本文以美國聯邦第二上訴巡迴法院的Cartoon Network為借鏡，分別由四個議題點來進行論述。首先，本文就權利的本質上區別「公開傳輸權」與傳統「傳達」相關權利（如：「公開播送權」、「公開口述權」、「公開演出權」與「公開上映權」）之差異。其次，論證傳統「向公眾傳達著作內容」相關權利的解釋須本於著作內容的「替代關係」，而「公開傳輸權」的建構則須考慮著作內容的「替代危險」。接著，更進一步以互動式傳輸為例，將焦點集中於著作內容的「隨選」服務，若涉及「公開傳輸權」的侵害，以「公開傳輸權」所本的「替代危險」為基礎，探討究竟是服務者或使用者為侵權的主體。最後，由於互動式傳輸的特色在於由使用者依其需求隨時近用資訊內容，若以Cartoon Network一案的事實為例，在「公開傳輸權」的解釋上，探討可否認為提供再次播放的服務並非對「公眾」傳輸著作內容，而不受「公開傳輸權」的支配。

Based upon the reflections of Cartoon Network case, this article is developed from four aspects. Firstly, it distinguishes the property of public transmission right with that of traditional communication rights (for example: public broadcasting right, public recitation right, public performance right, public showing right) under Taiwanese copyright law. Moreover, this article recognizes that while the construction of traditional communication rights is subject to the concept of ”market substitution”, ”public transmission right” is interpreted according to the risk of ”market substitution”. Further, this article takes the service on demand under interactive transmission as example to determine whether the service provider or the service subscribers would be the infringer of public transmission right. Finally, this article examines the holding of Cartoon Network case to clarify whether the replaying of stored programs would be within ”public transmission right” under Taiwanese copyright law if the same fact of this case occurred in Taiwan.