English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 94657/125189 (76%)
Visitors : 30605872      Online Users : 312
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133904


    Title: 以比較法觀點論著作權侵權責任避風港之立法模式與最新發展
    A Comparative Study on ISP Safe Harbor for Copyright Infringement Liability in terms of Legislative Mode and its Recent Judicial Development
    Authors: 劉奕伸
    Liu, I-Shen
    Contributors: 沈宗倫
    Shen, Chung-Lun
    劉奕伸
    Liu, I-Shen
    Keywords: 責任避風港
    著作權間接侵權
    數位單一市場著作權指令
    美國數位千禧年著作權法
    網路服務提供者之民事免責事由
    Safe Harbor
    Copyright Infringement Secondary Liability
    The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    ISP Civil Liability Exemption
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2021-02-01 14:13:18 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 2019年歐盟通過數位單一市場著作權指令,一改過去電子商務指令對網路服務提供者責任豁免的態度,改要求內容分享服務提供者在用戶上傳合法內容或提供用戶接觸合法內容管道時,應取得著作權利人之授權,此為網路平台著作權侵權責任的新篇章。從1998年美國千禧年著作權法制定以來,當今的網路環境和用戶使用習慣已大不相同,從過去扶植網路服務提供者發展的態度,轉變為其應承擔起更多責任。本文以兩種截然不同的立法模式進行比較探討,並觀察實務判決發展趨勢,期望提出合適的規範模式供我國未來修法方向參考。
    In 2019, the European Union passed the The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD), which changed the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for copyright infringement liability of legislative mode in the E-Commerce Directive. According to DSMD, when Online Content Sharing Service Provider (OCSSP) gives the public access to copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users, OCSSP should obtain an authorisation from the rightholders, which made a big difference liability. Since US passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, the network environment and users habbit change a lot in now days, from the attitude of fostering the development of ISP in the past, they’ve been asked to take more responsibility now. This thesis tried to compare two different legislative mode and the recent judicial development, trying to find out a better mode reference for future in Taiwan.
    Reference: 壹、中文文獻(依作者姓氏筆畫排列)

    一、專書
    1. 王澤鑑,侵權行為法,2版,2011年8月。
    2. 林山田,刑法通論(下冊),10版,2008年1月。
    3. 林誠二,債法總論新解體系化解說(上),3版,2010年9月。
    4. 林鈺雄,新刑法總則,7版,2019年9月。
    5. 謝銘洋,智慧財產權法,7版,2016年9月。
    6. 蕭雄淋,著作權法論,8版,2017年8月。

    二、期刊論文
    1. 王怡蘋,論著作權法之間接侵害—從德國案例所獲之啟示,東吳法律學報,19卷4期,頁75-108,2007年10月。
    2. 王怡蘋,著作權法關於網路服務提供者之民事免責規範,月旦法學雜誌,173期,頁25-41,2009年10月。
    3. 王琇慧,千禧年著作權法(DMCA)施行之新平台—自由貿易協定(FTA),智慧財產權月刊,84期,頁87-112,2005年12月。
    4. 宋皇志,從MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.案看P2P業者之侵權責任,交大科技法學評論,2卷2期,頁241-270,2005年。
    5. 李治安,失衡的承諾:著作權法責任避風港規範之立法政策評析,臺大法學論叢,43卷1期,頁143-207,2014年3月。
