Plusieurs initiatives d’origines européenne et nationale ont contribué à l’émergence d’un nouveau concept en droit d’auteur : l’œuvre transformatrice. La récurrence et la persistance des débats en la matière prouvent que ce concept ne traduit pas qu’un phénomène conjoncturel. Ces raisons conduisent en conséquence à lui consacrer une étude afin de déterminer la pertinence de l’admission de ce concept en droit d’auteur. L’étude débute par le constat que certains auteurs travaillent en s’adossant volontairement à une ou plusieurs œuvres originelles créées par autrui, qu’ils intègrent à leur processus créatif, aboutissant ainsi à la création d'une œuvre nouvelle. Ces pratiques d’emprunt créatif à l’œuvre d’autrui ont désormais pris une dimension particulière. Celle-ci s’explique d’une part par le développement du numérique. D’autre part, une partie du public, soit les destinataires des œuvres, souhaite participer activement à la création et revendique le droit d’utiliser les œuvres d’autrui comme autant de moyens d’expression et de création. Le législateur a certes envisagé l’hypothèse dans laquelle une œuvre nouvelle procède d'une œuvre préexistante au travers de la catégorie légale des œuvres composites. Cependant, les dispositions éparses qui lui sont consacrées souffrent d’une terminologie et d’un régime imprécis qui n’ont jamais fait l’objet d’une étude juridique approfondie. L’émergence du concept d’œuvre transformatrice illustre l’importance théorique et pratique de remettre en cause cette catégorie légale des œuvres composites. Aussi, la délimitation du concept suppose, dans un premier temps, une nécessaire remise en cause des catégories traditionnelles qui constituent les piliers du droit d'auteur, ainsi que les impératifs auxquels la constitution de ce monopole doit répondre. Cette lecture renouvelée aboutit à circonscrire la notion fonctionnelle d’œuvre transformatrice. Loin de se cantonner à proposer une nouvelle version de l’œuvre originelle, l’auteur de l’œuvre transformatrice exprime une opinion sur l’œuvre d’autrui, en induisant un décalage avec celle-ci. Bien souvent, il a réalisé son œuvre sans l’autorisation de l’auteur de l’œuvre originelle, et leurs droits entrent alors en conflit. Dans un second temps, l’étude s’attelle à appréhender ce conflit de droits. Le droit positif s’avère limité, de sorte qu’il faut affiner l’analyse juridique du lien unissant ces deux auteurs en l’enrichissant de la comparaison avec des mécanismes extérieurs au droit d’auteur, et d’autres issus du droit comparé. En définitive, c’est par le mécanisme de l’exception au droit d’auteur que l’on trouvera le moyen de concilier de manière pérenne les droits de l’auteur originel et ceux de l’auteur de l’œuvre transformatrice. / Transformative work is a new concept in copyright law that is emerging from several recent initiatives across Europe. The recurring debate on this concept indicates that it is not short-lived and highlights the need for a strategy to define a suitable legal framework. The purpose of this study is to assess the relevance of including the concept of transformative works in French and European Union copyright law. The starting point is authors’ integration of original works created by third parties in their creative process so as to generate new pieces of work. These practices are increasing in occurrence, with the rise of the digital age being one explanation of their prevalence. Furthermore, the public appreciates the value of these works and wishes to maintain the right to use third party works as a means of creative expression. The legislator has envisaged categorising new work inspired from pre-existing work as derivative and composite work. Nevertheless, the scarce arrangements that have been developed lack a proper framework and a detailed legal study has yet to be undertaken. The emergence of the concept of transformative work highlights the practical and theoretical need to challenge the legal definition of derivative and composite work. Far from offering a new derived version of the original piece of work, the author of a transformative work expresses an opinion on the third party work, by inserting a differentiating element. Therefore, the format of expression and content justify the legal analysis between the author of the original piece of work and the author of the transformative work. As such, framing the concept involves in the first instance, questioning the traditional pillars of copyright law and their requirements. This new understudy leads to the framing of the definition of transformative work. Secondly, this study focusses on how several copyright laws can co-exist. The content of positive law is limited and therefore, the study helps develop the concept of transformative work by comparing external mechanisms of both copyright and comparative law.In conclusion, incorporating transformative work into copyright law is based on the exception mechanism of copyright law.

