Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/36907
|
| Title: | 合理使用的理論與應用之研究-從市場失靈的觀點出發
A Research on the Theoretical Basis and Application of Fair Use- A Market Failure Perspective |
| Authors: | 闕光威
Chueh, Kuang Wei |
| Contributors: | 劉江彬
Liu, Paul C. B.
闕光威
Chueh, Kuang Wei |
| Keywords: | 合理使用
市場失靈
交易成本
正向外部性
公共利益
強制授權
付費使用
徵收
fair use
market failure
transaction cost
positive externality
compulsory licensing
public interest
fared use
taking |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 20:07:14 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究以Wendy Gordon教授三要件市場失靈理論為核心-即(一) 市場失靈的狀況現實存在，（二）支持被告的使用模式對社會而言利多於弊，以及（三）允許合理使用抗辯不會對於創作者的創作誘因產生實質損害-試圖以美國實務判決為藍本勾勒出可能的觀察構面與命題，並以此為基準以音樂產業為例推演可能的管理意涵，最後從制度面的角度檢討現行合理使用判決所出現的問題與可能的解決方式，研究結果及建議分述如下：
觀察構面與命題的發展
本研究以美國近二十年來重要合理使用判決為藍本，並將市場失靈區分為交易成本過高與正向外部性兩種類型，歸納出以下命題及觀察構面：
命題一：與著作權利人進行交易的交易成本越高，主張合理使用成功的機會越高。
H1:系爭著作物在使用當時若屬於無法尋得權利人的孤兒著作，成功主張合理使用的機會較高。
H2:系爭著作物若有著作權仲介團體代理或有交易成本低廉的授權平台，成功主張合理使用的機會較低。
H3:系爭著作物若有著作權管理資訊，成功主張合理使用的機會較低。
命題二： 被告利用型態對社會創造的正向外部性越高，成功主張合理使用的機會越高。
H4:系爭著作的利用方式若屬於對原著作物的諷刺或批評，成功主張合理使用的機會較高。
H5: 使用者使用的模式若能減少資訊流通障礙而非單純販售著作重製物圖利，成功主張合理使用機會較高。
市場失靈對著作權人的管理意涵
就正向外部性導致的市場失靈而言，當被告的利用模式產生的正向外部性越大，著作權授權交易無法完成對整體社會造成的效率損失越大，依據市場失靈理論的討論架構，法院支持被告合理使用主張的機會也越大。此時，權利人最佳的管理策略應該是更積極進行授權，並避免過度利用優勢談判地位抬高交易條件，最後導致授權交易無法進行。面對交易成本過高可能導致市場失靈，對權利人來說最佳的管理策略應該是使用各種可能的機制創造最有效率的授權市場，當市場的運行越具效率，交易成本越低，市場失靈的風險越低，法院支持利用人合理使用抗辯的機會也越低。管見以為，授權著作權仲介團體進行授權交易、自建授權平台、創新商業模式或與主流流通平台建立策略聯盟，是對權利人來說降低交易成本最佳的管理策略之一。
此外，從音樂與出版產業的發展歷程可以發現技術、法律與管理是彼此互為影響的構面，對於企業經營者來說，應有任何一項變動即牽一髮而動全身的敏銳，假定任何一項要素恆久不變或外生於其他兩構面的變化，均可能成為策略錯誤的原因。以上發現可歸納為三個命題：
命題三:著作利用產生的正向外部性越大，權利人越應該積極進行授權，避免過度利用優勢談判地位抬高交易條件，導致授權交易無法進行。
命題四: 權利人應積極建立便於使用的授權機制，降低交易成本及合理使用的風險。
命題五：技術、法律與管理模式三構面互相影響，任何一項要素變動，都可能驅動其他兩項要素的變化。
現行合理使用判決的問題與制度面的修正芻議
若市場失靈理論及本研究提出的命題與觀察構面被接受，本研究建議現行著作權法第六十五條第二項規定可修正如下：
著作之利用是否合於第四十四條至第六十三條規定或其他合理使用之情形，應審酌一切情狀，尤應注意下列事項，以為判斷之基準：
「一 利用之目的及性質，包括係為商業目的或非營利教育目的。
二 著作之性質。
三 所利用之質量及其在整個著作所占之比例。
四 利用結果對著作潛在市場與現在價值之影響。
五 利用結果產生的公共利益。
六 覓得著作權人以及取得授權的難易與成本。」
現行法下，法院在合理使用與判斷被告需賠償權利人全額損害兩者間沒有其他選擇，若法院考量正向外部性的存在後，認為被告的利用方式對整體社會有極大利益，並將正向外部性所帶來的好處納入最適授權金的計算，其數額或許將遠低於客觀上填補權利人所失利益與所受損害的價額，判定被告需賠償全額損害有悖於分配效率的要求。反面言之，若被告的利用嚴重損及該著作物最主要的經濟收益，判定合理使用對權利人又將衝擊過大。此時，法院將被迫在合理使用與全額損害賠償間進行二擇一的選擇。為給予法院更多救濟市場失靈的彈性，本研究建議在制度上應盡可能補足全額損害賠償與合理使用光譜的空缺，在立法上似可考慮將現行著作權法第六十五條第三項、第四項規定移至第四項與第五項，並增訂第三項條文如下：著作之利用雖不符合第四十四條至第六十三條規定或其他合理使用情形，但法院審酌一切情狀，尤應注意前項所列事項，得酌減損害賠償金額，若行為人利用方式未達商業規模者，並得免除或酌減行為人違反本法所需負擔的刑事責任。
嚴重市場失靈發生時，因為著作權人的市場利益未受影響，應支持著作利用人合理使用的主張。本此，對於特定類型的嚴重市場失靈，著作權法可以明定為合理使用。本研究建議現行著作權法第五十一條修正如下：「著作於個人或家庭或其他類似範圍內之使用為目的者，若該使用不影響著作權人可合理預期的市場利益者，不構成對著作財產權的侵害。」
