Fair use by design

內建合理使用設計(Fair use by design)

Another approach to the problem has been to examine whether DRM technologies can be designed to apply rules of fair use: a number of important papers have been written by academic researchers in the United States examining the proposition. Given the way the fair use doctrine is applied under United States copyright law, the ability to accommodate the mechanism within a DRM based rights management system is often seen as the ultimate test of the compatibility of DRM with established copyright practice.

對於數位鎖定問題的另一個路線，就是檢討 DRM 科技能否設計成適用合理使用 規則：美國學者已經寫了一些重要的文章檢討這個提議。鑑於合理使用原則已經適用 於美國法，DRM 權利管理系統接納合理使用機制的能力，通常被視為 DRM 與既有著 作權實務在相容性上的終極測試。

Perhaps the most innovative and useful of these paper is one written in 2001 by Professors Julie E. Cohen and Dan Burk entitled “Fair use infrastructure for copyright management systems.”

Julie E. Cohen 與 Dan Burk 教授於 2001 年撰寫的文章「針對著作權管理系統的合 理使用基礎建設」(Fair use infrastructure for copyright management systems)，或許是其中

最富有創新性與實用性的文章。³⁹

They state their central proposition as follows:

他們所述的核心提議如下：

39 Cohen, Julie E. and Burk, Dan L: Fair Use Infrastructure for Copyright Management Systems Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Volume 15, Number 1 Fall 2001, available at

<http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/15HarvJLTech041.pdf>.

“The most direct method of accommodating fair use would be to mandate or prompt the development of rights management systems that directly allow purchasers of a work to make fair use of the content. Optimally, the “breathing space” required for fair uses would be programmed directly into the technical rule set that controls access to the work. The systems might, for example, include provisions allowing users to extract a certain number of bits, or display the work for certain periods of time, or partially perform the work a certain number of times. Depending on the characteristics of the desired use, users would be able to take these actions without having to seek additional permission or pay additional fees.

「接納合理使用最直接的方法，可能就是促進權利管理系統直接允許著作購買者 能合理使用該著作。合理使用所需的「呼吸空間」，最好是能夠直接編入控制著 作取用的技術規則集合。例如，該系統可能包含某些規定，以允許使用者擷取某 些位元、或在特定期間內顯示該著作，或在一定次數內執行該著作的一部分。依 據這些使用的特徵，使用者可以進行這些動作，而不須尋求額外許可或支付額外 費用。

In reality, however, an algorithm-based approach to fair use is unlikely to accommodate even the shadow of fair use as formulated in current copyright law. We are not optimistic that system designers will be able to anticipate the range of access privileges that may be appropriate in order for fair uses to be made of a particular work. Neither are we optimistic that system designers will be able to anticipate the types of uses that would be considered fair by a court. Fair use is irreducibly a situation-specific determination. In some instances, a user may fairly take a work in its entirety – say, for example, where the work is entitled to only thin protection, the use is for a protected use such as scholarship or criticism, and/or the use is expected to have no appreciable impact on the market for the work. In other situations, where three or four of the factors weigh heavily against a particular use, taking much less might exceed fair use. Building the range of possible outcomes into computer code would require both a bewildering degree of complexity and an impossible level of prescience. There is currently no good algorithm that is capable of producing such an analysis, meaning that (at least for now) there is no feasible way to build rights management code that approximates the results of judicial determinations.”

不過，在現實上，即使是現行著作權法中合理使用的一點影子，以演算法為基礎 的合理使用路線還不能加以接納。對於系統設計者將能夠預期特定著作在合理使 用的取用程度，我們並不樂觀。對於系統設計者將能夠預期哪些類型使用者可以 被法院任何合理，我們也不樂觀。在某些情形，使用者可以合理地使用整部著作

－例如，對於所受保護程度低的著作，為學術或評論而加以使用是受到保護，以 及∕或者，使用不會對於著作銷路有所影響。在其他情形，當有三、四種因素足 以否定特定的使用時，即使是更加小量的使用都可能逾越了合理使用範圍。在電 腦程式碼中建立各種可能結果的範圍，需要高度的複雜性，以及不可能的預見程 度。目前並沒有完善的演算法能夠產出這種分析，這就意味著（至少現在）無法 建立趨近法院判斷結果的權利管理程式碼。

As do most of those who have written in this area, Burk and Cohen dismiss the possibility of voluntary incorporation of fair use rules by copyright owners in a DRM based system. And while they note the precedent of the Audio Home Recording Act which provides for both mandatory technical protection and a degree of permitted copying, they do not see a corresponding solution in the DRM area.

關於由著作權人自行在 DRM 系統中納入合理使用規則，如同多數該領域著作的 作者，Burk 與 Cohen 否定了這個可能性。即使他們注意到了家庭錄音法(Audio Home Recording Act)提供強制性技術保護及一定程度的許可複製前例，他們在 DRM 領域中 看不到相對應的解決方案。

They then go on to examine another alternative. This involves reference to a trusted third party holding keys to encrypted content in escrow so that fair users of content can access content in a manner compatible with law. The copyright owner would be required to deposit keys to content as the quid pro quo for having the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA apply to the content in question.

他們之後便檢討另一個替代方案。這涉及由具公信力第三者(a trusted third party) 代管加密內容的解密鑰匙，使內容的合理使用者能夠以合法方式取用內容。著作權人 必須寄託內容解密鑰匙，方能使 DCMA 反規避規定適用於系爭內容。

Burk and Cohen recognise issues with this approach as well, in particular the challenge of maintaining fair user anonymity and keeping transaction costs at an acceptable level. They consider at length what kind of entity should qualify as the trusted third party, concluding that this would likely be a publicly funded institution such as the Library of Congress.

