:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:音樂網站侵權責任之發展與影響:比較美國臺灣著作權法體系
書刊名:真理財經法學
作者:楊智傑 引用關係
作者(外文):Yang, Chih-chieh
出版日期:2008
卷期:1
頁次:頁209-271
主題關鍵詞:音樂網站ISPP2P交換軟體Kuro案ezPeer案Grokster案監督人責任輔助責任著作權Music web sitesP2P softwareKuroezPeerGroksterVicarious liabilityContributory liability
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:68
  • 點閱點閱:45
到底在網路上下載音樂、上傳音樂、或許朋友分享音樂,有無違法?這是個持續發展中的議題。個人在網路上下載音樂,可能構成了著作權法上的重製;而「主從式架構」的音樂網站提供音樂下載,也可能構成了著作權法上的公開傳輸。但是,分散式P2P交換軟體提供一個平台,讓使用者在上面自行進行音樂分享,則該P2P軟體的提供者,究竟有無違法,則尚有爭議。對於這個問題,美國最高法院一直到2005年的Grokster案才作出判決;而台灣的法院則到2006年左右,才針對Kuro和ezPeer做出一審判決,判決結果卻截然不同;到二審時兩案卻和解,留下未解爭議。本文想要透過對相關判決的研究,比較出其不同點,進而找出為何會有這樣的不同點。簡單地說,這可能是因為兩國著作權法體系的不同,才導致兩國案例與法制發展有所不同。在比較完法制與案例之不同後,本文更想進一步探討,若我們現在只有兩種選擇:有責任或無責任,那麼從經濟分析角度,到底該不該認定檔案交換軟體有違法?本文發現,若只有這兩種選擇,應該傾向認定P2P音樂交換軟體違法。但倘若認定P2P音樂交換軟體違法,法律上對網路環境給予夠多的保護,唱片公司就真的願意進入網路市場嗎?則是令人質疑的。本文也將簡單預測在相關法制判決確定後,未來網路音樂市場的發展。
Does download music; upload music; and share music on the Internet illegal? This subject has been sustained developed. Individuals who download music on the Internet may constitute a copy against copyright law. Individuals who offer music files on the 'master-slave structure' music sites for users to download may also constitute public transportation against copyright law. However, do people who offers decentralized P2P software providing a platform for users to share music illegal? This question is still controversial. The United States Supreme Court in 2005 has made a decision on Grokster case. After, the Taiwan's district courts have made two totally different decisions about Kuro and ezPeer around 2006, and the two cases both have been reconciled on the appeal, leaving unresolved dispute. This article studies related judgments and compares their different points and then finds out why we have such a different point. Simply put, this may be because the copyright law systems are different between U.S. and Taiwan. This paper would like to further explore more. The author will use the perspective of economic to analysis this issue. The author argues that, if we have only two options: there is liability or not, the file-sharing software should be identified be illegal. But after the P2P music-sharing software is illegal, and the legal protection of the network environment will enough, do the record companies really willing to enter the Internet market? It is questionable. This paper will also be a simple forecast the online music market development.