Jusqu'à l'arrêt CCH Canadienne Ltée c Barreau du Haut-Canada, rendu par la Cour suprême en 2004, la doctrine canadienne opposait deux exceptions générales au droit d’auteur : l'utilisation équitable (fair dealing), existant surtout dans les pays du Commonwealth (dont le Canada), et l’usage loyal (fair use), exception présente aux États-Unis. Alors que le premier modèle serait restrictif et conservateur, le second se voudrait plus libéral et soucieux des droits des utilisateurs. Il va sans dire que certains auteurs contestaient le statu quo juridique et souhaitaient plutôt l'adoption d'une approche libérale, voire étatsunienne, en matière d'utilisation équitable au Canada. Or, depuis l'arrêt CCH et la pentalogie du droit d’auteur de 2012, un important changement conceptuel de cette dichotomie s’est opéré. Certains auteurs décrivent une réduction significative des différences entre les deux approches, rendant les distinctions futiles. Ainsi, nous sommes amenés à nous poser la question suivante : suite à la jurisprudence canadienne contemporaine, existe-t-il toujours une différence significative entre l'utilisation équitable et l’usage loyal ? Ce mémoire se veut une analyse de l’état du droit en 2019 afin de répondre à cette question. Au terme de son raisonnement, l’auteur arrive à la conclusion que même si les deux régimes se ressemblent plus que jamais, les différences entre ceux-ci sont suffisamment importantes pour ne pas les assimiler à une unique approche avec des variations mineures. / Until the Supreme Court of Canada decision CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada in 2004, the legal literature in Canada acknowledged two competing general exceptions to copyright: fair dealing, which exists especially in Commonwealth countries (including Canada), and fair use, an exception in the United States. While the former was seen as restrictive and conservative, the second was viewed as intending to be liberal and more concerned with user rights. Needless to say, some writers contested the legal status quo and wanted a liberal, even American, approach to fair dealing in Canada. However, since the CCH decision and the copyright pentalogy of 2012, there has been a significant conceptual shift with regard to this dichotomy. Some authors describe a significant reduction in the differences between the two approaches, making the distinctions of little consequence. As such, we are led to ask the following question: given the contemporary Canadian jurisprudence, is there still a significant difference between fair dealing and fair use? This dissertation is an analysis of the state of the law in 2019 for the purpose of answering this question. At the end of his examination of the issue, the author comes to the conclusion that even if the two regimes are more similar than ever, the differences between them are sufficiently important to not assimilate them into a single approach with minor variations.

No description available.

「智慧財產權」係指人類精神活動之成果而產生財產上之價值者，由法律所創設之一種權利。然而著作權是智慧財產權之一種，著作權法是為了保障著作人應有之權利而制定之法律，但並非所有著作均受到著作權法的保護，立法者於制定著作權法時，考量重點有三：著作人之權益、社會公共利益與國家社會發展三方面，然而著作人在創作時，往往會涉及先人文化之遺產，所以立法時仍顧及公共利益予以限制，再者著作權制度終極目標乃是促進國家文化發展，當面臨公共利益與著作權人權益保護衝突時，應特別注意兩者之平衡，考量使社會大眾能在合理程度範圍內，自由利用著作權人之文化創作，以促進國家社會發展。 隨著科技時代的來臨，過去人類所創造的文化資產與各類的知識，可以藉由科技來加以保存、整理、傳播及利用，一方面使得知識能永久保存下來，一方面使得知識與文化資源得以共享，繼而加速文明的進步。有鑑於此，各國也紛紛著手進行數位典藏計劃，我國擁有悠久的歷史背景、累積豐富的文化資產以及珍貴的文獻與歷史文物，現也正積極進行相關的數位典藏計劃，而圖書館的典藏受到資訊科技的影響，逐漸開始著手進行自動化的工作，並引進許多電子資源，這些資源建立了數位館藏，內容包含電子書、電子期刊、電子資料庫，也進一步參與了許多數位典藏計劃，但數位資源與數位典藏當中仍然有許多著作權相關的問題瀰漫著，而資源建立進而引發著作權的問題。 美國著作權法是全世界發展最為完善的國家之一，其使用各種方式來協助一些侵權問題嚴重的國家，而我國對於著作權法的修訂，與美國方面的淵源頗深，並由圖書館數位典藏管理的角度來進行分析，針對中美兩國圖書館數位典藏管理與著作權法之關係，擬就研究問題逐一進行分析與探討之。在兩國數位典藏管理與著作權法的議題之中，時常有相關性的議題產生，進而牽動整體修法的方向，需要相互比對。本研究藉由比較研究法的方式，瞭解兩國之間的差異性，並且透過描述、解釋、併排、比較的過程，最後進行分析之，將比較之結果做一結論，以驗證研究假設，得出具體性的建議。 / Intellectual property right is a priority protection based upon a compromise as an aspect of human spirit activities achievement. With respect of it creates a statutory and potential property right for writers of which does not cover for all of writings, the cardinal principle of establishing copying is writer’s rights and interests, public interest, and society development three factors. In respect of the writer as in creating to which may involved with culture inheritance affiliated rights that need to take both of upon factors into account on copyright system establishment. Particularly, how to negotiate the conflict rights to make balance for the public interest and writer’s copyright protection in terms of promoting society development by adopting the creations of writers’ copyright freely which under a legitimate range. Benefited from the help of high technique of science adoption for those cultural properties and correlative knowledge preservation, organization, broadcasting, and utilization of which make a possibility of sharing cultural resources by each other and to keep progressing for human culture constantly. Consequently, adopt a digital collection plan for national heritage become a current for the global nations. In concern of the long-standing historical background of Republic of China, have an abundant cultural heritage and plentiful valuable document and historical relics that engaged in a necessary planning project for processing correlative digital collection recently. However, a solemn concern emerged by the subject of copyrights as integrating the electronic book, electronic periodical, and electronic information bank into the respective sub-subject planning. United States as the world top faultless copyright law featured country, which providing assistance to help those countries that seriously infringed by copyright tort and implementing different methods to improve copyright revision. Especially, according to the reality of Republic of China has a long good relationship with United States that is necessary to make a comparison study for respective library digital collection management and copyright between two countries. Regarding the two study subjects of which interact debate revelation frequently that is necessary to make a comparative analysis and probe into the core of two correlative digital collection managements on the direction of integral law revision. In this study, implement comparative analysis to understand the differences between two countries and through the process of description, interpretation, juxtaposition, and comparison to analyze the comparison result. At last, a specific proposal provided by the analysis conclusion and testify assumes in this paper.

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.

摘要 觀察著作權法的演進，可說是一部為因應新興科技帶來著作利用型態改變，所造成衝擊的歷史。而現今著作權法面對資訊科技進步，所造成的法制衝擊時，卻因採取反規避措施等激烈的因應手段，造成著作權法制針對數位著作保護之爭議，出現了原先為平衡權利人利益與促進文化創作發展之兩大目的，發生了失衡的現象。該現象的發生，似乎於某種層度上，驗證了德國學者哈伯瑪斯（Jürgen Habermas）於觀察資本主義社會演進的歷史脈絡後，結合馬克斯的社會進化觀點與盧曼的系統論，所主張的晚期資本主義下的四重危機。 而隨著國際間有關數位著作保護的立法趨勢，無形中賦予了著作權人擁有對於他人接近其著作，幾乎完全的管制權利；而合理使用原則之適用卻遭受科技管制的嚴重限縮，使得著作權的保護對象，究竟是表達方式或是無形的概念，產生了保護界限的模糊，著作權法制似乎已轉往著作權利人之一方傾斜。如此的法制發展，將可能造成法律系統的內在衝突與矛盾，危及系統存在的正當性，進而產生數位著作權法制上的合法性危機。 本文試圖依循哈伯瑪斯有關溝通理性與擴大參與以型塑公共領域的主張，尋求爭議解決的可能途徑。並試圖藉由新興之創作共享授權機制（Creative Commons），結合網際網路之互動特性，嘗試探討網路中出現創作之公共領域（Public Sphere）的可能性。並期待開啟以強化社會對話與互動的溝通模式，來尋求爭議問題解決的討論開端。 / Abstract The evolution of Copyright Act reflects the change of publication displaying methods due to technology. Legislators create Anti-Circumvention Provision in reaction to the shock of technology progression on Copyright Act. However, these provision triggers the debate on the purpose of Copyright Act on publication protection, whether it is to protect the obligees or to enhance publication development. This phenomenon verifies Jürgen Habermas’s argument on the four crises under advanced capitalism, which combines Marx’s evolution of society, Luhmann’s system theory, and Habermas’s own observation on the transformation of Capitalism. The legislative trend on digital copyright protection gives the obligees almost complete control over their writings. However,“fair use” is limited by technology restrain. As a result, the Copyright Act seems to be tilted towards obligees. Such development may create inner conflict and endanger the legitimation of the law system. Moreover, the legitimation crisis on Copyright Act may be aroused. This thesis is aimed to solve the debate based on Harbemas’s claim on creating public sphere through rational communication and enlarging participation. For example, the writer combines creative commons and the interactive feature of the Internet to explore the possibility of public sphere on the Internet. In sum, this thesis is intended to resolve the Copyright Act problem.