Along with the enlargement of the scope and duration of copyright, it is generally believed that barriers to continual innovation and knowledge distribution also increase. How to leverage fair use to best preserve public interest thus becomes a very important issue. Nevertheless, fair use is called the most unpredictable and difficult problem in copyright law. Using the market failure theory proposed by Wendy Gordon to explain the scope of fair use, this research collects landmark U.S. fair use cases as the basis to develop propositions that help the judiciary to deal with fair use cases, makes management suggestions to copyright holders and proposes several legal reforms to the current Taiwanese fair use law .
This study suggests that a defendant’s chance to prevail on his fair use defense increase as the transaction cost increases. For illustration, if the work in dispute is an orphan work, a defendant has a stronger fair use case because the transaction cost he has to incur to find the copyright owner and reach a deal is higher. Similarly, if the work in dispute carries with it clear copyright management information, is managed by efficient intermediaries or placed on an efficient transaction platform, a defendant has a weaker fair use case. The reseach also argues that the higher the positive externality brought by a defendant’s uses, the stronger fair use case he has. If a defendant uses the work in dispute to create a parody or to facilitate information exchange, the defendant has a stronger fair use case due to the positive externality he creates.
As managerial suggestions to copyright owners, this study maintains that copyright owners should make their best efforts to reduce transaction costs in connection with licensing and copyright transfers and actively engage in licensing to uses creating significant positive externalities. This helps reduce the possibility that potential users rely on fair use and end up paying nothing to copyright owners. To reduce transaction cost, copyright owners may consider building a licensing platform themselves, using intermediaries or forming strategic alliances with primary sale channels. As for positive externalities, it is suggested that copyright owners pay attention to the public interests recognized in the copyright law. This study also finds that technology breakthroughs, legal reshuffles and innovations in business model and management are inter-related. It is simply a mistake to regard one of the three constructs as being static if another construct has been changing.
