Protection of technical measures

Article 11 of the WCT, entitled “Obligations Concerning Technological Measures,”

provides:

標題為「有關科技措施之義務」的 WCT 第 11 條規定：

“Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.”

「締約各方應有適當之法律保障及有效之法律救濟規定，以對抗規避著作人所使 用於行使本條約或伯恩公約所定權利，或供作制止未經著作人授權或法律所允許 對其著作所為行為之有效的科技措施。」

Article 18 of the WPPT contains a similar provision:

WPPT 第 18 條包含了類似規定：

“Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their performances or phonograms, which are not authorized by the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.”

「締約各方應有適當之法律保障及有效之法律救濟規定，以對抗規避表演人或錄 音物製作人所使用於行使本條約所定權利，或供作制止未經表演人或錄音物製作 人授權或法律所允許而對其表演或錄音物所為行為之有效的科技措施。」

Contracting Parties will meet their obligations in respect of these provisions where the protection they enact is “adequate” and the legal remedies “effective”. Furthermore, Contracting Parties are not prevented from introducing exceptions and limitations to the legal protections and remedies, provided they are consistent with the general protection of

“effective technological measures.”

當締約各方所制訂的法律保障為「適當」，而且法律救濟為「有效」，便可符合 關於這些規定的義務。此外，對於這些法律保障與救濟，締約各方並非不能制訂例外 與限制規定，只要這些例外與限制規定符合關於「有效科技措施」的一般性保障即 可。

The non-specificity of this provision has given rise to considerable debate as to its precise scope. For the purposes of this study however, a number of basic propositions can be assumed.

這個規定的不具體性，已經引起了關於其精確範圍的相當多討論。不過，基於本 研究的目的，可以預設一些基本的命題。

First, while a number of countries have introduced provisions relating to controlling the act of circumvention itself, others have combined the prohibition to circumvent with prohibition of so-called preparatory acts, such as the trafficking in circumvention devices and

services. A third group of countries has simply focused on the prohibition of preparatory acts.

From the viewpoint of those that advocate the latter position, prohibiting technologies alone could prove to be an effective way to prevent acts of circumvention.

第一，雖然有一些國家已經有了關於控制規避行為本身的規定，其他國家則是結 合了禁止規避與禁止所謂預備行為，例如關於規避性設備與服務的非法交易。第三類 的國家則單純集中於禁止預備行為。由支持後一種立場的觀點來看，禁止科技本身得 以是一種預防規避行為的有效方法。

Second, Article 11 references circumvention of “effective” technological measures.

From a technical point of view, the term “effective” seems illogical in this context: a technical protection measure which is compromised by a circumvention device can no longer be considered “effective.” (It is worth noting in this connection that while the DVD Video encryption standard – CSS – remains in place, a quick search with Google reveals 11.5 million references to DVD copy systems employing the DCSS hack). “Effective” therefore has to be understood in this context as a legal construct underpinning a deterrent provision, rather than a reference to real technological capability.

第二，第 11 條提到了規避「有效」科技措施。由技術觀點來看，「有效」一詞在 這個情境下似乎不合邏輯：一項被規避設備所破壞的科技措施不能被認為「有效」。

（關於此值得一提的是，即使 DVD 影像加密標準 CSS 依然存在，不過在 Google 上快 速搜尋，即顯示出使用 DCSS 破解法的 DVD 複製系統多達一千一百五十萬。）因此

「有效」應當被理解為，是一種法律建構的嚇阻規定，而不是指涉真正的科技能力。

Third, Article 11 references measures used in connection with authors’ exercise of their copyright rights under the Berne Convention and the WCT; Article 18 references measures used in connection with the exercise of rights under the WPPT by performers and producers of phonograms. Nothing, however, precludes Contracting Parties from enacting measures going beyond the minimum requirement. However, to the extent that a technological measure is used by an author to control uses of a work which ordinarily fall within an exception to copyright, then arguably Article 11 would not require a Contracting Party to prohibit circumvention in connection with such a use. Neither the WCT nor the WPPT provide any definitive answer on this issue, leaving the difficult task of reconciling the provisions to national law. As we discuss later in the study, even where the attempt is made at reconciliation the implementation of the intended solution becomes a complex proposition both as a matter of law and technology.

第三，關於作者依據伯恩公約與 WCT 行使其著作權，第 11 條提到了所使用的措 施；關於表演人與錄音物製作人依據 WPPT 行使其權利，第 18 條提到了所使用的措 施。不過，在以上條約規定中，並不禁止締約各方制訂超過最低要求的措施。然而，

在作者使用科技措施，以控制通常屬於著作權例外規定的使用情形，可以說第 11 條並 未要求締約方在關於這種使用情形時禁止規避。對於這個問題，WCT 與 WPPT 都未規 定明確答案，而將調和這些規定的困難工作留給國內法處理。如我們在本研究後面所 討論，甚至於連企圖調和這些解決方案的執行，都成為法律上與科技上的複雜問題。

The WIPO Treaties also introduce comparable provisions for protection of rights management information. Rights management information is defined as information that identifies the work, the author of or the owner of any rights in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, as well as any numbers or codes that represent such information.

這些 WIPO 條約也引進了關於保護權利管理訊息的相類規定。在定義上，權利管 理資訊是標示著作、作者、著作權利人的資訊，或著作使用條件的資訊，以及表現這 些資訊的任何數字或代碼。

CHAPTER 2 第二章

DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (DRM) 數位權利管理(DRM)

It is commonplace for studies and reports about DRM to attempt to provide an

all-encompassing definition of DRM. That is not necessary here. This section aims to explain the concept of DRM in the context of this study.