本研究以Wendy Gordon教授三要件市場失靈理論為核心-即(一) 市場失靈的狀況現實存在，（二）支持被告的使用模式對社會而言利多於弊，以及（三）允許合理使用抗辯不會對於創作者的創作誘因產生實質損害-試圖以美國實務判決為藍本勾勒出可能的觀察構面與命題，並以此為基準以音樂產業為例推演可能的管理意涵，最後從制度面的角度檢討現行合理使用判決所出現的問題與可能的解決方式，研究結果及建議分述如下： 觀察構面與命題的發展 本研究以美國近二十年來重要合理使用判決為藍本，並將市場失靈區分為交易成本過高與正向外部性兩種類型，歸納出以下命題及觀察構面： 命題一：與著作權利人進行交易的交易成本越高，主張合理使用成功的機會越高。 H1:系爭著作物在使用當時若屬於無法尋得權利人的孤兒著作，成功主張合理使用的機會較高。 H2:系爭著作物若有著作權仲介團體代理或有交易成本低廉的授權平台，成功主張合理使用的機會較低。 H3:系爭著作物若有著作權管理資訊，成功主張合理使用的機會較低。 命題二： 被告利用型態對社會創造的正向外部性越高，成功主張合理使用的機會越高。 H4:系爭著作的利用方式若屬於對原著作物的諷刺或批評，成功主張合理使用的機會較高。 H5: 使用者使用的模式若能減少資訊流通障礙而非單純販售著作重製物圖利，成功主張合理使用機會較高。 市場失靈對著作權人的管理意涵 就正向外部性導致的市場失靈而言，當被告的利用模式產生的正向外部性越大，著作權授權交易無法完成對整體社會造成的效率損失越大，依據市場失靈理論的討論架構，法院支持被告合理使用主張的機會也越大。此時，權利人最佳的管理策略應該是更積極進行授權，並避免過度利用優勢談判地位抬高交易條件，最後導致授權交易無法進行。面對交易成本過高可能導致市場失靈，對權利人來說最佳的管理策略應該是使用各種可能的機制創造最有效率的授權市場，當市場的運行越具效率，交易成本越低，市場失靈的風險越低，法院支持利用人合理使用抗辯的機會也越低。管見以為，授權著作權仲介團體進行授權交易、自建授權平台、創新商業模式或與主流流通平台建立策略聯盟，是對權利人來說降低交易成本最佳的管理策略之一。 此外，從音樂與出版產業的發展歷程可以發現技術、法律與管理是彼此互為影響的構面，對於企業經營者來說，應有任何一項變動即牽一髮而動全身的敏銳，假定任何一項要素恆久不變或外生於其他兩構面的變化，均可能成為策略錯誤的原因。以上發現可歸納為三個命題： 命題三:著作利用產生的正向外部性越大，權利人越應該積極進行授權，避免過度利用優勢談判地位抬高交易條件，導致授權交易無法進行。 命題四: 權利人應積極建立便於使用的授權機制，降低交易成本及合理使用的風險。 命題五：技術、法律與管理模式三構面互相影響，任何一項要素變動，都可能驅動其他兩項要素的變化。 現行合理使用判決的問題與制度面的修正芻議 若市場失靈理論及本研究提出的命題與觀察構面被接受，本研究建議現行著作權法第六十五條第二項規定可修正如下： 著作之利用是否合於第四十四條至第六十三條規定或其他合理使用之情形，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下列事項，以為判斷之基準： 「一 利用之目的及性質，包括係為商業目的或非營利教育目的。 二 著作之性質。 三 所利用之質量及其在整個著作所占之比例。 四 利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響。 五 利用結果產生的公共利益。 六 覓得著作權人以及取得授權的難易與成本。」 現行法下，法院在合理使用與判斷被告需賠償權利人全額損害兩者間沒有其他選擇，若法院考量正向外部性的存在後，認為被告的利用方式對整體社會有極大利益，並將正向外部性所帶來的好處納入最適授權金的計算，其數額或許將遠低於客觀上填補權利人所失利益與所受損害的價額，判定被告需賠償全額損害有悖於分配效率的要求。反面言之，若被告的利用嚴重損及該著作物最主要的經濟收益，判定合理使用對權利人又將衝擊過大。此時，法院將被迫在合理使用與全額損害賠償間進行二擇一的選擇。為給予法院更多救濟市場失靈的彈性，本研究建議在制度上應盡可能補足全額損害賠償與合理使用光譜的空缺，在立法上似可考慮將現行著作權法第六十五條第三項、第四項規定移至第四項與第五項，並增訂第三項條文如下：著作之利用雖不符合第四十四條至第六十三條規定或其他合理使用情形，但法院審酌一切情狀，尤應注意前項所列事項，得酌減損害賠償金額，若行為人利用方式未達商業規模者，並得免除或酌減行為人違反本法所需負擔的刑事責任。 嚴重市場失靈發生時，因為著作權人的市場利益未受影響，應支持著作利用人合理使用的主張。本此，對於特定類型的嚴重市場失靈，著作權法可以明定為合理使用。本研究建議現行著作權法第五十一條修正如下：「著作於個人或家庭或其他類似範圍內之使用為目的者，若該使用不影響著作權人可合理預期的市場利益者，不構成對著作財產權的侵害。」 / Along with the enlargement of the scope and duration of copyright, it is generally believed that barriers to continual innovation and knowledge distribution also increase. How to leverage fair use to best preserve public interest thus becomes a very important issue. Nevertheless, fair use is called the most unpredictable and difficult problem in copyright law. Using the market failure theory proposed by Wendy Gordon to explain the scope of fair use, this research collects landmark U.S. fair use cases as the basis to develop propositions that help the judiciary to deal with fair use cases, makes management suggestions to copyright holders and proposes several legal reforms to the current Taiwanese fair use law . This study suggests that a defendant’s chance to prevail on his fair use defense increase as the transaction cost increases. For illustration, if the work in dispute is an orphan work, a defendant has a