期刊論文
1.章忠信(20060400)。「數位內容產業發展條例草案」有關著作權規範之檢討。科技法學評論,3(1),133-162。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Lichtman, Douglas、Landes, William(2003)。Indirect liability for copyright infringement: An economic perspective。Harvard Journal of Law & Technology,16(2),395-410。  new window
3.宋皇志(20051000)。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。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.黃俊杰(20050600)。智慧財產權之保護與限制。月旦財經法雜誌,1,137-153。  延伸查詢new window
5.蔡蕙芳(20060400)。P2P網站經營者與其會員成立共同正犯之可能性--ezPeer與Kuro案之分析與檢討。科技法學評論,3(1),45-73。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.鄧迺騰(20040700)。以比較法之角度看ISP業者架設網站並提供他人免費檔案交換軟體以便其在網際網路中傳輸他人著作之行為的評價。智慧財產權,67,107-132。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Comis, Alexander G.(2002)。NOTE: Copyright Killed the Internet Star: The Record Industry's Battle to Stop Copyright Infringement Online: A Case Note on UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. and the Creation of a Derivation work by the Digitization of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings。Sw. U. L. Rev.,31,753。  new window
8.Hardy, Trotter(1996)。Property (and Copyright) in Cyberspace。U. Chi. Legal F.,1996,217。  new window
9.Mousley, Matthew C.(2003)。Peer-to-Peer Combat: The Entertainment Industry's Arsemal on its War on Digital Piracy。Vill. L. Rev.,48,667。  new window
10.Pasquale, Frank(2005)。Breaking the Vicious Circularity: Sony's Contribution to the Fair Use Doctrine。Case W. Res. L. Rev.,55,777。  new window
11.Picker, Randal C.(2005)。Rewind Sony: The Evolving Product, Phoning Home and the Duty of Ongoing Design。Case W. Res. L. Rev.,55,749。  new window
12.范曉玲(20011100)。網路音樂「同儕共享」與「合理使用」--從Napster案談起。月旦法學,78,209-217。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.陳家駿(20051200)。從臺北地院KURO案刑事判決談P2P網站著作權爭議。全國律師,9(12),21-33。  延伸查詢new window
14.陳家駿(20060300)。從網路電子交易評我國首宗P2P著作權重製與傳輸之ezPeer案判決。月旦法學,130,50-65。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.馮震宇(20010300)。從MP3法律爭議論網路著作權保護之未來。月旦法學,74,115-139。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.Gordon, Wendy J.(1982)。Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and its Predecessors。Columbia Law Review,82(8),1600-1657。  new window
17.黃惠婷(20000700)。幫助犯之幫助行為--兼探討網路服務提供者之刑責。中原財經法學,5,23-40。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.蔡明誠(20010600)。從成大MP3事件論著作權之侵害及限制問題。臺灣本土法學雜誌,23,53-62。  延伸查詢new window
19.謝銘洋(20010600)。成大MP3事件相關著作權法問題探討。月旦法學,73,77-87。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.羅明通(20060400)。P2P之傳輸技術、產業價值暨美臺相關判決評析。科技法學評論,3(1),1-44。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.蔡岳勳、胡心蘭(20050600)。從法律與經濟學的角度分析美國著作權法之科技保護措施及合理使用原則。中原財經法學,14,157-243。new window  延伸查詢new window
22.羅明通(20030300)。P2P資源共享架構之傳輸及重製在著作權法上之評價--兼論折衷式與無階式(NO-TIER)P2P之技術差異。月旦法學,94,212-225。new window  延伸查詢new window
23.馮震宇(20050600)。P2P的挑戰與未來--從Grokster案看P2P法的爭議。月旦財經法雜誌,1,1-23。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.莊心潔(2001)。Peer-to-Peer多媒體傳輸科技著作權問題之研究(碩士論文)。東吳大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳慧鄉(2005)。線上音樂與補償金機制之研究(碩士論文)。國立政治大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.劉尚志、陳佳麟(2000)。網際網路與電子商務法律策略。元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.蔡文英(2001)。媒體新勢力。商智文化。  延伸查詢new window
3.Landes, William M.、Posner, Richard(2003)。The economic structure of intellectual property law。Harvard University press。  new window
4.Lessig, Lawrence(2001)。THE FUTURE OF IDEAS。New York。  new window
其他
1.Lessig, Lawrence。Free Culture,http://free-culture.ee/。  new window
2.Yen, Alfred C.(2004)。Third Party Copyright After Grokster, Boston College Law School Faculty Papers,http://lsnnellco.org/be/bclsfp/papers/133。  new window
圖書論文
1.蔡蕙芳(200802)。用戶著作權侵權之網路服務業者責任。著作權侵權與其刑事責任。台北:新學林。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE