政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/141357
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51569498      Online Users : 824
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141357


    Title: 線上影音平臺與有線電視規範定位之融合與分離：以美國經驗為啟示
    Convergence and Separation of Regulatory Classification of OVD and CATV: Lessons Learned from U.S. Experiences
    Authors: 張家齊
    Chang, Chia-Chi
    Contributors: 宋皇志
    王立達
    Sung, Huang-Chih
    Wang, Li-Dar
    張家齊
    Chang, Chia-Chi
    Keywords: 線上影音平臺
    有線電視
    競合關係
    監理定位
    數位匯流
    OVD
    CATV
    Co-opetition
    Regulatory classification
    Digital convergence
    Date: 2022
    Issue Date: 2022-08-01 18:51:38 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在數位匯流時代，線上影音平臺以新興服務之姿進入影音市場，與既有播送媒體呈現競爭、互補與競合的多元關係。富有匯流特性的線上影音平臺，在技術面向跨越監理架構的藩籬，在服務面向與既有播送媒體相仿，主管機關無法完全承襲過往的管制經驗。從而，如何在過於細分的媒體管制架構中，賦予新興媒體合適的監理定位，成為當前管制挑戰。

    本研究透過美國實務見解，發現線上影音平臺與有線電視等既有播送媒體之監理定位相異外，亦能看出實務見解受限於既有規範等指引之不足，在區辨線上影音平臺與既有播送媒體差異上，多以技術作為評判依據，而較少從其他相關層面進行分析。本文進一步借鏡美國著作權局與聯邦通訊委員會的管制經驗，肯認線上影音平臺與有線電視間的監理定位並非完全吻合，並歸納出對我國之啟示：（一）影音服務產業的界線趨向模糊多變，既有產業技術取向的監理架構顯得過時且僵化；（二）過往的政策工具顯得不合時宜，主管機關應與時俱進地檢視並採取彈性管制作為；（三）未見市場失靈下，管制者不宜貿然介入，避免干擾產業發展。此外，著作權法與通訊傳播法制均為攸關線上影音平臺產業發展的一環，且兩者間具有相互影響的關係，從而宜評估監理政策變遷對授權市場之影響。

    確立線上影音平臺之監理定位後，本研究認為其與有線電視在技術、政策與市場面向皆存在顯著差異，而不應將其納入有線電視管制框架。本研究另從著作權授權角度，提出政策評估可能之二大思考面向：（一）用於有線電視授權的政策工具，適用於線上影音平臺之效益與必要性；（二）調整線上影音平臺監理定位，對其授權實務造成之連動影響。希望藉此提出有關明確、具前瞻性之監理定位上的淺見，以期我國通傳產業政策能實質促進數位匯流與市場競爭。
    In the age of digital convergence, online video distributors (“OVDs”) have entered video markets as new entrants and been involved in competitive, complementary and co-opetition relationship with incumbent providers. The characteristics of OVDs are boundary-breaking in terms of technology and service, rendering the authorities incompetent to adopt established regulatory experience. The challenge is therefore to find an adequate regulatory classification of OVDs under overly categorical media regulatory frameworks.

    This study recognizes the differences of regulatory classification between OVDs and incumbent cable systems (“CATV”) on the basis of particular cases in the US. We find that the judges are subject to ambiguous statutory languages, therefore rely solely on the technological factor to determine, rather than other relevant elements. This study further examines the regulatory experience of US Copyright Office and Federal Communications Committee and generalizes to three aspects: (1) the boundaries of video industry appear to be more ambiguous and expose the low degree of flexibility of existing regulatory framework; (2) the long-standing policies fail to be applicable to emerging market, hence the need for reform and alternative approaches; and (3) the authorities should leave the market unfettered and avoid impeding innovation while market failure is absent. Moreover, copyright law hinges on communication law system to some degree and is crucial to the development of OVDs, that is, it should also be taken into account that the assessment of impact on licensing market remain relevant.

    Aligned with US regulatory experiences, this study suggests that OVDs should not fall into the scope of CATV framework in the sense of technology, policy and market. This study additionally evaluates from the perspective of copyright licensing: (1) the benefit and necessity of enforcing CATV regulations on OVDs and (2) the impact arisen from change of OVDs’ regulatory classification, which will articulate an explicit and prospective regulatory classification and foster digital convergence and market competition.
