權法之民、刑事責任。 臺灣法律網轉載智慧財產局之文章htt

27、p://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&parent_path=,1,655,7,&article_category_id=1964&job_id=83397&article_id=37301，2011/7/14,三、合理使用之解釋,著作權法旨在保護著作人之權益，兼顧社會大眾利用著作之權益亦為不可或缺。著作人之創(chuàng)作諒係非真空環(huán)境下產生，

28、乃遵循並發(fā)揚古今中外人類集體之智慧結晶，同時受當代社會之知識傳遞影響，若謂其原創(chuàng)性與人類之演化過程無關，其誰能信？著作權法於特定情形下，對著作人之法定權益作些許限制與除外之規(guī)定，允許社會大眾(含政府機關)為學術、教育、個人(含家庭)利用等非營利目的，得於適當範圍內逕行利用他人之著作(亦即平衡著作人之著作財產權)，謂之合理使用(Fair Use)。合理使用允宜慎重，以避免與著作權之正常利用相捍格，或不合理地損害著作人之法定利益。,四、合理

29、使用之判定參考,著作之利用是否合於第四十四條至第六十三條規(guī)定或其他合理使用之情形，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下列事項，以為判斷之基準：利用之目的及性質，包括係為商業(yè)目的或非營利教育目的。著作之性質。所利用之質量及其在整個著作所占之比例。利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響。,四、合理使用之判定參考,Under the Fair Use Doctrine and defense, the court must take into

30、account:(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;(3) the amount and substantiality

31、of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.,四、合理使用之判定參考,Lawrence Steingold, Technology and Employer Up

32、date: Court Eliminates Defenses for Downloading Copyrighted Materials, Querrey & Harrow,http://www.querrey.com/assets/attachments/134.pdf, 2011/7/16Copyright Act, Section 106, U. S. A.：Exclusive rights in copyrighte

33、d worksCopyright Act, Section 107, U. S. A.：Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use,五、資料下載合理使用,從網路下載學術資料(老師做研究、學生交報告)，或ＭＰ３音樂檔案，至個人之電腦設備上，亦或向圖書館借書影印，均可謂「重製」行為，該行為之適法性以是否符合「合理使用」原則為依歸。楊苡菁，網路著作權問題(上)，臺灣法律網轉載小姜法律生活報，ht

34、tp://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&parent_path=,1,779,&article_category_id=824&job_id=61802&article_id=30329，2011/7/14,六、網拍之合理使用,民眾於網路上拍賣影音光碟，有三種情況：(一)、將買來之合法影音光碟於網路再予販賣；(二)將自實體世界（例

35、如零售店、量販店、夜市或其他人等）買來之盜版影音光碟於網路予以販售；(三)、將自網路買來之盜版影音光碟於網路再販售。第一種情形，應可歸類為著作之合理使用，諒不構成著作權之侵害。臺灣法律網轉載經濟部智慧財產局文章，網路拍賣影音等光碟法律效果之說明，http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&parent_path=,1,779,&article

36、_category_id=828&job_id=102237&article_id=43580，2011/7/14,七、網址轉貼之合理使用,如僅係將他人網站之網址轉貼於其網頁中，藉由網站間鏈結之方式，使一般人得透過吾人網站進入其他網站，無損對他人重製權之侵害。若明知他人網站內之著作是有爭議(或盜版)之作品，仍透過鏈結方式，提供給公眾，則有侵害公開傳輸權共犯或幫助犯之嫌。倘將他人影片、文章或音樂直接上載於部落格(或聊天室)

37、中，固合於著作權法合理使用規(guī)定，為排除侵害著作權之困窘，亦應以徵得著作財產權人之同意或授權為宜。臺灣法律網轉載經濟部智慧財產局文章http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&parent_path=,1,655,7,&article_category_id=1964&job_id=83405&article_id=37309，20

38、11/7/14,八、數位權利管理,Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies attempt to control what you can and can't do with the media and hardware you've purchased.Bought an ebook from Amazon, but can't read it on your

39、ebook reader of choice? That's DRM.Bought a DVD or Blu-Ray, but can't copy the video onto your portable media player? That's DRM.Bought a video-game, but can't play it today because the manufacturer'

40、;s "authentication servers" are off-line? That's DRM.Bought a smart-phone, but can't use the applications or the service provider you want on it? That's DRM.,八、數位權利管理,Corporations claim that DRM is

41、 necessary to fight copyright infringement online and keep consumers safe from viruses. But there's no evidence that DRM helps fight either of those. Instead, DRM helps big business stifle innovation and competition,

42、 by making it easy to quash "unauthorized" uses of media and technology.DRM has proliferated thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), which sought to outlaw any attempt to bypass DRM.El