This research also proposes the following amendments to the current fair use law in Taiwan. As a matter of practice, Taiwanese judges rarely consider factors outside the four listed factors in Article 65(2) of the Taiwanese Copyright Law, even though the statute gives them wide discretion to consider other factors. To encourage the Taiwanese judiciary to apply the market failure theory in fair use cases, it is suggested that “the cost at which a user must incur to obtain a license” be added as the fifth factor and that“the public interests a user creates” be added as the sixth factor in Section 65(2). Secondly, to give judges more flexibility in close cases, it is suggested that judges should be given discretion to reduce the damages a defendant has to compensate copyright holders and discretion to reduce or release him from his criminal duty, even if the criteria for fair use are not fully satisfied. Lastly, if serious market failure occurs, it will be Pareto superior to allow defendants to use the work in dispute free of charge. It is generally recognized that most types of personal uses fall within the scope of serious market failure. This study thus proposes that Article 51 of the Taiwanese Copyright Law be amended to the effect that personal or familial uses are allowed so long as the profits copyright holders can reasonably expect are not adversely affected. |
| Reference: | I中文參考資料
中文期刊或研討會、論文集論文：
1. 王石杰，著作權法合理使用的本質--從法律經濟分析觀點與傳統案例解讀，中原財經法學第十六期，頁193-232 (2006)。
2. 李婉萍，加拿大、日本關於著作權人不明或失聯時之法定授權制度介紹，科技法律透析，頁12-15 (2005)。
3. 汪渡村，論網際網路時代著作權法因應之道--以合理使用制度為中心，智慧財產權第62期，102-123 (2004)。
4. 章忠信，著作權保護、科技發展與合理使用----談新著作權法關於合理使用的已然與未然，請見http://www.copyrightnote.org/paper/pa0030.doc（瀏覽日期：05/20/2006）。本文發表於交通大學技法律研究所2003年11月20日舉行之2003年全國科技法律研討會。
5. 孫遠釗，槍械與扣動扳機者孰負侵權之責，政大智慧財產評論第4卷第1期，105-144 (2006)。
6. 孫遠釗，美國智慧財產權法最新發展與評析（2000-2003），政大智慧財產評論第一卷第一期，143-214 (2003)。
7. 賀德芬，文化創新與法制化-著作權法的現代意義，收錄於文化創新與商業契機（著作權法論文集）。
8. 陳新民，著作權的社會義務：由德國憲法學的角度檢驗智慧財產權的保障及其限制，台大法學論叢第三十四卷第四期，頁115-73(2008)。
9. 陳銘煌，市場範圍之界定與市場佔有率之計算，載於公平交易法論述系列一（1993）。
10. 陳銘煌，服務業獨占事業之認定與公告，公平交易季刊第一卷第一期，頁85-102（1993）。
11. 莊春發，從市場定義檢討公平交易法草案有關獨占的認定與結合的管制，經濟研究第30期（2000）。
12. 黃美瑛，市場界定及測定方法評估：反托拉斯執行關鍵之探討，公平交易季刊第一卷第一期，頁1-26（1993）。
13. 黃銘傑，解碼、破碼與公平競爭秩序，國立台灣大學法學論叢第二十八卷第四期，頁129-166 (1999)。
14. 張永健、郭躍民、謝曉嵐、李駿逸，音樂著作保護界限之法律與經濟分析（上）─兼論以刑罰作為保護手段的正當性，台灣本土法學第四十六期，頁186-202 (2003)。
15. 馮震宇，數位內容之保護與科技保護措施，月旦法學，第105期，頁68-91(2004)。
16. 馮震宇，論網路科技發展對合理使用的現在與未來，法令月刊第五十一卷第十期，頁539-570(2000)。
17. 馮震宇，新世紀的迷惘--從新世紀英漢辭典案的著作權爭議談起，月旦法學雜誌第141期，頁253-269(2007)。
18. 楊光華，從專利特許實施個案論我國對TRIPS協定義務之履行，政大法學評論，第95期，頁265-321（2007）。
19. 劉孔中主持，著作權法的舊命題 面臨數位時代的新挑戰--Creative Commons Workshop座談會，當代，209期，頁90-97(2005)。
20. 劉孔中，著作權法有關技術保護措施規定之研究，月旦法學，119期，頁70-90 (2005)。