    Reference: 一、 中文文獻
    (一) 專書與論文集
    參考資料
    1. 王牧寰、葉志良，後修法的OTT TV監管策略-以美國FCC之管制擴張嘗試為借鏡，收於彭芸、葉志良編，「5G.OTT.匯流」論文集，2020年10月。
    2. 黃靜蓉、巫尹文，他山之石！OTT國家隊的商業模式分析，收於彭芸、葉志良編，「5G.OTT.匯流」論文集，2020年10月。
    3. 劉孔中，通訊傳播法：數位匯流、管制革新與法治國家，2010年8月。
    4. 劉孔中，電信管制革新與數位網路產業規範，2001年4月。
    5. 劉幼琍，OTT服務的創新服務、經營模式與政策法規，2017年6月。
    (二) 期刊論文
    1. 江雅綺，運動法學：由世足賽與奧運賽的轉播戰檢討必載（Must Carry）規範，全國律師，第22卷第12期（2018）。
    2. 余曜成、江耀國，日本、韓國IPTV法制現狀之分析—兼論臺灣法制之修正，法學新論，第30期（2011）。
    3. 李昕，從著作權議題探討我國OTT影視產業之發展—以侵權因應及內容授權為中心，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文（2018）。
    4. 李治安，關於數位匯流的基本管治問題，科技法學評論，第3卷第1期（2006）。
    5. 林翰緯，美國著作權權利金法官制度介紹，萬國法律，第152期（2007）。
    6. 張圍東，網際網路（Internet）之探討，國立中央圖書館臺灣分館館刊，第4卷第3期（1996）。
    7. 許炳華，有線電視暨衛星電視二次播送之強制授權機制研究—以美國法為借鏡，成大法學，第26期（2013）。
    8. 郭玉林，美國Chevron案及司法退讓之審查基準譯介，司法周刊，第1912期（2018）。
    9. 葉志良，我國線上影音內容管制的再塑造：從OTT的發展談起，資訊社會研究，第29期（2015）。
    10. 劉定基，讓競爭取代管制—該是NCC放手的時候了，月旦法學雜誌，第311期（2021）。
    (三) 其他參考資料（判決、行政決定、官方報告、網站資料）
    1. 王立達，面對OTT TV，NCC別忘了匯流與競爭，工商時報，網址：https: //view.ctee.com.tw/technology/23955.html。
    2. 江耀國、黃銘輝、葉志良、高文琦，多元網路平台環境下影音內容之管理思維，國家通訊傳播委員會委託研究報告（2011）。
    3. 林上祚，視網路電視為「類有線電視」?NCC 列 3 要件擬納管，挨批開數位 匯流倒車，風傳媒，網址:https://www.storm.mg/article/3542683?mode=whole。
    4. 花蓮縣新型態影音服務之服務屬性及規管方式公開說明會，元智大學葉志良教授意見書，網址：https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/21040/60_45899_21040 7_1.pdf。
    5. 花蓮縣新型態影音服務之服務屬性及規管方式公開說明會，台灣有線寬頻產業協會鄭淑芬秘書長意見書，網址：https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/2 1040/60 _45899_210407_1.pdf。
    6. 花蓮縣新型態影音服務之服務屬性及規管方式公開說明會，台灣固網李南玫副總經理意見書，網址：https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/21040/60_458 99_21 0407_1.pdf。
    7. 花蓮縣新型態影音服務之服務屬性及規管方式公開說明會，鳳梨傳媒王宗弘總經理意見書，網址：https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/21040/60_45899 _2104 07_1.pdf。
    8. 施博文，寬頻固定網路接取技術委託研究期末報告，國家通訊傳播委員會委託研究報告（2004）。
    9. 國家通訊傳播委員會，NCC通過「網際網路視聽服務法」草案架構，完整草案條文將於近期公布，網址：https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail. aspx?sit e_content_sn=8&cate=0&keyword=&is_history=0&pages=0&sn_f=475 61。
    10. 國家通訊傳播委員會，有線廣播電視法第五十五條至第五十五條之四修正草案條文對照表，網址：https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/19110/52_42194 _1911 04_3.pdf。
    11. 國家通訊傳播委員會，花蓮縣新型態影音服務之服務屬性及規管方式公開說明會，網址：https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/21022/52_45753_210223_ 2. pdf。
    12. 國家通訊傳播委員會，通過中華電信營業規章修正案，網址:https://www. ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news_detail.aspx?site_content_sn=8&cate=0&keyword=&is_ history=1&pages=0&sn_f=40939。
    13. 國家通訊傳播委員會，傳播政策白皮書（2020）。