    6. 李治安,網路服務提供者民事免責事由之要件分析,國際比較法下我國著作權法之總檢討(下冊),中央研究院法律學研究所,頁451-490,2014年12月。
    7. 沈宗倫,對於我國著作權法關於網路服務提供者民事責任豁免立法之初步評析,中正財經法學,1期,頁257-298,2010年1月。
    8. 林利芝,權力消長 天平傾斜—探究「通知/取下」程序之平衡假象,月旦法學雜誌,258期,頁39-60,2016年10月。
    9. 林利芝,影音網站著作權侵害與過濾機制衍生爭議之研究,東吳法律學報,23卷4期,頁89-124,2012年4月。
    10. 周伯翰,網路服務提供者免責條件之分析與檢討,法學新論,25期,頁21-47,2010年8月。
    11. 姚信安,論我國著作權網路服務提供者責任規範之發展與實踐,科技法學評論,8卷2期,頁167-218,2011年12月。
    12. 姚信安,從美國法角度探討我國著作權民事間接侵權責任相類制度,中正財經法學,2期,頁139-201,2011年。
    13. 章忠信,二〇〇九年新修正著作權法簡析——網路服務提供者之責任限制,月旦法學雜誌,173期,頁5-24,2009年10月。
    14. 章忠信,美國一九九八年數位化千禧年著作權法案簡介,萬國法律,107期,頁25-42,1999年10月。
    15. 陳家駿,從我國ezPeer/KURO二著作權案判決----談P2P網站提供會員重製與傳輸之法律責任,智慧財產季刊,58期,頁37-43,2006年。
    16. 陳曉慧、陳皓芸、王怡蘋,數位機上盒之著作權法增修條文評析,月旦法學雜誌,293期,頁165-178,2019年10月。
    17. 曾勝珍,著作權間接侵害責任之探討—2009年新展望,東海大學法學研究,31期,頁189-240,2009年12月。
    18. 馮震宇,歐盟著作權指令體制與相關歐盟法院判決之研究,國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討,中央研究院法律研究所專書(19),頁491-543,2014年12月。
    19. 馮震宇、胡心蘭,從間接侵權責任論著作權法P2P責任立法之商榷,月旦法學雜誌,151期,頁203-218,2007年12月。
    20. 葉志良,著作權法三振條款制度對著作權平衡保護的影響,資訊社會研究,22期,頁79-114,2012年。
    21. 楊智傑,美國智慧財產權訴訟中核發禁制令之審查,智慧財產權月刊,160期,頁51-100,2012年4月。
    22. 楊智傑,音樂網站侵權責任之發展與影響:比較美國台灣著作權法體系,真理財經法學,1期,頁209-271,2008年9月。
    23. 蔡蕙芳,用戶著作權侵權之網路服務業者責任,科技法學評論,1卷2期,頁295-344,2004年。
    24. 劉佩玲,以Youtube在美國訴訟案最新發展為例—兼論我國網路服務提供者涉及之著作權侵權責任,華岡法粹,60期,頁127-182,2016年。
    25. 戴豪君,歐盟通過內部市場電子商務指令,科技法律透析,12:7期,頁18-20,2000年7月。

    三、學位論文
    1. 陳奎霖,著作權間接侵權責任體系之探討,國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文,2019年7月。
    2. 程之涵,用戶創作內容線上分享平台之著作權責任──歐盟數位單一市場著作權指令第17條之研究,國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文,2020年1月。
    3. 曾雅琴,從網路服務提供者角度論責任避風港條款之適用爭議,國立東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文,2017年6月。
    4. 黃美齡,雲端服務提供者著作權侵權責任之研究,國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文,2015年7月。

    四、政府機構文件
    1. 98年5月13日總統公布施行著作權法部分條文修正草案。
    2. 96年7月11日總統公布施行著作權法部分條文修正草案。
    3. ISP協力保護著作權最新立法趨勢之研究期末報告書,經濟部智慧財產局,2010年10月。
    4. 院總第553號委員提案第6844號。
    5. 國際著作權立法新思潮之研究—美國及歐盟,經濟部智慧財產局,2015年。
    6. 經濟部智慧財產局103年4月1日智著字第10316002230號解釋。
    7. 經濟部智慧財產局102年11月19日智著字第10200092090號解釋。
    8. 經濟部智慧財產局93年02月13日930213電子郵件函釋。

    五、司法判決
    1. 最高法院109年台上字第2616號刑事判決。
    2. 智慧財產法院108年民著訴字第18號民事判決。
    3. 智慧財產法院108年度刑智上易字第26號刑事判決。
    4. 智慧財產法院107年度刑智上易字第7號判決。
    5. 智慧財產法院99年度刑智上更(二)字第24號。
    6. 智慧財產法院98年度刑智上更(一)字第48號刑事判決。
    7. 臺灣高等法院94年度上訴字第3195號刑事判決。
    8. 臺灣士林地方法院92年度訴字728號刑事判決。
    9. 臺灣新北地方法院98年度重易字第4號刑事判決。
    10. 臺灣臺中地方法院105年度智易字第53號判決。
    11. 臺灣臺北地方法院107年智易字第42號刑事判決。
    12. 臺灣臺北地方法院92年訴字第2146號刑事判決。

    貳、外文文獻(依作者姓氏字母排列)

    一、專書
    1. European Commission (2014), EU study on the legal analysis of a single market for the information society: New rules for a new age?