21. 劉孔中，公平法與智慧財產權法的衝突與調和，月旦法學，第104期，頁93-119 (2004)。
22. 劉孔中，從著作權共同管理之發展趨勢討我國著作權共同管理團體之法制，全國律師第九卷第十二期，頁4-20 (2005)。
23. 劉孔中，論建立資訊時代「公共領域」之重要性及具體建議，台大法學論叢，第35卷第6期，頁1-35(2006)。
24. 劉紹樑，評析美國1992年水平結合指導原則，公平交易季刊創刊號（1992）。
25. 鄭中人，財產法則與責任法則：音樂強制授權之經濟分析，臺北大學法學論叢第48期，頁199-220（2001.06）。
26. 蕭宏宜，以刑法保護著作權，月旦法學雜誌，第143期，頁92-112（2007）。
27. 謝銘洋，智慧財產權之沿革與相關理論，月旦法學教室創刊號（2002）。
28. 蔡岳勳、胡心蘭，從法律與經濟學的角度分析美國著作權法之科技保護措施及合理使用原則，中原財經法學第14期，頁157-263(2005)。
29. 賴文智，數位科技對著作權授權契約及合理使用範圍之影響之研究，智慧財產權第65期，119-139 (2004)。
30. 盧文祥，從著作財產權授權利用之困境探討創作共享機制之推展，東吳法律學報，第17卷第2期，頁249-296（2005）。
31. 闕光威、陳月秀，智慧財產證券化初探，證券市場發展研究季刊，第十七卷第二期，頁147-179（2005）。
中文專書、論文、委託研究計畫：
1. 王文宇，民商法理論與經濟分析，台北：元照（2000）。
2. 王盈勛，軟體產業的顧客知識運用、產權與組織型式，政治大學科技管理研究所博士論文（2002）。
3. 行政院公平交易委員會編，認識公平交易法(2004)。
4. 吳思華，策略九說：策略思考的本質，台北：麥田，初版（1996）。
5. 吳啟銘，企業評價，台北：智勝，初版(2004)。
6. 林大侯、黃美瑛、曾巨威、顏吉利、周佩萱、黃玄藤、陳秀珠，市場範圍界定與獨占事業行為探討，行政院公平交易委員會委託研究計畫（1994）。
7. 施啟揚，民法總則，台北：三民，七版(1996)。
8. 施文高，比較著作權法制，台北：三民，初版（1993）。
9. 黃怡騰，著作權法上合理使用原則之研究，國立政治大學法律學系博士論文(1999)。
10. 黃怡騰，著作之合理使用案例介紹，台北：經濟部智慧財產局（2001）。
11. 黃俊英、劉江彬，智慧財產的法律與管理，台北：華泰 (1998.05)。
12. 張心悌，國際智慧財產權保護擴張與競爭法規範，東吳大學法律研究所碩士論文（1995）。
13. 張孟元、劉江彬，無形資產評估鑑價之理論與實務，台北：華泰（2005）。
14. 張玉敏主編，知識產權與市場競爭，北京：法律出版社（2005）。
15. 張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧、吳聰敏，經濟學理論與實際，台北：翰蘆，三版(1995)。
16. 劉孔中，智慧財產法制的關鍵革新，台北：元照(2007)。
17. 謝銘洋，張懿云，著作權法與公平交易法關係之研究，行政院公平交易委員會委託研究計畫（2002.10）。
18. 謝銘洋，著作權法解讀，民國八十一年七月版，台北：翰蘆(1992)。
19. 謝銘洋，智慧財產權之基礎理論，台北：翰蘆，三版（2001）。
20. 羅明通，著作權法論，台北：台英，六版（2005）。
21. 章忠信，著作權法的第一堂課，台北：書泉，初版（2004）。
22. 陳柏如，數位時代著作權集體管理之研究，國立台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文（2002）。
23. 陳新民，憲法基本權利之基本利論(上)，台北：三民（1996）。
24. 陳銘煌，公平交易法與產業經濟分析，台中市：滄海書局，初版（2002）。
25. 陳銘煌，公平交易法對農產品市場規範之研究，行政院公平交易委員會委託研究計畫（1995）。
26. 蕭雄淋，新著作權法逐條釋義（二），台北：五南，初版（1996）。
27. 盧文祥，從創新觀點檢視創作共享機制與著作權保護及知識分享擴散之關係，政治大學科技管理研究所博士論文(2006)。
28. 闕光威，資訊時代商業組織法的新風貌-從虛擬組織的發展談起，中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文 (2002)。
II 英文參考資料
英文期刊 ：
1. Africa, Matthew, Comment: The Misuse of Licensing in Fair Use Analysis: New Technologies, New Markets, and the Courts, 88 CALIF. L. REV. 1145 (2000).
2. Bell, Abraham & Parchomovsky, Gideon, Of Property and Antiproperty, 102 MICH. L. REV. 1 (2003).
3. Bell, Tom W., Fair Use v. Fared Use: The Impact of Automated Rights Management on Copyright’s Fair Use Doctrine, 76 N.C.L.REV. 557 (1998).
4. Benkler, Yochai, Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constrains on Enclosure of the Public Domain, 74 N. Y. U. L. REV. 354 (1999).
5. June Besek & Jane Ginsburg, The Future of Electronic Pulishing: A Panel Discussion, 25 COLUM. J. L. & ARTS 91 (2002).
6. Bessler, David A. & Brandt, Jon A., Causality Tests in Livestock Markets, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 64, 140-144 (1982).