    14. 國家通訊傳播委員會，網際網路視聽服務管理法（草案）第二次公聽會，網址:https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/20093/5307_45116_200930_1.pdf。
    15. 國家通訊傳播委員會第139次委員會議，96年1月30日。
    16. 國家通訊傳播委員會第210次委員會議，96年11月15日。
    17. 國家通訊傳播委員會第840次委員會議，108年1月23日。
    18. 國家通訊傳播委員會第901次委員會議，109年3月18日。
    19. 國家通訊傳播委員會第959次委員會議，110年4月14日。
    20. 張懿云，著作權法公開播送之再播送研究，經濟部智慧財產局委託研究報告（2009）。
    21. 陳亮吟，OTT專法草案初步評析，立法院法制局議題研析，網址：https://w ww.ly.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=6590&pid=197691。
    22. 陳家駿、張懿云、馮震宇、黃銘傑、謝銘洋、劉孔中、陳昭華，整體著作權法制之檢討，經濟部智慧財產局委託研究報告（2001）。
    23. 經濟部(109)經商字第1090242374號函。
    24. 經濟部智慧財產局(93)智著字第0930001211-0號函。
    25. 經濟部智慧財產局(94)智著字第09400069380號函。
    26. 經濟部智慧財產局(96)智著字第09600108020號函。
    27. 經濟部智慧財產局(98)智著字第09800110140號函。
    28. 葉哲勝，IPTV技術與服務簡介，網址：https://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/files/ 10082/1661_16739_100820_1.pdf。
    29. 臺北高等行政法院108年度訴字第389號判決。
    30. 蔡念中，數位經濟下我國影音OTT收視聽衡量機制於商業運作模式之初探期末報告，國家通訊傳播委員會委託研究報告（2019）。
    31. 賴文智、劉承慶，數位匯流下著作權制度之檢討期末報告書，經濟部智慧財產局委託研究報告(2010)。

    二、 外文文獻
    (一) 期刊論文
    1. Aretz, Yafit Lev, The Subtle Incentive Theory of Copyright Licensing, 80 BROOK. L. REV. 1357 (2015).
    2. Baccarne, Bastiaan, Tom Evens & Dimitri Schuurman, The Television Struggle: An Assessment of Over-the-Top Television Evolutions in a Cable Dominant Market, 92 DIGIWORLD ECON. J. 43 (2013).
    3. Banerjee, Aniruddha, James Alleman & Paul Rappoport, Video-Viewing Behavior in the Era of Connected Devices, 92 COMM. & STRAT. 19 (2013).
    4. Clara, Luz Alvarez, Rethinking Must-Carry and Retransmission Consent Regulation in the Digital Era, 12 LAW, STATE AND TELECOM. REV. 9 (2020).
    5. Cote, Darlene A., Chipping Away at the Copyright Owner`s Rights: Congress` Continued Reliance on the Compulsory License, 2 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 219 (1994).
    6. Herring, Mark R., The FCC and Five Years of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984: Tuning Out the Consumer, 24 U. RICH. L. REV. 151 (1989).
    7. Keaton, Ashlye M. & Jerry Goolsby, In the Trenches of Copyright Law: Challenges and Remedies, 12 TUL. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 211 (2009).
    8. Rooks, Jason S., Constitutionality of Judicially-Imposed Compulsory Licenses in Copyright Infringement Cases, 3 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 255 (1995).
    (二) 其他參考資料（判決、行政決定、官方報告、網站資料）
    1. 57 Fed. Reg. 3284 (Jan. 29, 1992).
    2. 57 Fed. Reg. 3293 (Jan. 29, 1992).