    二、期刊論文
    1. Aleksandra Kuczerawy, EU Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Compatibility of Article 13 with the EU Intermediary Liability Regime, Bilyana Petkova, Tuomas Ojanen (eds.), Fundamental Rights Protection Online: The Future Regulation of Intermediaries, 2019 (2018).
    2. Alfred C. Yen, Third-Party Copyright Liability after Grokster, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 91, No.1 (2006).
    3. Amanda Reid, Considering Fair Use: DMCA’s Take Down & Repeat Infringers Policies, 24 Communication Law and Policy, 101-141 (2019).
    4. Annemarie Bridy, The Price of Closing the 'Value Gap': How the Music Industry Hacked EU Copyright Reform, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, volume 22 (2020).
    5. Art Neill and Erika Lee, Fixing Section 512 - Legislative Reforms for the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions, California Western School of Law Research Paper No. 17-1 (2016).
    6. Cattleya M. Concepcion, Beyond the Lens of Lenz: Looking to Protect Fair Use during the Safe Harbor Process under the DMCA, 18 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 219 (2010).
    7. Christina Angelopoulos, On Online Platforms and the Commission’s New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2017).
    8. Christina Angelopoulos, Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonising Substantive Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringement in Europe, Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-72 (2013).
    9. Christina Angelopoulos, Filtering the Internet for Copyrighted Content in Europe, IRIS plus (Supplement to IRIS - Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory) 2009-4 (2009).
    10. Christina Angelopoulos and Stijn Smet, Notice-and-Fair-Balance: How to Reach a Compromise between Fundamental Rights in European Intermediary Liability (2016).
    11. Christopher A. Cotropia & James Gibson, Convergence and Conflation in Online Copyright, 105 Iowa L. Rev. 1027 (2020).
    12. Craig A. Grossman, From Sony to Grokster, the Failure of the Copyright Doctrines of Contributory Infringement and Vicarious Liability to Resolve the War between Content and Destructive Technologies, 53 Buff. L. Rev. 141 (2005).
    13. Daniel Seng, The State of the Discordant Union: An Empirical Analysis of DMCA Takedown Notices, 18 Va. J. L. & Tech. 369 (2014).
    14. Dirk J.G. Visser, Trying to Understand Article 13 (2019).
    15. Douglas Lichtman and William Landes, Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement: An Economic Perspective, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 16, No. 2 (2003).
    16. Emerald Smith, Lord of the Files: International Secondary liability for Internet Service Providers, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1555 (2011).
    17. Eleonora Rosati, The CJEU Pirate Bay Judgment and Its Impact on the Liability of Online Platforms, European Intellectual Property Review, Forthcoming (2017).
    18. Giancarlo Frosio & Sunimal Mendis, Monitoring and Filtering: European Reform or Global Trend?, Center for International Intellectual Property Studies Research Paper, No. 2019-05 (2019).
    19. Giancarlo Frosio, To Filter or Not to Filter? That Is the Question in EU Copyright Reform, 36(2) Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 331-368 (2018).
    20. Giancarlo Frosio, Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy: A European Digital Single Market Strategy, 112 Northwestern University Law Review 19 (2017).
    21. Graeme B. Dinwoodie, A Comparative Analysis of the Secondary Liability of Online Service Providers, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 47 (2017).
    22. Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Secondary Liability for Online Trademark Infringement: The International Landscape, Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 37 Colum. (2014).
    23. Gustavo Ghidini & Francesco Banterle, A Critical View on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Giurisprudenza Commerciale, 6, 921-933 (2018).
    24. Heidi Pearlman Salow, Liability Immunity for Internet Service Providers: How Is It Working, 6 J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 31 (2001).
    25. Jennifer M. Urban, Joe Karaganis, and Brianna Schofield, Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2755628 (2017).
    26. Jennifer M. Urban and Laura Quilter, Efficient Process or Chilling Effects - Takedown Notices under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 22 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 621 (2005).
    27. João Pedro Quintais, The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look, European Intellectual Property Review 2020(1) (Forthcoming) (2019).
    28. Karina Grisse, After the Storm—Examining the Final Version of Article 17 of the New Directive(EU)2019/790, Journal of IP Law & Practice, Vol.14, No.11 (2019).