7. Bishop, Robert L., Elasticities, Cross Elasticities, and Market Relationship, THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 42:5, 779-803(1952).
8. Bohannan, Christina, Reclaiming Copyright, 23 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J. 567 (2006).
9. Boyle, James, The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain, 66 Law and Contemp. Probs. 33 (2003).
10. Breyer, Stephen, The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs, 84 HARV. L. REV. 281(1970).
11. Brown, Hon. Hank & Miller, David, Copyright Term Extension, Sapping American Creativity, 44 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y 94 (1996).
12. Calabresi, Guido & Melamed , Douglas A., Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1089 (1972).
13. Cartwright, R. Kamerschen, D.R. & Huang M., Price, Correlation and Granger Causality Tests for Market Definition, REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION 4:2, 79-98 (1989).
14. Chafee, Zechariah, Jr., Reflections on the Law of Copyright, 45 Colum. L. Rev. 503 (1945).
15. Coase, Ronald H., The Nature of the Firm, 4 ECONOMICA 386 (1937).
16. Coase, Ronald H., The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J. L& ECON. 1 (1960).
17. Coase, Ronald H., The Institutional Structure of Production, 82 AM. ECON. REV. 713 (1992).
18. Cohen, Jason, Note: Endangered Research: The Proliferation of E-Books and Their Potential Threat to the Fair Use Clause, 9 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 163 (2001).
19. Cohen, Julie E., Copyright and the Perfect Curve, 53 VAND. L. REV. 1799 (2000)
20. Crews, Kenneth D., Symposium: Sovereignty and the Globalization of Intellectual Property: Harmonization and the Goals of Copyright: Property Rights or Cultural Progress?, 6 IND. J. GLOBAL LEG. STUD. 117 (1998)
21. Crews, Kenneth D., Copyright at a Turning Point: Corporate Response to the Changing Environment, 3 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 277 (1996).
22. Dam, Kenneth W., Self-Help in the Digital Jungle, 28 J. LEGAL STUD. 393(1993).
23. Davis, Michael H., Extending Copyright and the Constitution: “Have I stayed Too Long?, 52 FLA. L. REV. 989 (2002).
24. Demsetz, Harold, Toward a Theory of Property Rights, Am. Econ. Rev., 57:2, 347-59 (1967).
25. Driesen, David M. & Ghosh, Shubha, The Functions of Transaction Costs, Rethinking Transaction Cost Minimization in a World of Friction, 47 ARIZ. L. REV. 61 (2005).
26. Severine Dusollier, Contract Options for Individual Artists: Master`s Tools v. The Master`s House: Creative Commons v. Copyright, 29 Colum. J.L. & ARTS 271 (2006).
27. Elzinga, Kenneth G., Defining Geographic Market Boundaries, THE AMERICAN ANTITRUST BULLETIN 26, 739-752 (1981).
28. Elzinga, Kenneth G. & Hogarty T.F., The Problem of Geographic Market Delineation Revisited, ANTITRUST BULLETIN 18, 45-81 (1973).
29. Espana, Mauricio, Note: The Fallacy that Fair Use and Information Should Be Provided For Free: An Analysis of the Response to the DMCA`s Section 1201, 31 FORDHAM URB. L. J. 135 (2003).
30. Feder, Jesse M., Is Betamax Obsolete?: Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studio, Inc. in the Age of Napster, 37 CREIGHTON L. REV. 859 (2004).
31. Fisher, William W., Reconstructuring the Fair Use Doctrine, 101 HARV. L. REV. 1659 (1988).
32. Frischmann, Brett M. & Lemley, Mark A., Spillovers, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 257 (2007).
33. Geweke, John, The Relative Asymptotic Strength of Some Tests Used in Time Series Analysis, Technical Report 7905, Social System Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1979).
34. Gibbons, Llewellyn Joseph, Entrepreneurial Copyright Fair Use: Let the Independent Contractor Stand in the Shoes of the User, 57 ARK. L. REV. 539 (2004).
35. Ginsburg, Jane C. et al., The Constitutionality of Copyright Term Extension: How Long is Too Long?, 18 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 651 (2000).
36. Gilbert, Richard J. & Katz, Michael L., When Good Value Chains Go Bad: The Economics of Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement, 52 HASTINGS L. J. 961 (2001).
37. Ginsburg, Jane C., A Tale of Two Copyright: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America, 64 TUL. L. REV. 991 (1990).