stronger fair use case because the transaction cost he has to incur to find the copyright owner and reach a deal is higher. Similarly, if the work in dispute carries with it clear copyright management information, is managed by efficient intermediaries or placed on an efficient transaction platform, a defendant has a weaker fair use case. The reseach also argues that the higher the positive externality brought by a defendant’s uses, the stronger fair use case he has. If a defendant uses the work in dispute to create a parody or to facilitate information exchange, the defendant has a stronger fair use case due to the positive externality he creates. As managerial suggestions to copyright owners, this study maintains that copyright owners should make their best efforts to reduce transaction costs in connection with licensing and copyright transfers and actively engage in licensing to uses creating significant positive externalities. This helps reduce the possibility that potential users rely on fair use and end up paying nothing to copyright owners. To reduce transaction cost, copyright owners may consider building a licensing platform themselves, using intermediaries or forming strategic alliances with primary sale channels. As for positive externalities, it is suggested that copyright owners pay attention to the public interests recognized in the copyright law. This study also finds that technology breakthroughs, legal reshuffles and innovations in business model and management are inter-related. It is simply a mistake to regard one of the three constructs as being static if another construct has been changing. This research also proposes the following amendments to the current fair use law in Taiwan. As a matter of practice, Taiwanese judges rarely consider factors outside the four listed factors in Article 65(2) of the Taiwanese Copyright Law, even though the statute gives them wide discretion to consider other factors. To encourage the Taiwanese judiciary to apply the market failure theory in fair use cases, it is suggested that “the cost at which a user must incur to obtain a license” be added as the fifth factor and that“the public interests a user creates” be added as the sixth factor in Section 65(2). Secondly, to give judges more flexibility in close cases, it is suggested that judges should be given discretion to reduce the damages a defendant has to compensate copyright holders and discretion to reduce or release him from his criminal duty, even if the criteria for fair use are not fully satisfied. Lastly, if serious market failure occurs, it will be Pareto superior to allow defendants to use the work in dispute free of charge. It is generally recognized that most types of personal uses fall within the scope of serious market failure. This study thus proposes that Article 51 of the Taiwanese Copyright Law be amended to the effect that personal or familial uses are allowed so long as the profits copyright holders can reasonably expect are not adversely affected.

