結論

法條有限，事實無窮，損害之證明常常係導致被侵權人之損害無法獲得補 償之原因，因此，惟有放寬損害之認定才能有效保護著作權人之權利；再者，

如能同時使侵權行為變成無利可圖，則亦可有效遏阻侵權行為之發生。從上述 美國法院判決可知，美國法院的損害的認定可謂「無所不用其極」，其目的除

了讓被侵權人的損害得以受到補償外，更重要的是不讓侵權人因其侵權行為受 有利益，以根本避免侵權行為。

而本國法院之判決，則受限於法條之規定，無從為如美國法院判決寬的認 定，但從上述介紹的數則本國法院判決中，其實法院亦已開始放寬對損害的認 定，甚至亦有判決提到「使用的利益」者，因此，如能朝著與美國法院相同的 目標，以使被侵權人能獲得合理的補償，並使侵權行為變成無利可圖，則應能 降低著作權之侵害。

附錄一：美國著作權法關於損害賠償的規定 TITLE 17--COPYRIGHTS

CHAPTER 5--COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES

§ 504 · Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In general.—Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—

(1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

(b) Actual Damages and Profits.—The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

(c) Statutory Damages.—

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements

involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had

reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

(3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if

the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.

(B) Nothing in this paragraph limits what may be considered willful infringement under this subsection.

(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes” approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946”; 15 U.S.C. 1127).

(d) Additional Damages in Certain Cases.—In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110(5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years.

附錄二：台灣著作權法關於損害賠償計算的沿革

參考書目

一、 中文文獻（以作者姓氏筆畫排列）

(一)專書

曾世雄，損害賠償法原理，學林文化事業有限公司，2002 年 10 月 2 版。

(二)期刊(以出版日期排序)

劉江彬，美國法院對於網際網路服務業者 著作權輔助侵權重要判例之研究，

經濟部智慧財產月刊，第 63 期，2004 年 3 月

梁志文，論著作權法侵權損害賠償之法定賠償制度--以大陸法制為中心，科技 法律透析，第 18 卷第 11 期，2006 年 11 月

章忠信，美國著作權法科技保護措施例外規定之探討，萬國法律雙月刊第 151 期，2007 年 2 月

廖宣懿，論我國著作財產權法定賠償額之計算單位及其數額之酌定，國立台北 大學法律學系 98 學年度第 1 學期專題論文獎學金得獎名單及論文，見該系網 站學生表現網頁，

http://www.ntpu.edu.tw/law/index.php?act=student&student_level=1&code=view&

id=26，www.ntpu.edu.tw/law/upload/webstyle_default/79552107 (三)論文(以作者姓氏筆畫排列)

吳佳容，著作權的本質與保護範圍演變之探討，世新大學法學院碩士論文，2007 年

吳復興，網際網路點對點(Peer to Peer)傳輸檔案與著作權侵害之研究─以音樂著 作網路下載行為為例，世新大學法學院碩士論文，2004 年

李明錦，我國著作權仲介團體使用報酬率決定機制之研究，世新大學法學院碩 士論文，2005 年

何俞宛，智慧財產權間重複賠償問題之研究，世新大學法學院碩士論文，2007 年

張基銘，美國著作權保護制度之研究，以網際網路著作權為中心，淡江大學美 國研究所碩士論文，2002 年

(四)報告

孫遠釗主持，美國著作權法令暨判決之研究期末報告(民國九十七年度：法令及 最近判例)，經濟部智慧財產局，97 年 12 月 4 日

孫遠釗主持，美國著作權法令暨判決之研究期末報告(民國九十八年度)，經濟 部智慧財產局，98 年 12 月 15 日

二、 外文文獻專書與期刊（以出刊日期排列）

Berger, Andrew, Statutory Damages in Copyright Litigation: Clearing Up Some Common Misunderstanding and Explaining Some Uncertainties, Practicing Law Institute, Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series, PLI Order No. 23474, April, 2010

Coleman, Andrew W., Copyright Damages and the Value of the Infringing Use:

Restitutionary in Copyright Infringement Actions, 21 AIPLAQUARTERLY JOURNAL

91 (1993)

Lemley, Kevin M., Eliminating Value of Infringement: An Economic Analysis of Internal Transactions and Indirect External Transactions in Software Infringement Cases, 45 IDEA 425 (2005)

McKinney, Buck, Remedies Under the United States Copyright Act，The Advocate (Texas), Symposium on Intellectual Property Litigation, Section II -- Copyright Law, Winter, 2008

Merrill, Deirdre A., Overview of Basic Principles of Copyright Law and Copyright Office Practice, Practising Law Institute: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series, PLI Order No. 14811, June-July, 2008 Thea, Peter, Note, Statutory Damages for the Multiple Infringement of a

Copyrighted Work: A Doctrine Whose Time Has Come, Again, 6 CARDOZO ARTS &

ENT.L.J. 463 (1988) 三、 網路資源 (一)中文

月旦法學知識庫：http://www.lawdata.com.tw 司法院網站：http://www.judicial.gov.tw/

法源法律網：http://www.lawbank.com.tw/index.php 經濟部智慧財產局：http://www.tipo.gov.tw

章忠信，著作權筆記，

http://www.copyrightnote.org/crnote/bbs.php?board=11&act=read&id=105

蔡朝安律師、陳尹章律師，從訴訟觀點談智慧財產權價值計算—普華商務法律 事務所網站，

http://www.pwc.com/tw/zh/services/legal/knowledge-center/legal-column/feature/le gal-feature-20080731.jhtml

智慧財產法院：http://210.69.124.203/ipr_internet/index.php (二)外文

Westlaw 網站：http://international.westlaw.com.sw 美國國會著作權局：http://www.copyright.gov/

(三)美國法院判決

Atlantic Monthly Co. v. Post Pub. Co., 27 F.2d 556 (D. Mass. 1928)

Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 329 F.3d 923, 925-26 (7th Cir. 2003) Business Trends Analysts, Inc. v. The Freedonia Group, Inc., 887 F.2d 399, 400 (2d Cir. 1989)

Deltak, Inc. v. Advanced Systems, Inc. 574 F. Supp 400 (N.D. Ill. 1983), rev'd, 767 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1985)

Kleier Adver. Co. v. James Miller Chevrolet., 722 F. Supp 1544 (N.D. Ill. 1989) Runge v. Lee.，441 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1971)

McRoberts Software, Inc. v. Media 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 2003) On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 156 (2d Cir. 2001)