在關於 DRM 的諸多研究與報告中，對於 DRM 提供全面性的定義，是一項通常 的作法。然而這個作法在此處並不必要。本文這部份旨在於以本研究情境下解釋 DRM 概念。

As this study is about the relationship between legal and technical mechanisms for the definition and implementation of rights and exceptions thereto, it follows that the reference to DRM in this context is to information technology (IT) tools and systems which function to define and enforce rights. DRM should therefore in this context be understood simply as a generic term for IT tools and systems which perform that function.

在權利及例外規定的定義與執行上，本研究討論其法律與技術機制相互關係，因 此在這情境下，所謂 DRM 即是具有定義與執行權利功能的資訊科技工具與系統 (information technology tools and systems)。在這情境下，DRM 應當被單純理解為一個 一般名詞，表示執行該功能的資訊科技工具與系統。

Accordingly, DRM should not be thought of – at least in the present context – as a specific item or configuration of technology. Indeed, much of the concern about the impact of the use of DRM could be allayed by adopting a broader and more analytical perspective to the subject matter; that is the intent here.

因此，至少在當前的情境下，DRM 不應被認為是特定的科技物品或裝置。實際 上，如果在網際網路的主題上採取更加廣泛性與分析性的觀點，則可以減輕對於 DRM 所帶來衝擊的諸多顧慮。

DRM as an area of technology and approach to rights management in a digital environment is essentially a neutral proposition. It carries no more predisposition to the implementation rights in a particular way than, say, the technology and process of

machine-based word-processing does to the content of documents produced thereby.

在數位環境下，DRM 作為一個科技領域，以及管理權利的方式，本質上屬於中 性。在執行權利上，與機械式的文字處理科技與程序對於所產生的文件內容相比，

DRM 並未更傾向於某種特定方式。

A. DRM: The concept DRM：概念

1. The distinction between content management and rights management 內容管理與權利管理(content management and rights management)之區別

It is suggested that to better understand DRM it is helpful to distinguish between the processes and technologies which are used for managing content in a machine-based

environment and the technologies used for managing the rights in that content. The processes may well be closely integrated in both structure and operation, but they can be seen as quite distinct from an analytical perspective. Being able to recognize and apply that distinction is fundamental to the approach of this study.

為了有助於妥善理解 DRM，有建議區分用於機械式環境下管理內容的程序與科 技，以及用於管理內容權利的科技。這些程序可能在結構上與運作上緊密結合，但是 以分析性觀點來看，它們得以被視為相當不同。承認並應用這個區分，是本研究的根 本取向。

The expression “content” is one which, although justifiably disliked by many in the creative community, has come to be widely used in discussion and description of media and communications technology. The reference covers many kinds of information, some of which attracts intellectual property protection, some of which is governed by other kinds of legal regulation, and some of which enjoys no legal protection. The expression “content” certainly encompasses the kind of matter traditionally the subject of copyright or neighbouring rights protection and that is how the term is used here. The term “information” is used to reference any kind of data, whether or not it is the subject of copyright protection in the traditional sense.

雖然許多創意界人士有理由厭惡「內容」一詞，這個詞在媒體與通訊科技領域的 討論描述中已經廣為使用。其指涉的範圍包含了許多種資訊，其中某些資訊引發智慧 財產的保護，某些資訊被其他種法律管制所規範，而某些資訊不受任何法律保護。當 然，「內容」一詞包含了著作權與鄰接權保護的傳統客體，而這就是這個詞用於此處 的原因。「資訊」一詞用於指涉任何種類資料，不論該資料是否屬於傳統上著作權的 保護客體。

There is another important clarification which needs to be explained in detail at the outset. In this study there will be frequent reference to “content management” and to “rights management”. The two expressions are intended to be understood in the following way:

在開始之初，有另一個重要的說明有待詳細解釋。在本研究中，將會經常參照

「內容管理」與「權利管理」。這二個詞以如下方式理解：

– “Content management” means all activity conducted in relation to items of content by a device and/or a human actor including creating, manipulating (modifying, adapting), fixing, storing, transferring, performing, rendering (playing, displaying, etc; in a device), and disposing of the content. Content management is used to describe these activities whether or not they occur in a machine-based, digital environment.

– 「內容管理」意指以設備與∕或人工在內容項目上所為之一切行為，包括創

造、操作（修改、調整），固著、儲存、移轉、執行、播放（在設備中播 放、顯示等等），以及處分。不論是否發生於機械式、數位環境下，內容管 理皆用於描述這些行為。

– “Rights management” means all activity conducted in relation to the rights governing the content management activity in respect of an item of content. The rights in question are the product of legislation or contract or a combination of the two.

– 「權利管理」意指在內容項目上，關於規範內容管理行為的權利所為之一切

行為。系爭權利來自於立法或契約，或是這二者的組合。

Modern IT has made it possible to generate, store, manipulate, transfer and search for data in ways that have made more information available to a greater number of users than could ever have been imagined a mere generation ago. Digitisation of data, storage capacity, processing power, networks, metadata systems, search technologies, rendering applications:

all these are features of relatively basic computing systems which many people now take for granted. Together they have made it possible for people to find and use in a huge variety of ways many diverse forms of content.

對於資料的生產、儲存、操作、移轉與搜尋，現代資訊科技以僅僅一個世代前所

對於資料的生產、儲存、操作、移轉與搜尋，現代資訊科技以僅僅一個世代前所