Michael Walzer美國當代社群主義的代表人物，同時也是一位出名的公共知識分子，其哲學思想與政治理念均有其獨到之處，而其中Walzer特別強調社會才是作為個人權利與自由實踐的場所，而擺脫了傳統自由主義理論下，只存在國家與個人的關係。而其最著名的正義的諸領域(Spheres of Justice)，更是在研究近代關於自由主義與社群主義正義論的一本經典，而Walzer正義論中最吸引我的地方在於其放棄像是John Rawls等正義理論的無知之幕，反而主張在討論正義的時候，應該以每個不同社會和社群之間的文化與歷史的發展為基礎，因此Walzer的正義理論強調各種不同的特殊性，而維護正義是國家所必須要出面來作的一件事情，但如何維護多元、自由的社會諸領域中的不同正義原則，Walzer提出一套「複雜平等概念」的哲學思考模式，以及從「公眾利益」為出發點的利益衡量原則。 因此結合Walzer的複雜平等概念與公眾利益的衡量原則，本文提出一套「權利實踐理論」，在這個理論架構之下將會注意到其實法律上所謂的權利僅是作為一種象徵法律權威的意義而已，真正個人想要落實權利實踐必須要集合足夠的政治權力才能夠獲得一個社會實踐的空間與可能性，而這往往與個人在詮釋法律的方式與態度有關，也就是說只有個人提供一個好的詮釋之理由，才能夠獲得足夠的政治權力的協助來個人權利的實踐。 但是法律中往往存在許多「不確定法律概念」，這是為了在特殊的情況時，來能夠實踐個別正義的設計，而法官所負擔的工作，就是透過詮釋，在個案中確立法律概念與原則，有時候會發覺法官並沒有再進行法律的詮釋工作，而也許只是單純的「依法判決」重新確認權利人行使權利之資格而以，但為何有時卻會有限縮或是擴張解釋法律的情況出現，而這背後的判斷標準和原則到底又是什麼，法官這樣做是否合法？是否由於法官是詮釋行為中的最高權威，就代表法官擁有自由的詮釋法律的空間？ 但從Walzer的思考脈絡中，我們可以知道最高的權威者，還是有一定的責任與必須遵守地義務，但其同時也有一定程度的自由和自主決定的空間，依照Walzer的說法，國家也就是站在是最高權威者角色上，維護個人和社會自主性是其必須地義務，並且要防範任何形式的暴力破壞個人和社會的自主性，包含國家自身，而這時候衡量與判斷的標準往往就是所謂地「公共利益」或是「公眾利益」因此公眾利益是判斷國家行為合法性的依據。 而本文就嘗試以美國著作權法中，合理使用原則的公眾利益衡量標準，觀察法官是如何「公共利益」型塑某些原則的重要性，而且也同時還能保留有一定的開放性空間，以處理個案中截然不同地主張與原則的空間。

Abstract Copyright is seen everywhere in the society. It is structured to accommodate several perspectives, namely, a balance between protecting the individual copyright owners’ rights and encouraging the creativity on both an individual and societal level. The copyright owner cannot be granted a redundant protection at the expense of the other interests. For this reason, a copy of someone else’s copyright protected work can be done as long as the copying is for private use. Copying is for this reason something that the copyright owner must endure, but in some cases the right to copy for private use has to be constrained. A potential future problem will be at the point when a private person can 3D print in their own home.     The rapid development regarding 3D printing makes the technology more developed and, in addition, an increased influence over the society. As for the fashion industry, the technology comes with advantages, but also some disadvantages. In some years, the 3D printer has been able to print jewelry, watches and shoes. Lately, the technology also can print fashion products with material such as leather and textiles. If the technology continues to develop like today there is a chance, or a risk, with private persons having access to 3D printers at a “printing house” or in their own home, similar to a traditional paper printer today. The possibilities with printing what ever a person want to print will be a threat against manufacturing companies and their retailers. The person can thus avoid purchasing the product on the market by producing his own by making a copy of someone else’s copyright protected work with a disclaimer that the copy is for private use. The technological development will materialize challenges that the legislator has to consider and respond to, especially on the copyright area. The day when a copy can be made as cheap and as fast as purchasing the product on the market, the principal rule regarding private copying must be limited. Otherwise, the manufacturing companies and their retailers will be threatened and there is a