擅自重製罪之商榷—從谷阿莫案談起

Abstract

行動上網裝置的普及，使得人們每天的上網時間快速增加，透過網路傳播，資訊傳遞的速度不只越來越快且無遠弗屆，連帶也改變了產業結構。也因如此，網路平台所衍生的著作權議題也越趨複雜。新的網路媒體平台產生的YouTuber或是網紅這類型的自媒體，他們的網路創作有其共通特色：引用他人的作品，作為創作素材之一，再加上部分屬於自己的創作，製作出複合型的作品，故最後產生的作品，內容很難百分百是自己的原創，也很容易造成侵權的可能，因此對於著作權人的保障和社會文明進步的平衡，必然有需要協調與討論的空間。 著名當紅YouTuber之一的谷阿莫以「X分鐘看完XX電影」聞名於網路媒體，其影音頻道訂閱人數高達189萬人，製作影片的方式為截取片商所擁有著作權之原始電影內容作為素材，在幾分鐘內的時間以速讀方式評論電影，遭到片商提起告訴，並經臺灣臺北地方檢察署起訴。谷阿莫案之例子，凸顯出在著作權法刑事化的議題上，用刑罰來打擊著作權侵權行為所導致之問題，雖然本案最後以谷阿莫與片商達成和解而落幕，但引發本文思考著作權之合理使用、使用範圍與判斷標準的議題，以及影片擅自重製罪意識問題之探討。 本文藉由谷阿莫案討論以刑法保障著作權之良窳以及修法建議，由於著作權法並未加入營利意圖放入處罰要件中，容易造成以刑逼民之情況，法律需適當依據新型態之創作，迅速加以修正或調和，為避免著作權之真實立法目的無法達成，本文建議應該考慮對著作權法予以除罪化，尤其是不具商業規模之行為，應是我國立法政策上之目標。回歸民事判斷，本文則認為，可從民事角度去制定更細膩的規則，著作權法之目的是為了保障著作人著作權益，不能因過度保護著作人私益，而使人類文化進步受阻，應平衡著作權人之保障與促進社會文明進步方為本法最終的立法目標。

The popularity of mobile devices has led to a rapid increase in people's daily online time. Through the Internet, the speed of information transmission is not only getting faster and farther, but also changing the industrial structure. Because of this, copyright issues derived from online platforms have become more complex. YouTubers or Internet celebrities produced by new online media platforms have their own common features in their online creations: quoting other people’s works as one of the creative materials, plus some of their own creations and productions. It is difficult for the content of the final work to be 100% original, and it is easy to cause the possibility of infringement. Therefore, it is necessary to coordinate and discuss the protection of copyright owners and the balance of social civilization. Space. Amo Good, one of the most popular YouTubers, is well-known in the Internet media for 'Watching XX Movies in X Minutes'. Its video and audio channel subscribers are as high as 1.89 million. The method of making videos is to intercept the original film content owned by the filmmaker. The material was reviewed in a few minutes in a speed-reading manner, and was filed by the film maker and prosecuted by the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office in Taiwan. The example of the Amo Good case highlights the use of penalties to combat the problems caused by copyright infringement on the issue of the criminalization of the copyright law. Although the case ended with a settlement between Amo Good and the film dealer, it triggered this article to think about copyright. Discussion on the issues of fair use, scope of use, and judgment standards of the film, as well as the awareness of the crime of unauthorized reproduction of the film. This article uses the Amo Good case to discuss the merits of using the criminal law to protect copyrights and suggestions for amendments to the law. Since the copyright law has not been included in the penalty requirements for profit-making intent, it is easy to cause people to be forced by torture. Creation should be amended or reconciled quickly. In order to avoid the failure to achieve the true legislative purpose of copyright, this article suggests that the decriminalization of copyright law should be considered, especially for non-commercial activities, which should be the goal of China’s legislation and policy. Returning to civil judgments, this article believes that more delicate rules can be formulated from a civil perspective. The purpose of copyright law is to protect the rights and interests of authors. It should not over-protect the personal interests of authors and hinder the progress of human culture. The copyright holders should be balanced. The guarantee and promotion of social civilization and progress are the ultimate legislative goals of this law.