Burk 與 Cohen 也察覺到這個提案的問題，尤其是維護合理使用者匿名性，以及使 交易成本維持在可接受的程度。他們長篇考慮了哪一種單位才是合格的具公信力第三 者，而結論則是諸如國會圖書館之類的公立機構。

They see the ultimate solution in a combination of the two approaches:

他們所看到的終極解決方案，是這二個路線的結合：

“Each of the two possible mechanisms for preserving fair use in a digital rights management environment has advantages and drawbacks. Automatic fair use functionality does not require human intervention, but is unlikely to afford the full spectrum of fair uses allowed by law. The use of a trusted third party intermediary to mediate access, in contrast, potentially allows the full spectrum of uses but is less responsive to anonymity and spontaneity concerns. The optimal result, we suggest, is an infrastructure that combines the two.

「在數位權利管理環境下，這二個可能機制都各有優點及缺點。自動化合理使用 功能，不需要人為介入，但是可能無法提供所有法律允許的合理使用情形。反 之，使用具公信力第三者作為取用中介，可能允許完全的使用情形，但是比較無 法回應匿名性與自發性方面的顧慮。我們建議，結合這二者的基礎建設才是最佳 結果。

The first layer of our proposed fair use infrastructure would involve the design of rights management technologies that incorporate automatic fair use defaults based on customary norms of personal noncommercial use. The legal rule for facilitating this part of the proposal would operate in a fashion similar to current provisions of the Copyright Act designed to encourage copyright registration and deposit, by conditioning copyright enforcement on implementation of the automatic fair use defaults. To guard against a “race to the bottom” in fair use law, the law would clearly state that the level of copying permitted by the automatic defaults does not define the full extent of permitted fair use.

在我們建議的合理使用基礎建設，第一層是基於個人非商業性使用的慣例，設計 權利管理科技，以納入合理使用的自動預設值。促成這部分提議的法律規則，在 運作上將類似於目前鼓勵著作權登記與寄託的著作權法規定，將合理使用的自動 預設值，作為執行著作權法的條件。為了避免合理使用法律「向下沈淪」(race to the bottom)，法律會明文規定，自動預設值所許可的複製程度，並非法律許可合 理使用的完全範圍。

Those who desire greater fair use access, meanwhile, would turn to a trusted third party intermediary. Under the system, deposit of access keys into key escrow would be facilitated by conditioning anti-circumvention protection on such deposit. Users who failed to obtain access via the escrow agent would be subject to suit for circumventing technical measures; those users, however, still might escape liability by successful invocation of a constitutional defense to circumvention liability. Rights holders that opt not to deposit keys with the escrow agent would be unable to invoke legal protection against circumvention; for such unescrowed works, a “right to hack” would effectively substitute for access via the escrowed keys. As noted [above], the DMCA’s ban on the manufacture and distribution of circumvention technologies also would need to be modified or amended to make this defense a realistic possibility. Finally, to preserve the relative anonymity of the key escrow system, the records of applicants and keys issued would need to be guarded by stringent legal protections along the lines described above.”

想要獲得更多合理使用的人，可以尋求受託中介第三者。在這個系統下，取用解 密鑰匙的寄託代管，將以反規避的保護作為條件。未能通過代管者獲得取用的使 用者，將會因為規避技術措施遭到起訴；不過，這些使用者仍可能成功援引憲法 抗辯而逃脫規避責任。選擇不將解密鑰匙寄託到代管者的權利人，將無法引用法 律保護而對抗規避；對於這些未交付代管的著作，「破解權」(right to hack)將會 有效取代由代管解密鑰匙取用。如[先前]所述，DMCA 對於規避科技的製造與散 布禁令，也需要修改或增修，使這種抗辯在現實上有可能性。最後，為了維護解 密鑰匙代管系統的相對匿名性，申請人的記錄與所發放鑰匙，需要透過以上所述 方向的嚴格法律保護加以保障。」

This paper is quoted at length because of the importance of the ideas it advances. The idea of developing DRM systems that can accommodate specific exceptions to copyright is logical. In this connection it is important to remember that United States law, both in the TEACH Act and the Chafee Amendment, provides specificity to areas falling within the scope of the fair use provisions, specificity which, in theory, could facilitate the design of DRM-enabled systems for properly implementing the provisions of the particular exceptions.

由於這篇文章所提觀念的重要性，所以此處加以長篇引述。發展接納著作權特定 例外規定的 DRM 系統，這在觀念上是合乎邏輯。在這個關連點上應注意，美國 TEACH 法及夏菲增修條款(Chafee Amendment)都特別規定了合理使用範圍領域內的事 項，因此在理論上，這些法律規定能夠促成適當執行特定例外規定條款的 DRM 系統設 計。

The idea of making content available for use consistent with fair use principles through trusted third parties is equally compelling. Indeed this is an idea which is adopted and examined in more detail in Chapter 6 of this study.

經由具公信力第三者(trusted third parties)製作合於合理使用原則的內容，這個觀 念也是同樣有說服力。事實上，本研究第六章會採用這個觀念，並有更深入的檢討。

The Cohen-Burk paper stops short however of considering how such systems would function in practice.

不過，Cohen-Burk 的文章並未考慮到這種系統如何在實務上運作。

First of all there is the question of cost. In terms of developing DRM technologies to accommodate specific exceptions to copyright, the options are either that of incentivising commercial developers to make the necessary investment or mandating such development by law. Mandating specific technical solutions is a complex and high-risk process in the best of circumstances. In the area of DRM where there are a number of different DRM technologies and as yet little interoperability between them, mandating a common mechanism for implementing exceptions would probably prove impossible.

首先是成本的問題。發展 DRM 科技以接納著作權特定例外規定，其可能選項若

首先是成本的問題。發展 DRM 科技以接納著作權特定例外規定，其可能選項若