risk that they will be outcompeted. The conclusion can be drawn, that an extended private copying levy in combination with a protection through technical action and a requisite of a reasonable use in art. 5 Infosoc-directive and 12 § URL, can solve the problem with 3D-printers and copying for private use. Whether the problems with 3D printing and copyright will become a reality, or not, depends on the future development of the technology. / Sammanfattning Upphovsrätter återfinns överallt i samhället. Dess syfte är att skydda upphovsmannens ensamrätt, liksom att balansera intressen som att främja kreativiteten och åsiktsbildningen, samhällsintresset och konsumentintresset. Kopiering av ett upphovsrättsligt skyddat verk får upphovsmannen utstå dagligen. Förutsatt att kopian är avsedd för privat brukande är kopieringen tillåten. Anledningen till detta undantag är att lagstiftaren anser att ensamrätten inte får vara för stark. Problematiken beträffande privat kopiering kommer att aktualiseras den dag när 3D-skrivartekniken är så pass utvecklad att privatpersoner har en ”minifabrik” i sitt hem. Den dagen när detta inträffar kommer privatpersoner inte att behöva gå till affären för att inhandla en specifik produkt, utan kan istället tillverka den hemma med hjälp av en CAD-fil och en 3D-skrivare, ett förfarande som kan komma att bli förfärande för företagen och samhället som helhet. Den teknologiska utvecklingen beträffande 3D-skrivare går snabbt framåt och med tiden får skrivaren ett större inflytande i samhället. I samband med utvecklingen har skrivarens kapacitet ökat samtidigt som priset sjunker. I dagsläget är emellertid en avancerad 3D-skrivare dyr vilket medför att det är ovanligt för privatpersoner att ha tillgång till en sådan i sitt hem.   För modebranschen har 3D-skrivarens utveckling inneburit en hel del fördelar, men med tekniken kommer även nackdelar. 3D-skrivaren har under en längre tid kunnat framställa modeprodukter såsom smycken, klockor och skor. Utvecklingen har på senaste tiden gjort det möjligt att även framställa modeprodukter av exempelvis läder, textil och skinn. Förutsatt att tekniken fortsätter utvecklas i den snabba takt som sker i dagsläget finns det en chans eller en risk att gemene man kommer att ha tillgång till en 3D-skrivare via ett ”printing house” eller till och med att gemene man har tillgång till en egen 3D-skrivare i sitt hem, precis som de allra flesta har tillgång till en traditionell pappersskrivare idag. Möjligheten att kunna skriva ut den produkt som önskas kommer att hota tillverkningsföretag och dess återförsäljare. Utvecklingen kommer att aktualisera utmaningar som lagstiftaren måste beakta och bemöta, särskilt på det upphovsrättsliga området. En potentiell lösning på dessa utmaningar är ett utvidgat kassettersättningssystem för att på så sätt säkerställa att upphovsmannen får ersättning för sin skada, i kombination med ett skydd för tekniska åtgärder och ett nytt rekvisit om skälig användning i art. 5 Infosoc-direktivet och 12 § URL. Om problemen med 3D-skrivartekniken och upphovsrätten kommer att bli realiserade i framtiden beror på hur utvecklingen kommer att se ut, något som återstår att se.