重製權之相關議題向來為著作權法研究或實務上關注之焦點。就重製權範圍之界定而言，傳統重製行為係基於重製者之「重製目的」所作成，因此在重製權之解釋上較無爭議，但隨著數位科技時代的來臨，許多重製行為之發生並非出於重製者之「重製目的」，乃是使用或操作科技工具或媒體所不可避免之結果，該重製行附屬於科技工具或媒體之運用，其目的乃協助達成科技工具或媒體所由設計之功能，再者，該重製行為所生之重製內容，較之傳統之重製行為，科技工具或媒體之使用者不易接觸此類重製內容，亦即內容欠缺實用性，使用者不易令之以其他固著之方式散布予他人。此外，科技工具或媒體之使用所生之重製內容因專為技術之目的存在，在品質上未必能符合一般人對重製物之期待。基於以上之理由，此類使用科技工具或媒體所生之重製（通稱為數位暫時性重製），在法律評價是否定然涵括於著作權法重製權之範圍內便有進一步探討之餘地。雖然學界或實務界之多數的見解認為數位暫時性重製構成著作權法之重製，但本文仍由著作權法之立法本旨及其基本價值出發而對此議題加以詳細剖析及論證，以釐清此議題可能產生之誤解及爭議。 我國著作權法為杜絕數位暫時性重製議題可能產生之爭議，特參考歐體2001著作權指令，修正第三條及第二十二條。但在繼受歐盟法之同時，不僅引進入歐盟法本身之缺失，亦同時基於對於歐盟法之誤解而生規範不周延之現象。本文有鑑於此，於檢討評論我國現行法潛在之缺失外，並提出未來修法之建議，及修法前法律解釋之方針，盼能對學術界或實務界於此議題之因應上有所裨益。

The issue about reproduction right has been drawing the attention of scholars and practitioners of copyright law. In terms of the scope of reproduction right, there is no dispute in concluding the traditional reproduction acts are governed by reproduction right because those acts are made according to the purpose of reproduction. Nonetheless, in the era of digitalized technology, many reproduction acts, without the purpose of reproduction, are the necessary and indispensable result of using or operating technological facilities or media. They are incidental to technological facilities or media, and their purpose is to assist in functioning of the technological facilities or media. Moreover, compared with the traditional reproduction acts, the copies resulting from using or operating technological facilities or media are not easy for users of technological facilities or media to access. In other words, the reproduction content lacks of practicability, and the users are incapable of distributing these copies fixed in other media to the public. Finally, the quality of reproduction does not always correspond to the expectation of the public on the grounds that the reproduction resulting from using or operating technological facilities or media exists exclusively for the technological purpose. Based on the reasons mentioned above, it is necessary to further explore whether the reproduction resulting from using or operating technological facilities or media (hereinafter digital temporary reproduction) is within the scope of reproduction right under copyright law. Although the majority opinions under law scholars and practitioners tend to conclude that the digital temporary reproduction constitutes the reproduction under copyright law, this author will be reexaming the same issue according to the legislation gist and basic values under copyright law to clarify the possible misconception and resolve the dispute. In order to resolve the dispute about digital temporary reproduction under Taiwanese Copyright Act, Articles 3 and 22 under this Act have been amended by referring to EC 2001 Copyright Directive. However, on introducing the legal model of EU Law into Taiwanese legislation, not only are the drawbacks of EC 2001 Copyright Directive reflected in the related provisions under Taiwanese Copyright Act, but the misconception about EC 2001 Copyright Directive is also driving this Act to an inadequate status on the issue of digital temporary reproduction. In view of this situation, besides examining and commenting on the related provisions of the Taiwanese Copyright Act about digital temporary reproduction, this author will be providing the recommendations in the issue of digital temporary reproduction for revision of this Act in the future and the guideline for interpretation of this Act prior to revision to help the law scholars and practitioners resolve this issue.