台商乃是兩岸政治經濟下，不同「身份資本」所孕育出來的特殊群體，特別是大陸特殊制度環境及大陸對台商制度規範下，所造成的高交易成本，使得台商為因應而運用下列三種方式 以降低交易成本：非制度化管道、制度化管道、抗衡促使制度變遷，進而參與制度創新的過程。 　　但在加入WTO之後，面對制度化及法制化的大陸制度環境變遷，台商應著重後二種的管道來降低大陸的高交易成本。 　　本文採用新制度經濟學中的交易成本理論來分析大陸對台商的制度規範及台商因應策略。 / Taiwanese investors are particular group who come from different “Capital of identity “ between Mainland China and Taiwan. Under high transaction cost caused by particular institution in China and China’s institutional regulation on Taiwanese investors, they have to take non-institutional way, institutional way and the way that they against current institution to improve institutional change and then join the procedure of institutional innovation in China. So, they can bring the transaction cost down. But after both sides have entered WTO and Taiwanese investors have to obey the regulation of WTO and they should put emphasis on latter two ways, that is institutional way and the way that they against current institution to improve institutional change and then join the procedure of institutional innovation in China to bring their transaction cost down. This dissertation analyzes the Taiwanese investors under Mainland China’s institutional regulation and their survival strategy in Transaction cost approach.

著作肩負著人類對文化傳承、藝術發揚及知識分享的重責大任，影響深遠，自應創造因誘因加以鼓勵並給予適當的法律保障；惟現代著作權法保護創作人的思維均藉由「創作完成自動保護」的途徑，賦予創作人各種著作人格權及著作財產權，一改往昔仍須藉由註冊審查或登記列冊方能享有著作權的傳統作法。然而,任何偉大的著作,其價值乃貴在廣為利用方能源遠流傳，前述各類創作人是否分享或放棄著作權之意願，由法律自動保留全部權利（all rights reserved）的預設（default）立場，使得利用人在利用著作或接續創作的平台受到重重的限制，除了能符合較抽象的「合理使用」範疇以外，利用著作前均須依法取得權利人之同意或授權方能免除因此所生侵權責任。 對於一向主張著作應視為公共財的自由派學者，前述加諸廣大利用人動輒得咎的法律限制，顯然會認為對於知識分享擴散造成阻礙的結果無法忍受，於是美國史丹福大學Lawrence Lessig教授即於2002年間號召有識之士，倡導「Creative Commons」（本研究稱為「創作共享」）之運動，藉由「保留部分著作權」（some rights reserved）的理念，設計鬆綁著作權法以釋出著作權的機制，現正積極在世界各國間推廣中。 本研究即針對上述理念之興起，思考此一創新機制與知識分享擴散及著作權保護間有無相關，並試圖找出可能直接影響機制之關鍵因素提供建言。在第一章部分，除敍明研究動機、目的、範圍、限制外，更直指本研究之問題所在及預期之貢獻；第二章即針對研究主題，包括過去對著作權保護、創作共享機制、知識分享擴散及制度創新的研究進行文獻探討，第三章則對研究核心創作共享機制具體實踐之契約條款予以法律剖析檢驗，並釋疑部分易為外界混淆或誤解之觀念；第四章則詳細闡明研究方法後，設定各個命題及假設，並各賦予操作化定義，落實為問卷調查之問題及選項，第五章則以立意取向調查方式發放及回收共547份有效問卷，並以11.0版SPSS軟體執行問卷數據分析並進而出各項判讀，印證前述命題及假設相關程度，另從管理意涵賦予各項解讀之詮釋；第六章則藉由坊間已先後運行的四個類似創作共享機制的個案，將前述檢驗的內外因素、體質因素、驅動因素等研究構面逐一比較，第七章即就研究成果列出結論並提出後續研究之建議以供來者繼續接棒發揚。 / Creative work carries the responsibilities of cultural inheritance, artistic manifestation, and knowledge sharing; its influences are far reaching and the work ought to be encouraged and properly protected by law. In contrast to traditional copyright laws, whereby protection was given only after registration or examination, current copyright laws give protection to creative work upon its completion, and provide the creator with all kinds of moral integrity rights and copyrights. However, the value of a masterpiece lies in its widespread use, and the current legal system gives the creator, by default, all rights to reserve their intention to share or forfeit their copyrights. From the user’s standpoint, this protective system means limitations and restrictions in using creative work or in continuing creative platform—requiring the user to obtain agreement or license from the rights owner for any use of the work outside the scope of “fair use.” Liberal scholars who believe creative work ought to be public property find these legal restrictions on users and limitations on the proliferation of knowledge sharing intolerable. In 2002, under the appeal of Stanford’s Professor Lawrence Lessig, the movement for Creative Commons was begun. Under this model, relaxation of copyrights with some rights reserved is called for, and this idea is being widely promoted throughout the world. This study focuses on the development of this new ideology and examines its relationship with the proliferation of knowledge sharing and copyrights protection, and further inspects the key factors that may directly influence this new mechanism as well as provides necessary suggestions. Chapter One explains the motivation, purpose, scope, and limitation of this study as well as pointing out the problems and expectations of this study. Chapter Two focuses on the main theme of this study, including empirical studies on past copyright protections, creative commons mechanism, proliferation of knowledge sharing and innovation of its system. Chapter Three examines the legal aspects of the creative commons licensing agreement and clarifies the parts that are confusing or can be easily misunderstood. Chapter Four explains the research approach and sets up theories for each topic, and defines the procedures for selecting questions for the survey. Chapter Five analyzes the 547 valid surveys, which were distributed using the conceptual approach, using v.11.0 of SPSS against the topic and theories set forth in the previous chapter, and interpret each item in the survey via management connotation. Chapter Six compares four existing mechanisms similar to the creative commons model in terms internal and external factors, physical factors, and driving factors. Chapter Seven discusses the results of this study and states suggestions for subsequent research.