網路經濟體系下，產業競爭方式與政府介入管制保護政策面臨新的挑戰。在分析類似軟體市場這樣一個數位時代新產品的智慧財產非授權複製議題時，必須特別注意其獨特的需求網路外部性內涵。本文藉由現實生活中微軟公司一家獨占軟體市場的實務現象，配合經濟理論模型的推導衍生，發現在網路外部性存在下，著作權保護對均衡廠商利潤有正向貢獻，但由於消費者需求及願付價格是有一極限的，連帶使得此利潤上升力量受到限制，所以對廠商而言最有利的著作權保護水準並不是極大化著作權保護，而是選擇一適度的著作權保護，此外網路外部性對廠商追求利潤極大化亦有正面貢獻。因此，容忍有限的盜版行為可視為一種進行價格歧視的有效方式，是獨占廠商為爭取獲利進一步提升所可採行的策略。在面對盜版行為侵蝕廠商獲利水準的現實環境下，廠商為追求其利潤極大化之目標，將必須在對抗盜版的重要手段—提高著作權保護水準、降低市場價格與增強網路外部性三者間選擇一個平衡點。

在數位內容下載市場蓬勃發展的同時，非法傳輸的流量亦不惶多讓，是以DRM機制成為了著作權利人進入網路世界的絕佳後盾，以DRM提高複製的門檻，並據以實施其商業模式，故於各數位內容核心產業皆可見DRM應用之蹤跡，卻同時引發了究竟DRM是Digital “Rights” Management 亦或Digital “Restriction” Management的爭議。是天使？或是惡魔？便形成了人們對於DRM的不同觀感。 本研究係從技術、法律以及管理三個面向分別切入，由技術面看DRM保護著作物之極限何在，由法律面看相關科技保護措施之立法造成何種影響，合理使用的空間是否因DRM之實施而造成限縮，接著由管理面向看DRM在數位內容產業價值鏈中所扮演之角色及其與價值鏈上各端權力角力衝突之關係，最後由標準面看目前DRM相關標準的運作以及互通性標準的發展趨勢。並從個案研究觀察DRM在不同產業情境中的應用。 本研究認為，DRM技術本身是中性的，其關鍵在於商業設計運用。而在盜版問題無法完全根絕之情況下，以DRM作為因應之道將使得受限內容之經濟價值不若自由流通之內容，因為內容產業的發展關鍵在於「人氣」，而盜版永遠無法取代創意與使用者對於內容之需求。因此，既然無法防堵非法傳輸之現象，則不妨與之直接面對面進行作戰，權利人既掌握了關鍵的內容，則可以針對盜版的弱點提供更優質的服務。就我國目前數位內容產業發展之情境來看，現階段或許有採取DRM進行保護的必要性，以便在推動合法消費市場之際，平衡兼顧保護著作權人以及著作利用人之權益。然而，在虛擬世界中欲全面防堵非法散佈有其技術上之侷限性，消費者亦多半養成了免費取得之使用模式與心態，因此長期而言，或許應設法從創新的商業模式來扭轉此態勢。 / Though the use of digital rights management (DRM) has been controversial, it is still widely used in the digital world. Advocates think of DRM as an indispensable way to prevent unauthorized duplication and dissemination of copyrighted works while opponents often suggest that the term “rights” should be replaced by “restriction” to best describe how DRM works. This thesis aims to analyze the issues of DRM from three perspectives. First starting with the technical point of view to see how DRM works and found out that DRM technology does have its limitation for copyright protection. That’s the reason why treaties and legislations such as the WCT, WPPT, and DMCA are needed to build the last ditch in the war with piracy. However, the attempt backfired as companies other than rights holders used it as a way to prevent market competition. As the rights holders can effectively control the access of their work with DRM, there comes another dispute about the “Paracopyright” effect. Most important of all, the use of DRM divests the users of the rights they had in the analog world, such as simply lending a book to a friend. From the perspective of management, a cost benefit analysis indicates that the benefit of using DRM to prevent unauthorized duplication obviously overwhelms by its cost and risk. In the context where the content providers, service providers, and device manufacturers all attempt to dominate the whole value chain, DRM also became one of the most powerful instruments for that purpose. Closed ecosystems are built one after another especially in the online music industry in order to bundle the consumers with specific players and music services and thus caused the antitrust issue. The online music industry and the e-book industry were chosen as case studies in the fourth chapter of the thesis. Based on different industry context, DRM strategy and its impact would differ and therefore results in a variety of business models. For example, the consumers in the US are relatively more aware of the use of DRM and are more willing to pay for authorized content. In contrast, the awareness of DRM of consumers in Taiwan is much lower and the price they are willing to pay is also far lower than what the music labels can accept. As a result, the streaming model prevails over pay-per-download model in the online music market of Taiwan. And the feasibility and necessity of DRM also varies in different industries. Before the digitalization of books, authors already had libraries providing free copies as piracy do today, and the prevalence of scanning machines and copy machines makes it even harder to prevent illegal file sharing. Accordingly, there is far less reason to use DRM in the e-book industry than in the online music industry. DRM technology is neutral in itself, and the key point is how it is designed based on different business models. The defect of DRM is neither a technical nor a legal issue, but rather a business issue. As piracy can never be eradicated, coping it with DRM would only make the value of restricted contents much less than freely distributed contents. Popularity is what really matters in the content industry. DRM has its technical limit and causes so many legal issues accompanied with the cost and risk of maintaining such fragile systems. What rights holders have in hand are the creativity and the market’s need for new content, which could never be replaced by piracy. So why not fight it face to face? Digital content industry is considered one of the most promising industries in Taiwan. However, local consumers have entrenched mindset of “free” contents. In present context, DRM is somehow needed while promoting the growth of legal market, in order to provide sufficient incentive to enrich the society with more and more creativity, and fairly protect both the rights of content providers and content users. But in the long run, a more creative or even subversive business model should be the solution to meet the trend of digital convergence.

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.