38. Ginsburg, Jane C, Copyright and Control Over New Technologies of Dissemination, 101 COLUM. L. REV. 1613 (2001).
39. Ginsburg, Jane C, From Having Copies to Experiencing Works: The Development of an Access Right in U.S. Copyright Law, 50 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A, 113 (2003).
40. Glassman, Michael L., Market Definition as A Practical Matter, 49 ANTITRUST L. J. 1155 (1980).
41. Goldstein, Paul, Copyright, 38 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y 109 (1991).
42. Goldstein, Paul, Fair Use in a Changing World, 50 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A. 133(2003).
43. Goldstein, Paul, Infringement of copyright in Computer Programs, 47 U. PITT. L. REV. 1119 (1986)
44. Gordon,Wendy J., Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and Its Predecessors, 82 COLUM. L. REV. 1600 (1982).
45. Gordon,Wendy J., A Property Right in Self-Expression, Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 YALE L.J. 1533 (1993).
46. Gordon,Wendy J., The “Market Failure” and Intellectual Property: A Response to Professor Lunney, 82 B.U.L.REV. 1031 (2002).
47. Gordon,Wendy J., Excuse and Justification in the Law of Fair Use: Commodification and Market Perspective, in THE COMMODIFICATION OF INFORMATION: SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL RAMIFICATIONS 149 (Neil Netanel & Niva Elkin-Koren eds.)(2002).
48. Gordon, Wendy J., On the Economics of Copyright, Restitution, and “Fair Use”: Systemic Versus Case-By-Case Responses to Market Failure, 8 J. L. & INFO. SCI. 7 (1997).
49. Gordon, Wendy J., Toward a Jurisprudence of Benefits: The Norms of Copyright and the Problem of Private Censorship, 57 U. CHI. L. REV. 1009 (1990).
50. Gordon, Wendy J., Excuse and Justification in the Law of Fair Use: Transaction Costs Have Always Been Part of the Story, 50 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A. 149 (2003).
51. Goshen, Zohar, The Efficiency of Controlling Corporate Self-Dealing: Theory Meets Reality, 91 CAL. L. REV. 393(2003).
52. Griffin, Phillip E. & Kushner Joseph W., Market Definition in Antitrust Analysis: A Regression-based Approach: Comment,49 SOUTHERN ECONOMIC JOURNAL 559 (1982).
53. Hanratty, Elisabeth, Google Library: Beyond Fair Use?, 2005 DUKE L. & TECH. Rev. 10 (2005).
54. Hardin, Garrett, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 SCIENCE 1243 (1968).
55. Hardy, Trotter, Property (and Copyright) in Cyberspace, 1996 U. CHI. LEGAL. F. 217 (1996).
56. Henderson, R. & Clark K., Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms, ADMINISTRATIVE QUARTERLY 35, 9-30 (1990).
57. Hetcher, Steven, The Half-Fairness of Google’s Plan to Make the World’s Collection of Books Searchable, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 1 (2006).
58. Helfer, Laurence R., World Music on a U.S. Stage: A Berne/Trips and Economic Analysis of the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, 80 B. U. L. REV. 93 (2000).
59. Hogberg, Sverker K., Note: the Search for Intent-Based Doctrine of Secondary Liability In Copyright Law, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 909 (2006).
60. Horowitz, Ira, Market Definition in Antitrust Analysis: A Regression-based Approach, SOUTHERN ECONOMIC JOURNAL 48, 1-16(1981).
61. Jaszi, Peter, Caught in the Net of Copyright, 75 OR. L. REV. 299 (1996).
62. Joseph P. Liu, Copyright and Time: A Proposal, 101 MICH. L. REV. 409 (2002).
63. Kamerschen David R. & Kohler J., Residual Demand Analysis of the Ready-to-eat Breakfast Cereal Industry, ANTITRUST BULLETIN (1989).
64. Kieff, F. Scott, Coordination, Property, and Intellectual Property: An Unconventional Approach to Anticompetitive Effects and Downstream Access, 56 EMORY L. J. 327 (2006).
65. Krueger, A., The Political Economy of the Rent Seeking Society, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 64, 291-303 (1974).
66. Ku, Raymond Shih Rau, The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics of Digital Technology, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 263(2002).
67. Ku, Raymond Shih Rau, Symposium: The Law and Technology of Digital Rights Management: Consumers and Creative Destruction: Fair Use Beyond Market Failure, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 539(2003).