    29. Kathleen O’Donnell, Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. And the Potential Effect of Fair Use Analysis Under the Takedown Procedures of §512 of the DMCA, 8 Duke Law & Technology Review 1-13 (2009).
    30. Lia Shikhiashvili, The Same Problem, Different Outcome: Online Copyright Infringement and Intermediary Liability Under US and EU Laws, 24 Intell. Prop. and Tech. L. J. 1 (2019).
    31. Lindsee Gendron, A Safer Harbor, 36 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 619 (2010).
    32. Lynda J. Oswald, International Issues in Secondary Liability for Intellectual Property Rights Infringement, American Business Law Journal Volume 45, Issue 2, 247–282 (2008).
    33. Mark A. Lemley, Rationalizing Internet Safe Harbors, Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 6, p. 101 (2007).
    34. Martin Husovec & João Quintais, How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms (2019).
    35. Martin Senftleben, Bermuda Triangle – Licensing, Filtering and Privileging User-Generated Content Under the New Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2019).
    36. Matthew Sag, Internet Safe Harbors and the Transformation of Copyright Law, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 93 (2017).
    37. Matthias Leistner, Structural Aspects of Secondary (Provider) Liability in Europe, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2014).
    38. Michael A. Carrier, Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story, Wisconsin Law Review 891 (2012).
    39. Michael Larkey, Cooperative Play: Anticipating the Problem of Copyright Infringement in the New Business of Live Video Game Webcasts, Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy (2015).
    40. Mike Scott, Safe Harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 9 NYU J Legis & Pub Policy, Vol 99 (2005).
    41. Niva Elkin-Koren, Making Technology Visible: Liability of Internet Service Providers for Peer-to-Peer Traffic, New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, Vol. 9, p. 15 (2006).
    42. Niva Elkin-Koren, Copyright Law and Social Dialogue on the Information Superhighway: The Case Against Copyright Liability of Bulletin Boards Operators, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment, Vol.13:345 (1995).
    43. Pablo Baistrocchi, Liability of Intermediary Service Providers in the EU Directive on Electronic Commerce, 19 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 111 (2002).
    44. Patrick R. Goold, Is Copyright Infringement a Strict Liability Tort?, 30 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 305 (2015).
    45. Peggy Valcke & Aleksandra Kuczerawy & Pieter-Jan Ombelet, Did the Romans Get it Right? What Delfi, Google, eBay, and UPC TeleKabel Wien Have in Common, L. Floridi and M. Taddeo, The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers, Springer (2016).
    46. R. Anthony Reese, The Relationship Between the ISP Safe Harbors and Liability for Inducement, 2011 Stanford Tech. L. Rev. 8 (2011).
    47. Richard Arnold & Paul S Davies, Accessory liability for intellectual property infringement: the case of authorisation, The Law Quarterly Review 133 (2017).
    48. Sharon Bar-Ziv and Niva Elkin-Koren, Behind the Scenes of Online Copyright Enforcement: Empirical Evidence on Notice & Takedown, Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 50 (2017).
    49. Susan Freiwald, Comparative Institutional Analysis in Cyberspace: The Case of Intermediary Liability for Defamation, 14 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 569 (2001).
    50. T Hoeren, German Law on Internet Liability of Intermediaries, LIDC Congress Oxford 2011 (2011).
    51. Tim Wu, The Copyright Paradox - Understanding Grokster, Supreme Court Review, Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 317 (2006).
    52. Wang, J., Regulating hosting ISPs’ responsibilities for copyright infringement: The freedom to operate in the US, EU and China, Maastricht University (2016).

    三、機構文件
    1. A European Initiative on Electronic Commerce, COM(97) 157 final (1997).
    2. Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce in the internal market, COM(1999) 427 final (1999).
    3. Bruce A. Lehman & Information Infrastructure Task Force, The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1995).
    4. Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy, USPTO (2013).
    5. Council of the European Union, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market - Agreed negotiating mandate, 2016/0280 (COD) (2018).
    6. European Commission, A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM(2015) 192 final (2015).
    7. European Commission, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market, COM(2016) 593 final (2016).
    8. European Commission, Public consultation on the evaluation and modernisation of the legal framework for the enforcement of intellectual property rights: Summary of responses (2015).
    9. European Commission, Synopsis Report On The Public Consultation On The Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries, Data and Cloud Computing and the Collaborative Economy (2016).
    10. European Commission, White Paper: A Copyright Policy for Creativity And Innovation In The European Union (2014).
    11. European Parliament, Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 12 September 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM(2016)0593 – C8-0383/2016 – 2016/0280(COD)) (2018).
    12. European Parliamentary Research Service, Reform of the EU liability regime for online intermediaries: Background on the forthcoming digital services act (2020).
    13. H.R. Rep. No.105-551, part1.
    14. H.R. Rep. No.105-551, part2.
    15. IFPI, Digital Music Report 2015 (2015).
    16. OpenForum Europe, Intermediary liability through the back door: Consequences of extending digital copyright for the open internet (2016).
    17. Proposal for a European Parliament And Council Directive on Certain Legal Aspects of Electronic Commerce in the Internal Market, COM(1998) 586 final (1998).
    18. S. Rep. No. 105-190.
    19. Section 512 of Title 17: A Report of the Register of Copyrights, United States Copyright Office (2020).
    20. Section 512 of Title 17- Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet of the Committee on the Judiciary, House, 113 Cong., 2nd Sess. (2014).

    四、司法判決
    1. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
    2. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
    3. Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.Com, INC., 633 F.Supp.2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
    4. BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications, 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018).
    5. BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications, 149 F.Supp.3d 634 (E.D.Va. 2015).
    6. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2013).
    7. Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland, Case C-18/18 (2019).
    8. Gershwin Publish Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F .2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971).
    9. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016).
    10. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F.Supp.2d 1150 (N.D.Cal. 2008).
    11. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
    12. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004).
    13. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
    14. OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CRUZ VILLALÓN delivered on 26 November 2013, Case C-314/12 (2013).
    15. OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SZPUNAR delivered on 8 February 2017, Case C-610/15 (2017).
    16. Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007).
    17. Perfect 10 Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (C.D. Cal. 2004).
    18. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552(M.D. Fla. 1993).
    19. Sabam v. Netlog, Case C-360/10 (2012).
    20. Scarlet v. Sabam, Case C-70/10 (2011).
    21. Sony v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
    22. Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV & XS4ALL Internet BV, Case C-610/15 (2017).
    23. Ventura Content, Ltd. v. Motherless, Inc., 885 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018).
    24. Ventura Content, Ltd. v. Motherless, Inc., Case 2:11-cv-05912-SVW-FMO (C.D. Cal. 2013).
    25. Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d (2d Cir. 2012).
    26. Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp. of Amer., 480 F. Supp. 429 (C.D. Cal. 1979).
    27. UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH, Case C-314/12 (2014).
    28. UMG Recordings Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc., 718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013).

    參、網路資料(依開頭字母和筆畫排列)
    1. Allen & Overy, The Digital Service Act package is here (Dec. 16, 2020), available at:https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/the-digital-services-act-package-is-here(Last Visited:Jan. 7, 2021)
    2. Catherine Jasserand, Kluwer Copyright Blog, France: The Court of Cassation puts an end to the Notice and Stay Down Rule (Aug. 14, 2012), available at: http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2012/08/14/france-the-court-of-cassation-puts-an-end-to-the-notice-and-stay-down-rule/?doing_wp_cron=1594367342.0472989082336425781250(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    3. Christina Angelopoulos, Kluwer Copyright Blog, CJEU Decision on Ziggo: The Pirate Bay Communicates Works to the Public (June 30, 2017), available at: http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/06/30/cjeu-decision-ziggo-pirate-bay-communicates-works-public/?doing_wp_cron=1594899194.7601230144500732421875(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    4. Christina Angelopoulos, Kluwer Copyright Blog, CJEU in UPC Telekabel Wien: A totally legal court order…to do the impossible (April 3, 2014), available at:http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2014/04/03/upc-telekabel-wien/?doing_wp_cron=1594809299.7815740108489990234375(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    5. Cory Doctorow, EFF, How the EU's Copyright Filters Will Make it Trivial For Anyone to Censor the Internet (Sep. 11, 2018), available at:https://www.eff.org/zh-hant/deeplinks/2018/09/how-eus-copyright-filters-will-make-it-trivial-anyone-censor-internet(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    6. European Commission, The Digital Services Act: ensuring a safe and accountable online environment, available at:https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en (Last Visited:Jan. 7, 2021)
