從近代著作權保護體系的發展過程當中嘗可看到「科技」與「內容」開發者之間經常存在的潛在衝突，而且前者還往往被視為社會中對智慧創作的掠取和破壞者。無論從過去的攝影機、影印機、電視機、錄影機、電腦軟體、光碟技術等等到現今的電子商務，每當有重大的科技產生時，就總會看到各種著作權與其他智慧財產權的問題浮上檯面，成為「科技」與「內容」提供者彼此間的爭端焦點。而頗具反諷的是，往往當初對這些科技發展最為顧忌的一方 ( 「內容」提供者 ) 卻最終成為這些科技的最大受惠者，而整個智慧財產領域的保護規則也在這些訴訟的洗禮後而更加明確。在當前的智慧財產保護走向全球化與國際整合之際，加上網際網路的使用在先天上便是跨國性的，一國或地區的相關發展也自然更容易對其他的國家和地區帶來更為強烈的衝擊。 本文便擬在此一氛圍下探討當前點對點式網路資源分享，尤其是非法上、下載影音著作物所產生的間接著作侵權責任問題，並冀圖從近來的發展中擷取教訓，以因應未來的、更新的挑戰。鑒於美國、歐盟、日本、韓國、澳洲以及大中華地區等地的法院在近一、兩年中均面臨到了修當困難的挑戰，並已先後做成了判決，本文除進行比較研究外，亦亟求凸顯不同的法院如何來看待和處理這其中的問題，即如同在關於槍枝管制問題的論證中，究竟是槍還是那扣動扳機的人應負侵權行為責任？本文最終則主張在此一領域內對著作權的保護政策不但不會扼殺科技發展的創意，恐怕反而更會激發創新。本文亦主張各國必須慎重考量採行對智慧財產權益的間接侵權行為與損害賠償責任，從而方可將此一領域中的諸多問題納入正軌，尤其強調「科技中立」的原則，法院所需注意的焦點仍是當事人的「行為」，而不應被其中所使用的科技所誤導。本文最後則主張，「科技」與「內容」的發展未必始終是站在對立的面向；經驗顯示，誰能有效的將兩者結合才可能成為真正的贏者，整個社會也從而跟著獲利。而且無論法律面向的發展如何，人類的未來最終還是取決於市場，而非法院或政府。

The development of modern copyright protection regime often witnesses a potential confrontation between “technology” and “content” developers, with the former being perceived as “spoiler” that reap the benefit of and undercut the creative genius in a given society. Ironically, the content providers often turn out to be the beneficiaries of technologies once they learn how to embrace them, be it photography, lexicography, photocopying, video recording, laser discs, or the latest online file-share. In the interim, however, content providers such as the music and film industries have waged numerous battles against technology developers, thereby shaping the entire landscape of copyright protection regime. As copyright now enters into an era of international harmonization, together with the global widespread usage of the Internet, which by definition is multinational, the laws and developments in one nation or region necessarily have even far stronger impact on other nations than ever before. This article intends to depict the on-going conflicts and dissect the lessons we may learn to tackle future challenges of these sorts. While focusing on the legal aspects of peer-to-peer file-share technology to that of copyright protection, particularly the so-called secondary copyright infringement liability, this article emphasizes how different courts, in many ways a true reflection of our entire society, mange to approach the various arguments and issues presented. In conclusion, this article proposes that it is time for nations to seriously consider the adoption of indirect or secondary infringement liability; mindful, however, that regardless of what is happening on the legal front, and given that technology and content development may not necessarily on a collision course, it is the market, not the courts or governments, which will ultimately decide what will be for our future.