美國

美國於一九九八年通過的「數位千禧年著作權法」（Digital Millennium Copyright Act，簡稱ＤＭＣＡ）為網路服務提供者所提供之鏈結服務，因 可能鏈結到含有侵害著作權資訊所引發的法律問題，提出明文之規範。

ＤＭＣＡ之第二章即在規範線上著作權侵害責任之限制（Title Ⅱ：

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation）²其所新增之第五一二條 規定，即對網路服務提供者之四種可能產生之著作權侵害責任創設了新的 限制，舉例說明如下：

１.暫時性數位網路傳輸（Transitory Digital Network Communications）

修正之著作權法第五一二條（ａ）³舉出下列五種情形時，網路服務提供者

2 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 U.S. Copyright Office Summmary ， http://www.copyright.gov/laws/，最後造訪日:2002/10/1.

3 DMCA（Digital Millennium Copyright Act ）Oct. 20, 1998, Sec.512. Limitations on liability relating to material online：” (a)Transitory Digital Network Communications. – A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing or providing connections

對透過其所控制之系統，進行資料發送、傳輸、連接，或在此過程中之 except as an automatic response to the request of another person; (4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in the manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients; and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and (5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.”

4 DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act ）Oct. 20, 1998, Sec.512. Limitations on liability relating to material online：” … (b) System Caching. – (1) Limitation on Liability – A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable

控制或操作之暫時儲存或中介行為，有下列情形，且符合同法第五一二

３.依使用者指示於系統或網路上為資訊儲存（Storage of information on systems or networks at direction of users）按修正之著作權法第五一二條 subparagraph (A) , if the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are met.”

5 DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act ）Oct. 20, 1998, Sec.512. Limitations on liability relating to material online：” … (c) INFORMATION RESIDING ON SYSTEMS OR NETWORKS AT DIRECTION OF USERS – (1) IN GENERAL – A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relieb, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled by or for the service provider, if the service provider – (A) (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing; (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material; (B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the

或控制之系統或網路上之資料使用者所為之儲存行為，不負侵害著作權 之責任：

⑴①網路服務提供者對於該資料、或於系統及網路上使用該資料之行 為是侵權的，並非明知。

②在非明知之前提下，網路服務提供者並未察覺任何明顯的侵權行 為事實、情狀存在。

③待知悉時，網路服務提供者即立刻移除或阻絕他人接觸該資料。

⑵於網路服務提供者有能力控制侵權行為之前提下，其並未藉該侵權 行為而直接獲得財產上利益。

⑶網路服務提供者因收悉第五一二條（Ｃ）（３）規定之「指稱侵權的通知」而 迅速移除或阻絕該被指稱侵權之資料。

４.資訊定位工具（Information location tools）

根據修正之著作權法第五一二條（ｄ）⁶之規定，只要網路服務提供者有

infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and (C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

6 DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act ）Oct. 20, 1998, Sec.512. Limitations on liability relating to material online：” (d) INFORMATION LOCATION TOOLS – A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the provider – (1) (A) does not have actual knowledge that material or activity is infringing; (B) in the absence of such knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material; (2) does not receive a

下列情事時，則其對於透過如：索引、名錄、超連結等資訊定位工具，

提供或連結使用者到涉嫌侵權之線上位址之行為，得主張不負侵害著作 權之責任：

⑴①網路服務提供者非明知該資料或行為有侵權之情事。

②在非明知之前提下，網路服務提供者並未察覺任何明顯的侵權情事；

或其已知悉該侵權情事，並立即移除或阻絕他人接觸該資料。

⑵網路服務提供者有能力控制該等侵權行為之前提下，其並未因該侵權行 為而直接獲得財產上利益。

⑶在本款之範圍內，第五一二條（ｃ）（３）（Ａ）（iii）所規定之資訊，係指：

①該被指為侵權而將遭阻絕接觸或移除之資訊或行為之參照或連結之 證明；或

②允許網路服務提供者放置該連結或參照的資訊。

觀察美國判例有關網路服務提供者對於使用人之侵權行為所應負擔之法 律責任，可歸納出下列三種主張：

１.直接侵權責任（Direct Infringement）

於著作權之侵權訴訟中，原告僅須證明其對被侵害之著作物有著作權，

以及對造有重製等侵害行為，即可成立直接侵權責任。是可知，直接侵權 責任之成立，顯不以網路服務提供者有故意或過失為必要，原告僅須證明 有侵權事實之存在即為以足。

financial benefit attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; ans (3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c) (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c) (3) (A) (iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be remove or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.”

２.輔助侵權責任（Contributory Infringement）

除直接侵權責任所定之要件外，侵權之事實雖非被告之行為所致，惟若 被告對該侵權行為知悉或可得知悉，且有引誘、促進等實質輔助他人之行 為時，即可成立輔助侵權責任。換言之，輔助侵權責任係以「知悉」及

「實質貢獻」作為基本之成立要件⁷，被告知悉侵權行為存在，且對他人 之直接侵權行為有實質上貢獻者，即須與直接侵權行為人負擔相同之著 作權侵害責任⁸。

前述所謂「知悉」係指被告實際知道（knew）或有理由知道（had reason to knew）相關之侵權行為存在，由此可推知，因為原告必須證明被告知

悉其特定著作物被侵權，故其舉證責任較直接侵權責任為重。

實質貢獻於輔助行為中，係指該行為提供了：重製的方法、設備，或其 他加速達成侵權目的之行為，其可能的形式有：以個人的行為提供鼓勵或 幫助、提供便利行為人達成侵權目的之場所、設備或機器⁹等。

３.代理侵權責任（Vicarious Infringement）

代理侵權責任係指，被告雖非親自踐行直接侵權行為，但其有能力控制 對於他人之侵權行為，且因該侵權行為而直接受有財產上利益時，所科予 被告應負擔之法律上責任。是可知，成立代理侵權行為，必須具備以下二

7 See Craig A. Grossman, From Sony to Grokster, The Failure of the Copyright Doctrines of Contributory Infringement and Vicarious Liability to Resolve the War Between Content and Destructive Technologies, 53 Buffalo L. Rev. 141 ( 2005 ), at p151.

8 See Jonathan Rosenoer, Cyberlaw Law of the Interent, Nov 1996, at P5.

9 Craig A.Grossman, supra note 7, at 153.

個要件¹⁰：

⑴控制的權力或能力（the right and bility to control）。

⑵直接的財產上利益（a direct financial benefit）。