    7. European Commission, Questions & Answers: EU negotiators reach a breakthrough to modernise copyright rules (Feb. 13, 2019), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_19_1151(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    8. Eleftherios Chelioudakis, KU Leuven CiTiP, The Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook case: Knock, knock. Who’s there? Automated filters online (Nov. 12, 2019), available at:https://www.law.kuleuven.be/citip/blog/the-glawischnig-piesczek-v-facebook-case-knock-knock-whos-there-automated-filters-online/ (Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    9. GTG Advocates, Copyright Infringement and Online Platforms – Recent Opinions and Judgments from the CJEU (July 29, 2020), available at:https://www.gtgadvocates.com/copyright-infringement-and-online-platforms-recent-opinions-and-judgments-from-the-cjeu/#(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    10. James Vincent, The Verge, EU approves controversial Copyright Directive, including internet ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’(Sep.12, 2018), available at: https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    11. Jones Day, Best Efforts and Endeavours—Case Analysis and Practical Guidance Under U.S. and U.K. Law (July, 2007), available at:https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2007/07/best-efforts-and-endeavourscase-analysis-and-practical-guidance-under-us-and-uk-law#_ftn24(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    12. Joshua Hardwick, Ahrefsblog, Top 100 Most Visited Websites by Search Traffic (as of 2020) (Dec. 12, 2020), available at:https://ahrefs.com/blog/most-visited-websites/(Last visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    13. Julia Reda, Kluwer Copyright Blog, In copyright reform, Germany wants to avoid over-blocking, not rule out upload filters – Part 1 (July 9, 2020), available at:http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/07/09/in-copyright-reform-germany-wants-to-avoid-over-blocking-not-rule-out-upload-filters-part-1/?doing_wp_cron=1594709033.3103229999542236328125(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    14. Julia Reda, Kluwer Copyright Blog, In copyright reform, Germany wants to avoid over-blocking, not rule out upload filters – Part 2 (July 10, 2020), available at:http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/07/10/in-copyright-reform-germany-wants-to-avoid-over-blocking-not-rule-out-upload-filters-part-2/?doing_wp_cron=1594429677.0560879707336425781250(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    15. Julia Reda, What the Commission found out about copyright infringement but ‘forgot’ to tell us (Sep. 20, 2017), available at:https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/secret-copyright-infringement-study/(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    16. Martin Husovec & João Pedro Quintais, Kluwer Copyright Blog, Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 2 (Aug. 28, 2020), available at:http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/28/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-2/(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    17. Maryam Mohsin, Oberlo 10, Youtube Stats Every Marketer Should Know in 2020 (May 11, 2020), available at:https://www.oberlo.com/blog/youtube-statistics(Last visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    18. Matt Reynolds, Wired, What is Article 13? The EU's divisive new copyright plan explained (May 24, 2019), available at:https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-article-13-article-11-european-directive-on-copyright-explained-meme-ban(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    19. Pew Research Center, Internet Use Over Time (June 12, 2019), available at:https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    20. Remy Chavannes, Kluwer Copyright Blog, The Dutch DSM copyright transposition bill: safety first (up to a point) – Part 2 (June 11, 2020), available at:http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/11/the-dutch-dsm-copyright-transposition-bill-safety-first-up-to-a-point-part-2/?doing_wp_cron=1591925309.9819800853729248046875(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    21. Steve Brachman, IPWACTHDOG, Section 512 Report Suggests Fine-Tuning Knowledge and Eligibility Requirements for DMCA Safe Harbors (May 28, 2020), available at:https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/05/28/section-512-report-suggests-fine-tuning-knowledge-eligibility-requirements-dmca-safe-harbors/id=121931/(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    22. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands (Sep. 25, 2003), available at: https://www.eff.org/wp/unsafe-harbors-abusive-dmca-subpoenas-and-takedown-demands(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    23. Tom Sydnor, BMG v. Cox: The most important IP-enforcement decision of 2015 (Jan. 29, 2016), available at:https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/intellectual-property/bmg-v-cox-important-ip-enforcement-decision-2015/(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    24. Venkat Balasubramani, Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Bittersweet DMCA Safe Harbor Defense Win in Ninth Circuit–Ventura v. Motherless (Catch-Up Post) (May 13, 2018), available at:https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/05/bittersweet-dmca-safe-harbor-defense-win-in-ninth-circuit-ventura-v-motherless-catch-up-post.htm(Last Visited:Dec. 30, 2020)