68. Landes, William & Posner, Richard A., An Economic Analysis of Copyright, 18 J. LEGAL STUD. 325 (1989).
69. Lang, John Temple, Media, Multimedia and European Community Antitrust Law, 21 FORDHAM INT`L L.J. 1296 (1998).
70. Lessig, Lawrence, A Celebration: Commons & the Public Domain: Paper: Re-crafting a Public Domain, 18 YALE J.L. & HUMAN. 56 (2006).
71. Lemley, Mark, The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, 75 TEX. L. REV. 989 (1997).
72. Lemley, Mark & Reese, Anthony R., Reducing Digital Copyright Infringement Without Restricting Innovation, 56 STAN. L. REV. 1345 (2004).
73. Lemley, Kevin M., The Innovation Medium Defense, A Doctrine to Pormote Multiple Goals of Copyright in the Wake of Advancing Digital Technologies, 110 PENN ST. L. REV. 111 (2005).
74. Leval, Pierre N., Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1105 (1990).
75. Litman, Jessica, War Stories, 20 CARDOZO ARTS. & ENT. L. J. 337(2002).
76. Litman, Jessica, The Sony Paradox, 55 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 917 (2005).
77. Litman, Jessica, Symposium: Frontiers of Intellectual Property: Lawful Personal Use, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1871 (2007).
78. Long, Henry Sprott III, Commentary: Reconsidering the "Balance" of the "Digital First Sale" Debate: Re-examing the Case for A Statutory Digital First Sale Doctrine to Facilitate Second-Hand Digital Media Markets, 59 ALA. L. REV. 1183 (2008).
79. Loren, Lydia Pallas, Redefining the Market Failure Approach to Fair Use in an Era of Copyright Permission System, 5 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 1 (1997).
80. Lunney, Glynn S., Jr., Fair Use and Market Failure: Sony Revisited, 82 B.U.L.REV. 975 (2002).
81. Merges, Robert P. & Nelson, Richard R., On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 839 (1990).
82. Robert P. Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, 84 CAL. L. REV. 1293 (1996).
83. Merges, Robert P., A New Dynamism in the Public Domain, 71 U. CHI. L. REV. 183 (2004).
84. Michael A. Heller, The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, 111 HARV. L. REV. 621 (1998).
85. Michael A. Heller, The Boundaries of Private Property, 108 YALE L. J. 1163 (1999).
86. Nadel,Mark S., How Copyright Law Discourages Creative Output: The Overlooked Impact of Marketing, 19 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 785 (2004).
87. Netanel, Neil Weinstock, Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, 106 YALE L. J. 283 (1996).
88. Nimmer, David, A Riff on Fair Use in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 148 U. PA. L. REV. 673 (2000).
89. Nimmer, David, Fairest of Them All and Other Fairy Tales of Fair Use, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 263 (2003).
90. Pimm, Bob, Riding the Bullet to the E-Book Revolution, 18 ENT. & SPORTS LAW. 1 (2002).
91. Polinsky, Mitchell A., Controlling Externalities and Protecting Entitlement: Property Right, Liability, and Tax Subsidy Approach, 8 J. LEGAL STUD. 1 (1979).
92. Posner, Richard A., The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation, JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 83, 807-827 (1975).
93. Sag, Matthew, God in the Machine: A New Structural Analysis of Copyright`s Fair Use Doctrine,11 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 381 (2005).
94. Sag, Matthew, Beyond Abstraction: The Law and Economics of Copyright Scope and Doctrinal Efficiency, 81 TUL. L. REV. 187 (2006).
95. Samuelson, Pamela, Regulation of Technologies to Protect Copyrighted Works, 39 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM (1996).
96. Sara K. Stadler, Copyright as Trade Regulation, 155 U. PA. L. REV. 899 (2007).
97. Scheffman, David T. & Spiller, Pablo T., Geographic Market Definition under the U.S. Development of Justice Merger Guidelines, 30 J. L & ECON. 123 (1987).
98. Slade, Margaret E., Exogeneity Tests of Market Boundaries Applied to Petroleum Products, THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS 34:3, 291-303 (1986).
99. Stefik, Mark, Shifting the Possible: How Trusted Systems and Digital Property Rights Challenges us to Rethink Digital Publishing, 12 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 137 (1997).
100. Stigler, George J. & Sherwin, Robert A., The Extent of Market, 28 J. L & ECON. 555 (1985).
101. Sunstein, Cass R., Interpreting Status in the Regulatory State, 103 HARV. L. REV. 405 (1989).
102. Thaler, R., Towards a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice, J. ECON. BEHAVIOR & ORANGIZATION (1980).
