Search

The copyright dispute between the National Library and Beijing Sanmianxiang Company has brought the issue of digital distribution of out-of-print works in collection to the attention of the society. In order to protect copyright, reconcile the public interest and avoid disrupting the normal market operation mechanism, China's Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Communication Through Information Network stipulate a fair use system for the digital dissemination of out-of-print works in collection. From the perspective of implementation, the restrictions on the eligible objects and the scope of dissemination are too harsh, and there are problems such as violation of the requirement of equalization of basic public services and violation of the principle of balance of interests. In light of the useful reference in newly amended Japanese Copyright Law, it is advisable for China to adopt the following reform measures for the regulation of digital dissemination of out-of-print works in collections: first, to expand the scope of fair use and establish a dissemination system covering intra-library, inter-library and extra-library, and establish a matching compensation mechanism; second, to optimize the conditions for the application of objects and establish a dynamic recognition mechanism for out-of-print works third, to explore the establishment of a digital dissemination mechanism for out-of-print works with the National Library as the hub. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In China, The exploration of rules governing the fair use of personal information began with commercial innovation, progressed through judicial practice, and was eventually expressed in law, as it is a necessary requirement of the nature of information flow and social attributes. However, due to the legal constraints of the “personal attribute” of personal information, there is no consistent definition of the legal nature of fair use behavior of information, and case judgments also face difficulties in determining the reasonableness of information processing behavior. These issues involve the normative construction of fair use of personal information, which has been studied by Chinese scholars, but has not been deeply explored in specific contexts. This article starts with the legal theory transformation of information regulation in the data society, attempting to clarify the legal nature of fair use of personal information, summarize the factors for determining fair use, and explore the judicial application logic of reasonableness in specific contexts. Based on Chinese judicial practice and comparative law experience, fair use of personal information can be defined as another legitimate basis for information processing outside the “informed consent” principle. Unlike the nature of “exclusion of liability” and “restrictions on rights”, fair use under the concept of data sharing should be defined as a basic competence of personal information, which can be based on the maintenance of public interests and protection of individual rights, and does not exclude reasonable commercial use. Fair use of personal information should satisfy three elements: reasonable purpose, reasonable method, and no unreasonable harm to the information subject. Using commercial fair use, which is frequently disputed in practice, as an example, based on considerations of economic benefits and institutional evolution, the processing of personal information by commercial subjects is legitimate. However, due to the personal attribute of the information, the processing behavior in this context should be subject to the limits of low sensitivity of the information and strict disclosure management obligations of the merchants, and the reasonableness of the behavior should be determined based on the nature of the specific behavior, with the inherent nature of the information being secondary. This paper contributes to the existing literatures in two aspects: first, based on the demands of ordered sharing of personal information, it explores the legitimacy of fair use from the perspective of information processors, defines fair use of personal information as a “basic competence,” and better leverages the value of information property. Second, in addition to “reasonable purpose” and “reasonable method,” this article includes “no unreasonable harm to the information subject” as a factor in determining the reasonableness of processing behavior. At the same time, based on practice, it explains the legitimate basis and steps, elements for determining the reasonableness of commercial fair use in specific scenarios, and proposes security management obligations for commercial subjects. Our research starts from the perspective of information processors, to some extent, defining the boundary of information processing behavior, which helps commercial subjects conduct data business in an orderly manner and avoid this rule becoming a legal tool for information control subjects to avoid responsibility. It is also hoped that it can provide rules and logic for determining the behavior of “fair use” of personal information in judicial practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Zhejiang University. Humanities & Social Sciences / Zhejiang Daxue Xuebao is the property of Zhejiang University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

「科技保護措施」是著作權人在數位網路環境下，以技術保護其權利的重要手段，國際著作權法制對於這些「科技保護措施」，再以法律保護，使其不被任意破解或規避。然而，這些規定對於廣大的公眾利益究竟有何負面影響，非無疑義。我國著作權法在2004 年9 月1 日增訂「防盜拷措施」條款後，主管機關終於在2006 年3 月23 日發布「防盜拷措施」排除適用範圍之認定要點，即「著作權法第80 條之2 第3 項各款內容認定要點」，本文針對此一要點的訂定背景與內容作簡要介紹與分析，期望引起各界的關注，也可以為本要點下一次的檢討修正作準備。 Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) is an important method for copyright owners to employ technology to protect his right under digital internet environment. International copyright treaty establishes legal regime to prevent those TPMs from crack or circumvention. However, what negative side effects those regulations may cause to the public interest needs to be evaluated. Taiwan amended its Copyright Law and introduced so-call Anti-piracy Measures clauses on Sep. 1, 2004. In addition, the Competent Authority released the regulations concerning the details of exceptions and limitations set forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 80ter on Mar. 23, 2006. This Article summarizes the background and analysis the details of the regulations. The purpose of this Article is to raise the public concern to this issue. It may also make a preparation to amend the Regulation.

研議中的「數位內容產業發展條例（草案）」目前由經濟部工業局所主導，先委託資策會科技法律中心研擬條例草案，再進行各界意見彙整與機關協商，預計近期完成行政院版本草案，再提立法院審議，其內容包括網際網路服務、內容軟體、無限寬頻、數位遊戲、電腦動畫、行動應用服務及數位出版典藏等，其中有諸多議題與著作權法制有關，包括著作權設質登記、著作權人不明或失聯或出版品數位化之法定授權制度、資料庫之保護，以及ISP 業者針對數位內容侵害著作權行為之責任等，本文就該等議題脫離著作權法，於數位內容產業發展基本法中另作規定一事，提出反對意見，另逐一 就相關議題之背景、草案條文之內容以及各國立法情形作分析說明，同時提出修正建議，期望引起各界關注，共同討論，以使各該條文更臻完善。 A bill concerning the act for the development of digital content industry, draft by Technology Law Center of Institute of Information Industry, is introduced by the Industry Bureau, MOE. The Industry Bureau is collecting the public suggestions and consulting with other agencies. A formal draft is expected to submit to Legislative Yuan by the Executive Yuan in the near time. Among other things, there are several issues concerning copyright in the bill, such as registration of copyright mortgage, the exploitation of orphan works, statutory license of articles in periodicals, protection of database, infringement liability of ISP. This Article strongly objects the approach to address those issues in the bill other than in Copyright law. In addition, it analyses all the provisions concerning copyright with their backgrounds, comparison of international legal regime. Finally, it submits some suggestions for further discussion and raising concerns by the public.

The copyright law takes "copyright centralism" as the main line of system construction, and focuses on protecting the rights of works creators and communicators. The value of users' right system has not been fully exploited, and a sound legal system has not been constructed. The users' right could be justified sufficiently in terms of basic human rights, private right logic and interest balancing mechanism. It can not be simply defined as a system to limit the rights of copyright, and can not be equivalent to social public interests, either. Rather, the users' right has independent system value as well as the same legal status compared to the copyright, needing improvement from the angle of right construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]