我國著作權法於民國93年增訂80條之2「防盜拷措施保護」規定後，實際上解釋並適用該條文之案例甚少，再者，該條第三項明列不適用防盜拷措施規定之各款情形，其中第九款為「其他經主管機關所訂情形」，並於同條第4項要求「前項各款之內容，由主管機關定之，並定期檢討」，然主管機關經濟部除於民國95年3月23日發布「著作權法第八十條之二第三項各款內容認定要點」就本條各款之內容作詳細規定外，即再無檢討過，使該要點中明訂「至少每三年檢討一次」之要求形同具文，勢必導致我國防盜拷措施之規定實際上缺乏「失效保護機制」之配套，恐對我國人民在數位環境下利用著作物之行為產生不利的結果。反觀美國自1998年數位千禧年著作權法頒布以降，由美國國會圖書館所主導的「失效保護」（fail-safe）機制已累積了四次之多。然而最近一次獲得免責的Jalibreaking與Vidding行為不僅在美國盛行，基於相同科技發展之程度，亦不難想見我國國民對該二利用行為亦多有參與。然如前所述，我國著作權法雖亦有「防盜拷措施」之規定，配套之「失效保護」機制卻因未再檢討而形同具文，則我國該二行為之利用者即可能面臨違反「防盜拷措施」之規定，而受著作權人之民事追訴卻無可抗辯的局面，實非我國民之福，主管之經濟部智慧財產局實有積極檢討之必要。就此，本文欲先以美國2009著作權反規避條款立法程序所通過之前述二項免責項目為例，說明在反規避條款之限制下，該等免責項目對於數位著作物利用人之重要性，並藉以突顯我國相關配套之不足。另外，因美國之國情與法制不見得適用於我國，故本文亦將就與我國「處境類似」－即受制於美國壓力而修正著作權法之國家，如新加坡、澳洲、以及香港等國家或區域之相關做法予以分析比較，以供主管機關參考。

For the purpose of securing the copyright owners' rights and interests in the digital environment, the United States of American enacted the most controversial ”Anti-circumvention Provision” under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Since the enforcing year of 2000, the ”fail-safe” scheme under the anti-circumvention provision, the rulemaking proceeding led by The Library of Unite States Congress, has been held for four times, which created several exceptional ”classic of work” designated to be immune from the liability of anti-circumvention violation.The latest rulemaking proceeding hold on July of 2010 adopted two exceptional exceptions: one is especially aims Apple's iPhone handset, which provides ”jailbreaking” the firmware installed in iPhone in order to run third-party applications is not a violation of anti-circumvention provision. The other provides that circumvention of CSS-the security protocols for motion pictures on DVDs-for the purpose of creating ”non-commercial videos”, will not be subject to anti-circumvention provision.The passing of these two exceptions reflects the fact that ”Jailbreaking” and ”Vidding” are very popular within the United States. However, although people in Taiwan can also acquire iPhone legally and obtain the same enjoyment as iPhone users located at U.S., ”jailbreaking” iPhone is a serious violation of Taiwan's Copyright Law and may facing civil prosecution by the copyright owner. Vidders in Taiwan face the same unfavorable situation.The occurrence of above dilemma is because Taiwan's Copyright Law also has similar fail-safe scheme under the ”Anti-copy Provision,” enacted as clause IV of section 80-1 in our Copyright Law, but never been hold by appointed competent authority since the year of 2006. The four exceptions listed in the point 13 of the [Directions Defining the Content of the Subparagraphs of Paragraph 3 of Article 80-2 of the Copyright Act] announced in 2006 were copied directly from the U.S.'s 2003 rulemaking proceeding, therefore became outdated and insufficient long ago.To solve the unfavorable situation, this Study tries to fist illustrate the importance of these exceptions-focusing on the newly announced exceptions ”Jailbreaking” and ”Vidding” designated by the 2010 rulemaking proceeding-to the users of digital works, and highlighted the inadequacy of related supporting measures in Taiwan's Copyright scheme. Since the U.S. has held the rulemaking proceeding for four times, this Study plans to introduce and analyses the complete system of U.S.'s well-set fail-safe scheme under the anti-circumvention provision, including the rules and requirements, the execution process, proposals recommend by all kinds of interesting parties, and tries to comment on the actual results and related academic articles and reviews.In addition to the U.S., this Study also plans to conduct a comparative study on the fail-safe schemes in some other countries and region which encounter similar pressures from the U.S. as Taiwan did, such as Singapore, Australia, and Hong Kong. This Study hopes the results of this Study can be a useful guideline for said competent authority's reference.