數位網路時代的私人重製—以日本著作權法第30條為中心探討權利人與利用人之平衡

Abstract

本論文以日本著作權法第30條（「私人重製」為重製權的例外）為問題核心，針對在與著作物相關的背景環境有著戲劇性變化的20世紀後半，於法律、技術、市場、規範之間的關係中，立法上對於著作物利用人之「複製自由」是如何被限制，以及是如何被保護等議題加以討論，並進一步描繪將來應有之形態。 私人重製對於利用人而言為保障其重製之自由，但對於著作權人而言，則是限制其權利。因此，其私人重製規範之運用從一開始即存在一定的前提：利用人之重製行為不得損害權利人的權益。近年來由於網路普及，私人重製行為之量整體明顯擴大許多，重製品變得彷彿要擴散至全世界。因此，權利人方一方面透過立法對於私人重製設下無數的例外規定，另一方面藉由活用限制重製之技術來保障自己的權利。結果造成原本不會損害到權利人權益的「善意利用人」合理範圍內的重製行為也遭到限制，為利用人與權利人之間帶來了無益的對立。 著作權法的目的是「為保障著作人著作權益，調和社會公共利益，促進國家文化發展」（著作權法第1條）、「兼顧文化成果之公平合理利用及確保著作人等之權利，以促進文化發展」（日本著作權法第1條）。然而，「文化發展」並非著作權法原先規範中所保障的內容。再者，著作權法近年來強化了其商業法的特質，在其立法過程中，比起利用人之利益，更常反映對於政策決定者具有強大影響力的權利人團體之意見，在這種狀況下，未必稱得上是一種公正的制度。為了「文化發展」，最理想的情況是，著作物之利用人與權利人自行訂定規範與規則，構築起相互尊重的「文化發展的贊助人—文化創造者」的關係。為了調整此架構下無法解決的問題，著作權法應擔負起這項工作。屆時，透過司法所進行的公正法律解釋就變得十分重要。 本篇論文將透過關於私人複製的各種學說以及國際條約的分析（第二章）、日本著作權法第30條的成立過程與最新動態分析（第三章）、關於DRM（Digital Rights Management）的發展過程與展望的分析、以及針對日本著作權法中所沒有的「權利限制的一般規定」所制定的台灣著作權法第65條與第51條（個別的私人複製規則）之間關係的分析（第五章），來導引出以上的結論。

The purpose of this paper is, mainly though the problem of Japanese Copyright Law article 30 which provides the rule of reproduction for private use as a exception to copy right, to investigate how the users’ freedom of reproduction has been limited, and how the freedom has been secured under the relationship between law, technology, markets and norms after the late 20th century when the environment in which copyrightable works are created and distributed dramatically changed, and then to draw the ideal future of reproduction for private use. The rule of reproduction for private use ensures the freedom of users, but at the same time limits the right of rights holders. Thus, from the beginning, there is a certain assumption for operating the rule. It is that the user’s act of copying users shouldn’t reduce the interests of rights holders. In recent years, because of the spread of the internet, the overall amount of individual acts of copying of each user has expanded significantly, and those copied works are now spreading all over the world. Therefore, the rights holders, while setting many exceptions in the rule of reproduction for private use through legislation and using various kinds of technologies that can limit users’ copying act, have been trying to secure their rights and interest. As a result, even reasonable acts of copying of users who don’t infringe on any interests for rights holders are strictly limited. It generates unnecessary conflict between users and rights holders. The purpose of the copyright law is supposed to be “to protect the rights and interests of authors with respect to their works, balancing different interests for the common good of society, and promoting the development of national culture(Article 1 of the Taiwan’s Copyright Law)” and “to protect the rights of authors, etc…while giving due regard to the fair exploitation of these cultural products, and by doing so, to contribute to the development of culture(Article1 of the Japanese Copyright Law)”. But 'development of culture' isn’t the thing which is guaranteed by the framework stetted by copyright law in advance. Precisely, in recent years copyright law has strengthened the nature of business law. In the legislative process, a group of rights holders has more opportunity than users to influence policy makers to reflect their opinions. Therefore copyright law is not necessarily designed totally fairly. For 'development of culture', speaking ideally, users and rights holders set rules and standards on how to use works by themselves and respect each other to build a complementary relationship such as 'supporters of culture - creators of culture'. Copyright law should play the role of adjusting the problems which can not be resolved within this framework. And at that time, it is important for justice to interpret the law fairly. This paper is, through those chapters below analysis of theories and international treaties on the rule of reproduction for private use(Chapter II), analysis of the formation and the latest trends on Article 30 of the Japanese Copyright Law(Chapter III), analysis of DRM (Digital Rights Management) ’s development process and the prospects(Chapter IV), and analysis of the relationship between article 65 of Taiwan's Copyright Law which provides a general criterion for judgment of fair use and article 51 which provides an individual rule of reproduction for private use (Chapter V) supports the above conclusions.