    25. Youtube說明,Content ID的運作模式,網址:https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=zh-Hant(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    26. Youtube說明,針對Content ID聲明提出爭議,網址:https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=zh-Hant&ref_topic=9282678(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    27. Youtube說明,版權下架通知與Content ID聲明的差異,網址:https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=zh-Hant&ref_topic=9282678 (最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    28. 立法院法律系統,一百零八年四月十六日著作權法異動條文及理由,網址:https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lawsingle?00114C45B23C0000000000000000014000000004000000^01176108041600^00037001001(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    29. 行政院主計總處綜合統計處,國情統計通報第050號,網址:https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/5320161254AFZJFA2L.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    30. 吳明宜,歐洲通過完整版「著作權指令」法條 引爆網路業與出版業角力大戰,網路資訊雜誌,2019年4月1日,網址:https://netmag.tw/2019/04/01/(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    31. 林昱宏,非法機上盒之終結?談著作權法第87條第1項第8款之修法,宇智顧問|宇邦智權,2019年9月9日,網址:http://www.phycos.com.tw/articles/275(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    32. 章忠信,立法院提案修法遏止網路檔案分享軟體之提供,著作權筆記,2007年6月15日,網址:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=54&aid=2163(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    33. 章忠信,台灣ISP責任立法的幾項思考,著作權筆記,2009年3月10日,網址:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=54&aid=2203(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    34. 章忠信,超連結的行為是不是等於著作權法之公開傳輸?著作權筆記,網址:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=3&aid=1858(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    35. 章忠信,著作權法逐條釋義:第九十條之四,著作權筆記,2009年6月10日,網址:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=11&aid=197(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    36. 章忠信,著作權法逐條釋義:第九十條之五,著作權筆記,2009年6月2日,網址:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=11&aid=198(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    37. 章忠信,著作權法逐條釋義:第九十條之六,著作權筆記,2009年7月19日,網址:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=11&aid=199(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    38. 章忠信,著作權法逐條釋義:第九十條之十,著作權筆記,2009年7月2日,網址:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=11&aid=203(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    39. 章忠信,網路服務提供者著作權侵害責任限制之立法思考與方向,著作權筆記,網址:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwinvZyu4OPsAhXay4sBHZBBC9EQFjAAegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.copyrightnote.org%2Fpaper%2Fpa0048.doc&usg=AOvVaw287Chvy_hQfASdv0BNMNNF(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    40. 章忠信,機上盒侵害著作權之法律防制,著作權筆記,2019年1月17日,網址:http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=54&aid=2889(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    41. 許哲銘,資策會科技法律研究所,歐盟理事會通過爭議不斷的歐盟數位單一市場著作權指令,2019年5月,網址:https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?no=64&tp=1&i=92&d=8233&lv2=92(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    42. 著作權法「網路服務提供者民事免責事由」及其實施辦法Q&A,網址:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiSpvGz767rAhUKyYsBHfy6BQ0QFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftopic.tipo.gov.tw%2Fcopyright-tw%2Fdl-250062-a12359c957d9470dbc067c07ab7ea123.html&usg=AOvVaw1SdxX4wjh-9J3gTBa5fJFF(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    43. 詮智法律翻譯社,最大努力應該多努力?談英美契約中的best efforts,2011年4月20日,網址:https://transwise.pixnet.net/blog/post/29407118(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    44. 楊智傑,新聞報導嵌入連結Twitter照片侵害照片著作權?2018年美國Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC案,北美智權報第231期,2019年2月27日,網址:http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_190227_0501.htm(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    45. 楊智傑,超連結是否侵害網路公開傳輸權:歐洲法院2014年Svensson案,北美智權報第173期,2016年11月30日,網址:http://tw.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_161130_0501.htm#1(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    46. 楊智傑,美國專利引誘侵權之明知要件與海外侵權-2011年Global-Tech v. SEB S.A.案,北美智權報第124期,2015年1月14日,網址:http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-134.htm(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    47. 楊智傑,網路電視是否侵害無線電視節目的公開傳輸權?-美國ABC v. Aereo案探討,北美智權報第109期,2014年6月17日,網址:http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-95.htm(最後瀏覽日:2020年12月30日)
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    106652025
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106652025
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202100032
    Appears in Collections:[法律科際整合研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    202501.pdf2409KbAdobe PDF6View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback