超連結 (hyperlink) 的著作權法問題－以WCT第8條「向公眾傳達權」為中心

Abstract

網際網路的發展對於資訊的傳遞與接收方式發生了根本性的變革，而超連結 (hyperlink) 就是現代網際網路常見的資訊傳遞手段之一。超連結的作用如同網路上內容所在位置的地址或傳送門，讓網路使用者可以輕易的接觸全世界的網路伺服器所儲存的各種內容，包含文字、影像、音樂等資料。 而著作權制度作為知識經濟的基礎，也受到網路技術發展的重大影響。1996年的世界財產權組織著作權條約 (WIPO Copyright Treaty, WCT) 即因應網路傳播技術的發展與新的著作內容提供模式的興起，在第8條明文規定「向公眾傳達權 (right of communication to the public)」，該權利賦予著作權人專有控制以通訊方式提供著作內容，令公眾得於自主選定的時間地點接收之權利。依照公約規定，公眾傳達行為，包含「使公眾得接觸 (making available to the public) 」，即將著作置於公眾可接觸的狀態，不以著作內容傳達行為實際發生為必要。 然而在網路環境中，此一公眾傳達權之範圍應如何劃定，即有爭議，在多數人的網路使用經驗中，在社群網站、個人網站、部落格等媒介分享文字、影像、音樂等內容，為十分常見的行為。未經著作權人同意而將受著作權保護之著作上傳於網路，縱未能證明有人實際下載侵權著作，亦已構成著作權侵害，此為WCT的8條公開傳達權所欲規範的典型行為，在我國法下，亦構成公開傳輸權的侵害。然而，在提供超連結指向已經存在於網路上的著作，令公眾得以接觸其內容的情形，是否構成WCT欲納入管制的向公眾傳達行為，而有構成著作權侵害之可能？WCT的立法歷程將公約的規定視為一種「保護傘方案 (umbrella solution)」，允許締約國以彈性的立法方式公約義務遵循。超連結涉及的著作權法責任應如何處理，在比較法上的論述路徑即有所差異。歐盟法將超連結提供行為認為屬於WCT第8條的「向公眾傳達」行為，但以行為人主觀上知悉超連結指向之內容為侵權為責任要件。美國法與日本法則原則上否定著作財產權的直接侵害，而以間接責任規範超連結之使用，亦認為超連結設置者至少需具備知悉侵權存在，方有負擔侵權責任之可能。 本文認為，考量到超連結在網路資訊傳遞過程的關鍵地位，超連結除了作為網路上資訊傳遞的管道之外，也可能構成言論內容本身，法律對於超連結的利用進行課予法律責任時，應格外注意管制手段對於言論自由可能造成之限制。而法院在個案中解釋適用著作權法時，也應利用著作權法既有之權利限制或合理使用規定，貫徹合憲性解釋之精神，平衡言論自由與著作權人經濟利益之保障。而我國實務多數見解認為，設置超連結行為並不構成著作權法上之公開傳輸行為，但仍不排除構成幫助犯或幫助侵權之可能。本文認為，我國實務見解原則上否定超連結為著作權直接侵害行為，而以幫助責任為中心的管制模式，對於一般網路使用者利用超連結進行資訊分享的行為自由給予較高的保障，也有利於網路服務提供者的業務發展，而並不至於違背WCT「保護傘方案」之規範精神，尚屬適當之法律解釋方法。但面對新型態的著作利用行為，是否能夠充分保護著作權人的利益，維持著作流通與利用市場之合理交易秩序，仍有待進一步的政策討論。

The development of the Internet has brought drastic changes on how people spread and receive information. Hyperlink is the key to information dissemination on the Internet. Hyperlinks are portals leading to contents stored on the World Wide Web and enable Internet users to access these contents, such as texts, images, films and musical works. As the bedrock of knowledge economy, the copyright system is also affected by the developments of internet technologies. In 1996, in light of newly-developed communication technologies and content delivery models, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) introduced a new right of “communication to the public” in Article 8, which grants authors a new exclusive right “authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.” Besides, the new right includes the notion of “making available to the public”, which means it does not require an actual communication of protected works to happen to establish an act of “communication to the public”, if the work is already available to the public, then the act to make it available is also covered by WCT Article 8. However, how to set boundaries for the right of communication to the public in the internet sphere raise controversies. The sharing of hyperlinks leading toward texts, images and musical works on the Internet, also known as hyperlinking, is a common practice on platforms such as social medias, personal websites, blogs. Unauthorized reproduction by uploading copyright-protected works on the Internet is already deemed as a straightforward infringement. However, is hyperlinking an act of “communication to the public” under WCT Article 8? The WCT provides a structure of “umbrella solution”, which allows its contracting parties to take elusive approaches to fulfill the treaty’s commitment of copyright protection, not limited to verbatim legislative transplant of WCT text. The approach to deal with hyperlink’s copyright issues differs from jurisdictions. The EU deemed hyperlinking as an act of communication to the public, but infringement liability only arises when the actor knows the illicit nature of the content that a hyperlink leads to. The U.S. and Japan generally reject the notion that hyperlinking constitutes direct copyright infringement, but hyperlinking can still possibly constitute secondary iinfringement. And the defendant’s subjective knowledge is generally a key threshold to establish a secondary infringement claim. Considering hyperlink’s unique position in the internet information dissemination process, any regulation or restriction on it should be deliberlately scruitinized. As hyperlinks may not only serve as a portal of information, sometimes links constitute speech itself. Any legal restrictions on the usage of hyperlinks shall take into account the possible negative effects on freedom of speech. In the copyright context, courts shall interprete copyright statutes in line with constitutional values to balance copyright holders’ legal interests and freedom of speech. In Taiwan, most courts do not treat hyperlinking as an act of “public transmission”, but also do not preclude hyperlinking from secondary criminal or civil infringement liabilities. The thesis assumes that a secondary-liability-centered regime of hyperlink’s copyright liability provides more freedom to ordinary internet users’ freedom to share information, and allows new internet-based services to thrive, as it also does not conflict with WCT’s “umbrella solution” approach.