以著作權為主的智慧財產權是人民以精神、智慧創作的成果，而形成具有財產價值的權利。我國的著作權法發展的趨勢，和目前世界不少相同的立法例，係儘量擴大著作權保障的範圍。但著作權如同其他財產權，亦須負起一定之社會義務。同時，對著作權的限制，德國是以財產權的內容限制為依據。針對屬於著作權的內容，而應付費，可否屬於著作權的內容範圍，抑或歸類為財產權利的徵收侵害？本文藉由德國聯邦憲法法院1971年及以後共六個重要判決的討論，以及兩位德國重要的憲法學者Maunz及Badura相關的評論，說明德國憲法學界的態度，是以形成財產權的內容，而非以納入徵收的概念，而給予一定的補償。由本文討論可知，著作權的保障重心已由「著作人格權」轉為著作財產權。因此仍可以憲法為財產權的社會義務，以及個別性保障來論就著作權的社會義務之範圍。並衡諸現在社會財產權的轉變，仍可要求著作財產權在絕對必要的情形下仍應負擔一定的社會義務，並由立法者在衡量社會價值後，來確定之。

Intellectual property rights apply to products of spiritual, intellectual work, which come to bear the rights of property value. As in many countries around the world, the development trend for Taiwan's Copyright Law has been to enlarge the scope of copyright protection as much as possible. Therefore, such actions as copying, renting out, publicly performing for profit, etc., on copyrighted materials will infringe on the creators' rights and be subject to punishment, as specified in the Copyright Law. However, as in the case of other property rights, copyright privileges must conform to ”social obligation” to promote the public good. This paper argues that we need not regard the abridgement of the copyright as necessarily constituting the abridgement of the general property rights; with reference to the German Federal Constitutional Court's five key decisions in 1971 and the comments of two leading German constitutional scholars, Maunz and Badura, on this issue. This study also maintains that copyright review should avert polarization of the absolute guarantee and total sacrifice for the public good.