43、ectronic Frontier Foundation, http://www.eff.org/issues/drm, 2011-07-16,八、數位權利管理,Case decided by Justice Joseph Story that expanded the scope of copyright protection and laid the foundations to the later fair use doctrin

44、e. The case involved a controversy over the use in a George Washington biography of excerpts from his letters that were previously published in a collection of Washington's papers.The commentary describes the ways i

45、n which the dispute created a clash between the popular republican ideology of the antebellum period, one that celebrated the broad and uninhibited access to knowledge by an informed citizenry, and a rising trend of unde

46、rstanding copyright in commercial market terms.,八、數位權利管理,The identity of the texts at issue sharpened this tension and produced competing images of Washington's papers as a national-public resource or commercial-priv

47、ate property. The commentary argues that Justice Story's decision of the case reinterpreted traditional copyright doctrines that had previously shielded most secondary uses of copyrighted works, subjected such uses t

48、o more stringent limitations, and laid the doctrinal and intellectual foundations for additional future developments in this vein.Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)http://www.copyrighthistory.org/htdocs/data/comm

49、entary/us_1841/us_1841_com_107200702155.html, 2011/7/16,八、數位權利管理,The proposal is designated "R4", and works as follows:Report - a complainant serves a notice of infringing materialRemove- the ISP removes it,

50、without judging the meritsRespond- the author can contest this by asking for replacementReplace- again the ISP acts automatically,八、數位權利管理,The key legal supports that are needed within such legislation are:the ISPs ar

51、e not liable if they follow the processand malicious or negligent claimants can be penalised by the courts.Richard Clayton(Internet Expert, Thus plc), Judge & Jury? how "Notice and Take Down" gives ISPs

52、an unwanted role in applying the Law to the internet. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/Judge_and_Jury.html, 2011/7/16,九、三百多字之官司,In 1977, former President Ford contracted with petitioners to publish his as yet unwritten memo

53、irs. The agreement gave petitioners the exclusive first serial right to license prepublication excerpts. Two years later, as the memoirs were nearing completion, petitioners, as the copyright holders, negotiated a prepu

54、blication licensing agreement with Time Magazine under which Time agreed to pay $25,000 ($12,500 in advance and the balance at publication) in exchange for the right to excerpt 7,500 words from Mr. Ford's account of

55、his pardon of former President Nixon.,九、三百多字之官司,Shortly before the Time article's scheduled release, an unauthorized source provided The Nation Magazine with the unpublished Ford manuscript. Working directly from thi

56、s manuscript, an editor of The Nation produced a 2,250-word article, at least 300 to 400 words of which consisted of verbatim quotes of copyrighted expression taken from the manuscript. It was timed to "scoop"

57、the Time article. As a result of the publication of The Nation's article, Time canceled its article and refused to pay the remaining $12,500 to petitioners.,九、三百多字之官司,Petitioners then brought suit in Federal Distric

58、t Court against respondent publishers of The Nation, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Copyright Act (Act).The District Court held that the Ford memoirs were protected by copyright at the time of The Nation public

59、ation and that respondents' use of the copyrighted material constituted an infringement under the Act, and the court awarded actual damages of $12,500. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that The Nation's pu

60、blication of the 300 to 400 words it identified as copyrightable expression was sanctioned as a "fair use" of the copyrighted material under 107 of the Act.,九、三百多字之官司,Section 107 provides that notwithstanding t

61、he provisions of 106 giving a copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work and to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as c

62、omment and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright. Section 107 further provides that in determining whether the use was fair the factors to be considered shall include: (1) the purpose and character of the u

63、se; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

64、,九、三百多字之官司,The Nation's article was not a "fair use" sanctioned by 107. Pp. 542-569.(a) In using generous verbatim excerpts of Mr. Ford's unpublished expression to lend authenticity to its account of t

65、he forthcoming memoirs, The Nation effectively arrogated to itself the right of first publication, an important marketable subsidiary right.,九、三百多字之官司,(b) Though the right of first publication, like other rights enumerat

66、ed in 106, is expressly made subject to the fair use provisions of 107, fair use analysis must always be tailored to the individual case. The nature of the interest at stake is highly relevant to whether a given use is

67、 fair. The unpublished nature of a work is a key, though not necessarily determinative, factor tending to negate a defense of fair use. And under ordinary circumstances, the author's right to control the first publi

68、c appearance of his undisseminated expression will outweigh a claim of fair use.,九、三百多字之官司,(c) In view of the First Amendment's protections embodied in the Act's distinction between copyrightable expression and u

69、ncopyrightable facts and ideas, and the latitude for scholarship and comment traditionally afforded by fair use, there is no warrant for expanding, as respondents contend should be done, the fair use doctrine to what amo