網路時代的侵權行為，在侵權人與著作權人之間，多了一個第三方「網路服務提供者」，侵權責任的探討，也隨著科技發展，由直接侵權逐漸轉移至間接侵權。於是，如何在數位科技發展下保障著作權人的權利、同時又兼顧網路使用者與網路服務提供者（Internet Service Providers，ISP）的權益，一直是著作權法制在數位時代的重要挑戰。有關ISP對網路侵權行為所應負有的責任，早期著作權人試圖透過ISP業者的自律條款、教育使用者勿蹈侵權法網，但近年來，ISP責任有逐漸由自律規範移向政府立法的趨勢。臺灣於2009年，便增訂《著作權法》第六章之一，大致以美國數位千禧年著作權法的避風港規定為參考，要求網路服務提供者「通知取下」以爭取民事免責。但科技日新月異，網路侵權手法亦不斷翻新，在大西洋另一端的歐洲，漸有ISP業者應負擔「通知取下」以外的科技義務之聲音出現。為了呈現另一種觀點，本文即以目前備受關注的「封鎖網站的定暫時狀態處分」（site blockinginjunction）為例，由2003年英國著作權法中新增權利人可向法院聲請ISP定暫時狀態處分之源起，繼而介紹英國2010年的《數位經濟法》中更細膩與廣泛的ISP責任與暫時封鎖處分的規定，最後以歐盟2014年允許空白的封網定暫時處分的判決，總結分析近年歐盟有關封網定暫時狀態處分的發展趨勢。

Along with the technology developments, the central debate of tacking copyright infringement in the digital environment has moved from direct liabilities by users to possible indirect liabilities by Internet Service Providers (ISP). Therefore, how to balance the copyright protection, internet users' freedom of expression and ISP's rights to carry out commercial activities, has been one of the most challenging tasks to copyright reforms. In regard of ISP liabilities for internet users' copyright infringements, copyright holders used to urge ISP set up a self-regulatory model to educate users, preventing users from violating copyright laws. Nonetheless, in recent years, there is a trend to pen down ISP liabilities into statutory laws. Taking Taiwan for example, in 2009 it added a new chapter to introduce ISP safe harbor rules into its copyright act. The new chapter follows the DMCA model in the US, requesting ISP to take down disputed content after they receive notices from copyright holders in order to be immune from possible infringement liabilities in the future. Yet the copyright infringements methods advance along with the technology, some may begin to wonder whether the aforementioned ＂Notice and Take Down＂ has become not only a safe harbor for ISP but also for copyright infringers. At the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, some countries of Europe started to think whether there are more options to regulate ISP to enhance copyright protection. Leaning against this background, this article focuses on one of most debated measure against ISP: site blocking injunction which aimed at ordering ISP to block disputed websites and prohibit users from accessing them. The author takes UK for example to introduce the firstsite blocking injunction rule added in Copyright, Design and Patent Act in 2003, followinga more comprehensive technical obligations against ISP pushed forward by Digital Economy Act in 2010. Subsequently, this article analyzes the technical efficiency of site blocking injunction and further examines the legal justification of it with the CJEU case in 2014. In the conclusion, the author looks at the current ISP chapter in Taiwan Copyright Act and renders suggestions by summarizing the previous analysis and examination on site blocking injunction practice.