    3. Accenture, Bringing TV to Life, Issue II, The Race to Dominate the Future of TV, available at: https://www.slideshare.net/eajene/accenture-future-of-tv.
    4. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
    5. WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc., 712 F. 3d 676 (2d Cir. 2013).
    6. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431 (Jun. 25, 2014).
    7. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 112 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1582 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
    8. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
    9. Congressman Steve Scalise, Scalise, Eshoo Introduce Modern Television Act of 2019, available at: https://scalise.house.gov/media/press-releases/scalise-eshoo- introduce-modern-television-act-2019.
    10. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, A Review of the Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of Broadcast Signals (1997).
    11. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, In the Matter of Section 109 Report to Congress, Reply Comments of AT&T Services Inc., Docket No.2007-1 (2007).
    12. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act Section 109 Report (2008).
    13. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Section 302 Report (2011).
    14. EU BEREC, Report on OTT services, BoR (16) 35 (2016).
    15. FCC, Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 750 (1) (2009).
    16. FCC, Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Report, 32 FCC Rcd 568 (1) (2017).
    17. FCC, Applications of Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., and Advance/Newhouse Partnership for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6327 (8) (2016).
    18. FCC,EighthDormantProceedingsTerminationOrder, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 10498 (13) (2020).
    19. FCC, Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 20227 (1996).
    20. FCC, Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992- Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution: Section 628(c)(5) of the Communications Act: Sunset of Exclusive Contract Prohibition, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 12124 (2002).
    21. FCC, Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992- Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution: Section 628(c)(5) of the Communications Act: Sunset of Exclusive Contract Prohibition, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 17791 (2007).
    22. FCC, Promoting Innovation and Competition in the Provision of Multichannel Video Programming Distribution Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 15995 (19) (2014).
    23. FCC, Review of the Commission`s Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements, First Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 746 (1) (2010).
    24. FCC,Revision of the Commission`s Program Access Rules, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12605 (15) (2012).
    25. FCC, Sky Angel U.S., LLC Emergency Petition for Temporary Standstill, Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3879 (5) (2010).
    26. Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968).
    27. H.R. 3994, 116th Congress, Modern Television Act of 2019 (Jul. 25, 2019).
    28. ITU, IPTV Focus Group Proceedings, 35, available at: https://www.itu.int/dms _pub/itu-t/opb/proc/T-PROC-IPTVFG-2008-PDF-E.pdf.
    29. ivi, Inc. v. WPIX, Inc., 568 U.S. 1245 (2013).
    30. National Broadcasting Co. v. Satellite Broadcast Networks, Inc., 940 F. 2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1991).
    31. Salinger v. Colting, 607 F. 3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010).
    32. Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC, 885 F. 3d 271 (4th Cir. 2018).
    33. Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC, 95 F. Supp. 3d 860 (D. Md. 2015).
    34. Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Communications, LLC, 95 F. Supp. 3d 860, Civil Action No. DKC 13-0031 (D. Md. 2016).
    35. Sky Angel U.S., LLC, Emergency Petition for Temporary Standstill, MB Docket No. 12-80, File No. CSR-8605-P (2010).
    36. Sky Angel U.S., LLC, Program Access Complaint (2010).
    37. Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U.S. 394 (1974).
    38. The New York Times, Sony Pictures enters a streaming deal with Netflix, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/business/sony-netflix-stream ing-deal.html.
    39. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communication Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1997).
    40. U.S. Congress House Committee on the Judiciary, Copyright Broadcast Programming on the Internet, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights (Jun. 15, 2000).
    41. U.S. Congress House Committee on the Judiciary, Copyright Licensing in A Digital Age: Competition, Compensation, and the Need to Update the Cable and Satellite TV Licenses, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session, Statement of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights (Feb. 25, 2009).
    42. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission, Hearing on Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 114th Congress, 1st Session, Testimony of Commissioner Ajit Pai, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 17, 2015).
    43. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Communication, 259 F. 2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958).
    44. WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 691 F. 3d 275 (2d Cir. 2012).
    45. WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 594 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    107364219
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107364219
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202200916
    Appears in Collections:[Graduate Institute of TIPM] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    421901.pdf1715KbAdobe PDF231View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback