Lawrence Lessig在Free Culture一書中探討了法律、新興科技以及媒體產業如何形成許可文化的制度，來控制我們的創作自由和取用公共財的權利，他指向一個核心問題：私益(private interest)與公益(public interest)之爭——在網路科技與智慧財產權交互作用之下的自由文化中，私益與公益如何達到平衡狀態？ 「音樂」具有可被數位化的特性，是傳播自由文化的理想範例，而筆者意欲探求的是：以臺灣的音樂產業為例，是否有可能在自由文化中形成一個讓「獲利」與「分享」並行不悖，甚至相輔相成的運作模式？最重要的是，這個模式要能發揚自由文化帶給大眾的公益，也要保障音樂工作者的私益。而在音樂產業中，「獨立音樂」次領域向來重視創作自主性，而自由文化鼓勵發想創意，兩者或許有媒合的空間，故本研究聚焦於獨立音樂。 本研究視臺灣的獨立音樂產業為資訊內容的生產與消費過程，運用Bourdieu的場域理論、資本理論、再製理論等學說，找出有哪些因素影響自由文化和獨立音樂的發展，並且探討贊成∕質疑自由文化這二種立場之間的辯證過程，以及各種利益如何折衝、妥協，從何達成平衡點。故本研究的目的包括：擬將探討結果回饋至對自由文化的省思，此為研究目的之一；嘗試建立一個自由文化中的音樂商業模式，此為研究目的之二。 本研究以深度訪談法訪談四種不同類型的獨立音樂創唱人（包括完全獨立的個體戶、社運歌曲創作者、大型唱片工業體系以外的獨立廠牌、大型唱片公司釋放出來的音樂人才，共訪談五組個人與團體），以及五家數位授權音樂網站（KKBOX、ezPeer、Omusic、StreetVoice、iNDIEVOX），並輔以參與觀察法和分析次級資料，來說明主要研究發現。 在「場域內行動者對於自由文化的認知」方面，本研究發現，「自由文化」這個名詞還不夠普及，這種現象反映出兩個事實：（一）受訪者對於自由文化的認知是分歧的：Lessig所言之自由文化是「在相當程度上開放他人據以再創造的文化」（Lessig, 2004／劉靜怡譯，2008，頁57）；然而，獨立音樂創唱人的認知則是創作行為上的自由、自由文化要能保障授用雙方的自由、自由文化等同CC授權制度、自由文化是一種行銷廣宣工具、自由文化等同網路賦予大眾使用的自由；授權音樂網站經營者們則認為「自由文化的核心概念是『服務』」。（二）Lessig的自由文化理念與實務有差距：研究結果發現，受訪之獨立音樂創唱人的開放心態和行為，要比Lessig「保守」許多，大多是停留在提供免費聆聽，少數開放下載，而其目的多半是為了廣告與宣傳效益。 在「獨立音樂創唱人的線上／線下活動與資本應用策略」方面，可以看出獨立音樂創唱人經營創唱事業的幾個重點：（一）線上∕線下資本會互相流動和兌換；（二）獨立音樂創唱人專注創作，唱片公司致力發行，二者保持地位對等的平衡關係；（三）獨立音樂創唱人有成為專職的趨勢。 在「想像一個自由文化中的音樂經營模式」方面，本研究根據各家授權音樂網站的經營特色，以及配合獨立音樂創唱人的需求、大眾的公益考量，擘畫了一個自由文化中的獨立音樂商業模式，其規劃重點在於：（一）免費與付費並存；（二）虛擬與實體並行；（三）著作權安定運作秩序；（四）經紀事務拓展人脈。整體而言，此模式試圖建構一個整合網路發表平台、付費授權網站、經紀公司的場域，各行動者之間要維繫的是一種夥伴關係，而非從屬關係。 / In his book Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig investigates how the legal system, modern technology, and media industry shape a permission culture to define our rights of consuming public goods and our freedom of creation. He orientates his core research question towards the dispute over the relative importance of private interests and public interests. In other words, how do we balance private interests against public interests under the dual impacts of the Internet technology and intellectual property rights in a free culture? “Music” can be digitalized, and it is a prime example of free culture propagation. This thesis examines the music industry in Taiwan and thereby explores the possibility of shaping an operational model that makes “profiting” and “sharing” compatible with or even complementary to each other in a free culture. More importantly, such a model should be able to promote the public interests generated from a free culture and, at the same time, secure the private interests of musicians. “Independent music,” as a subfield in the music industry, always emphasizes autonomy in creation, and a free culture encourages creation and innovation. Accordingly, we may couple independent music with free culture, and this thesis primarily deals with their relationship. This thesis treats Taiwanese independent music as a process of information production and consumption. It adopts Bourdieu’s theories about field, capital, and reproduction to identify the effective factors in the development of free culture and independent music. In addition, this thesis investigates the dialectical process between defending and challenging free culture, and how a variety of interests negotiate, compromise, and finally strike a balance among themselves. Therefore, this thesis aims to, on the one hand, use the research findings to reflect on free culture and, on the other hand, establish a music business model in a free culture. This thesis employs in-depth interviews, participant observation, and secondary data analysis to answer my research question. I interviewed four types of independent music composers/singers (a total of five cases of individuals and bands who are wholly-independent individuals, composers of social movement songs, independent brands outside the system of the large-scale record industry, or musical talents released from major record companies) and five licensed digital music websites (KKBOX, ezPeer, Omusic, StreetVoice, and iNDIEVOX). Regarding “the inside-field actors’ understanding about a free culture,” this thesis finds that the term “free culture” is not as popular as it is expected to be. This phenomenon implies two critical points. Firstly, the interviewees perceive the term free culture in different ways. According to Lessig (2004: 30),”Free Cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon.” However, for composers/singers of independent music, a free culture implies the freedom of creation. A free culture should be able to guarantee the freedom and rights of both original creators and users. It is equivalent to the Creative Commons licensing scheme. It is a tool of marketing and advertising. The freedom embedded in a free culture is similar to that offered by the Internet. In contrast, for managers of licensed music websites, “service” is the core concept of a free culture.” Secondly, there exists a gap between Lessig’s idea of free culture and practice. The research findings indicate that the composers/singers of independent music interviewed by the author are more “conservative” than Lessig. With the primary goals of advertising and propagating independent music, most of their works remain free for listening, while some of them are free for downloading. Concerning “the independent music composers/singers’ on-line/off-line activities and their strategies of using capital,” this thesis points out three critical points in their career management. Firstly, the on-line capital and the off-line capital flow to and exchange with each other. Secondly, these composers/singers devote themselves to creation, and record companies concentrate on issuing their works. Composers/singers and record companies maintain a peer status and a balanced relationship. Thirdly, the “composer/singer of independent music” seems to become a potential profession. With regard to “envisioning a music business model in a free culture,” this thesis designs a business model based on the managerial features of licensed music websites, the needs of composers/singers of independent music, and public interests. The model contains the following characteristics. Firstly, non-payment coexists with payment. Secondly, virtuality runs parallel with reality. Thirdly, copyrights stabilize the order of operation. Fourthly, agency transactions help establish connections among independent music composers/singers and people who are able to provide better performance opportunities. In general, this model seeks to open up a field that integrates platforms of Internet publication, paid licensing websites, and agencies. The relationship among the actors is equal rather than hierarchical.

公用徵收乃憲法規範下之公益制度。因此，關於土地徵收法制公共利益衡量之探討，範圍即以立法、行政及司法作為中，有無切實的實踐徵收制度所具之憲法意義。研究主題「公共利益衡量」屬不確定法律概念，牽涉價值判斷與利益衡量，因此，探討內容導向分為程序面與實質面為之架構。 徵收法制缺乏審議程序之必要機制，主管機關實無法客觀、審慎判斷需用土地人所評估事業計畫之合理真實性。又審議機制規範之缺漏，行政法院有其「審查能力之極限」出現，常無法勝任審查徵收個案是否合乎「公益性及必要性」。因而，對土地徵收具體實施的適法性，提供根本性審查原則，實有在徵收程序裡增訂「徵收審核標準」規範之需，如合法之原則、必要性原則、公益性原則、均衡原則等。為了健全徵收法制之運行，公益及私益之兼顧，獨立公正之公聽會，實有重新建構之需。另徵收審議委員會之層級，實有必要改制為一獨立之體制，以善盡徵收審議事權之功能。 人民參與土地徵收程序機制，內政部雖有最新規則之制訂，但其與人民程序保障而言，似有未逮。關於被徵收人陳述意見之規定，土地徵收條例修正草案增訂第十三條之ㄧ規定，其中第一項及第二項規定，僅是將土地徵收條例施行細則第十三條之規定改為法律規定，增加第三項規定：「核准徵收機關於核准徵收前，必要時得再給予所有權人陳述意見之機會。」依本研究探討觀之，似為較進步之立法，可賦予徵收審議委員會進行判斷徵收所需具體公共利益之機制。但其以「必要時」、「得」再給予所有權人陳述意見之機會，此「判斷餘地」及「裁量權限」操之於徵收機關的內政部，對於被徵收人陳述意見之保障而言，可謂實益不大。 土地徵收，並非唯一方法，乃是最後不得已之手段。故徵收首應遵行之要件，乃公共利益之審慎考量。徵收條款列舉之各項事業，僅是限定徵收適格事業之範圍，然實務上幾乎符合興辦事業者一經提出即准予徵收，而忽略公私益之衡量，對人民憲法上生存權、工作權及財產權未盡保障之能事，背離釋字第409號解釋之旨意。若「公共利益」非為「重大」與「急迫」者，即不屬「公共福祉」之範疇，而不具徵收合法性。因此，土地徵收條例適當條文內，宜增訂土地徵收「公共利益判斷標準」，其內容包括社會因素、經濟因素、文化及生態因素、永續發展因素及其他必要因素，使公共利益之判斷趨於具體，以落實土地徵收公共利益之衡量。 憲法在人性尊嚴之要求下，賦予個人財產權之保障，乃在於個人生存必須擁有之基本資源。質言之，土地徵收條例之立法目的，對於生存權、工作權之保障，有予以明文規範之必要，以作為徵收補償項目之立法依據。基此，土地徵收條例第一條第一項應修訂「為實施土地徵收，促進土地利用，增進公共利益，保障人民財產權、工作權及生存權，特制定本條例。」 內政部(簡稱該部)就特定興辦事業，開發面積30公頃以上，新訂、擴大都市計畫等或事業計畫以區段徵收方式辦理開發者，應於該部都市計畫委員會、區域計畫委員會審議前，就「公益性、必要性」先行向該部土地徵收審議委會報告。此程序固可增加計畫法制公共利益與土地徵收之關連性，作為土地徵收公共利益之擔保。但觀其作業之流程，只為該部暫時權宜治標之計，對於發展經濟政策徵收土地公共利益衡量標準及機制，並無具體明確之規範，可謂流於形式之舉措。惟有確保都市計畫、區域計畫內容之合法性，並賦有「具體公共利益」，以維人民土地權益之保障。否則，該部此一創舉事先「公益性、必要性」之評估制度，已逾越都市計畫委員會、區域計畫委員會專業領域之雷池，而亂了各司其職之法體制。正本清源之計，在於建立土地徵收審議人民參與之機制、土地徵收審核之具體基準和相關程序之建構。