103. Tushman, M. L. & Anderson, P., Technological distribution and organizational environment, ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 31, 439-465 (1986).
104. Uri, Noel D., Howell, John & Rifkin, Edward J., On Defining Geographic Markets, APPLIED ECONOMICS 17, 959-977 (1985).
105. Werden, Gregory J., The Use and Misuse of Shipments Data in Defining Geographic Markets, ANTITRUST BULLETIN 26, 719-737(1981).
106. Wu, Timothy, Copyright`s Communications Policy, 103 MICH. L. REV. 278 (2004).
107. Yen, Alfred C., Restoring the Natural Law: Copyright as Labor and Possession, 51 OHIO ST. L.J. 517 (1990).
英文專書：
1. Anderson, Terry L. & McChesney, Fred S., PROPERTY RIGHTS: COOPERATION, CONFLICT, AND LAW (2003).
2. Babbie, Earl R., THE PRACTICE OF SOCIAL RESEARCH (8th ed., 1998).
3. Clarkson, K.W. & Miller R. L., INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION: THEORY, EVIDENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY (1982).
4. Coase, Ronald, THE FIRM, THE MARKET AND THE LAW (1988).
5. Cooter, Robert & Ulen, Thomas, LAW AND ECONOMICS (1988).
6. Farber, Daniel A. & Frickey, Philip P., LAW AND PUBLIC CHOICE: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION (1991).
7. Fisher, William W. III, PROMISES TO KEEP (2004).
8. Frankfort-Nachmias, Chaya & Nachmias, David Nachmias, RESEARCH METHODS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (6th ed., 1999).
9. Friedman, Lawrence M., A HISTORY OF AMERICAN LAW (2nd ed., 1998).
10. Goldstein, Paul, COPYRIGHT`S HIGHWAY: FROM GUTENBERG TO THE CELESTIAL JUKEBOX (rev. ed., Stanford Univ. Press 2003)
11. Gorman, Robert A. & Ginsburg, Jane C., COPYRIGHT CASES AND MATERIALS (2002).
12. Huang, Mei-Ying, THE DELINEATION OF ECONOMIC MARKETS, Ph.D. Dissertation. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia (1987).
13. Martin Kretscher, THE FAILURE OF PROPERTY RULES IN COLLECTIVE ADMINISTRATION: RETHINKING COPYRIGHT SOCIETY AS REGULATORY INSTRUMENT, E.I.P.R. (2002).
14. Landes, William M. & Posner, Richard A., THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2003).
15. Leaffer, Marshall, UNDERSTANDING COPYRIGHT LAW (1989).
16. Lessig, Lawrence, Free Culture: HOW BIG MEDIA USES TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW TO LOCK DOWN CULTURE AND CENTRAL CREATIVITY (2004).
17. Litman, Jessica, DIGITAL COPYRIGHT (2001).
18. Liu, Hung-En, CUSTODY DECISIONS IN SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS-THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD STANDARD AND JUDGES’ CUSTODY DECISIONS IN TAIWAN, unpublished J.S.D. dissertation to Stanford Law School (2002).
19. Locke, John, SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT (1690).
20. Parkin, Michael, ECONOMICS (1990).
21. Peritz, Rudolph J.R., COMPETITION POLICY IN AMERICA (2000).
22. Perrit, Henry H., Jr., LAW AND THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY (2001).
23. Posner, Richard A., ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (2d ed. 1977).
24. Posner, Richard A., ANTITRUST LAW (2001).
25. Rubin, Herbert J. & Rubin, Riene S., QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWING: THE ART OF HEARING DATA (1995).
26. Scherer, F.M., The Innovation Lottery, in EXPANDING THE BOUNDS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, INNOVATION POLICY FOR THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY (Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss at. Al. eds., 2001)
27. Scherer, F.M., INDUSTRIAL MARKET STRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE (2d ed. 1980).
28. Shapiro, Carl & Varian, Hal R., INFORMATION RULES: A STRATEGIC GUIDE TO THE NETWORK ECONOMY (1999).
29. Steward, Stephen M., INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBORING RIGHTS LAW (2nd 1989).
30. Universities--National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, THE RATE AND DIRECTION OF INVENTIVE ACTIVITY: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS (1962).
31. Williamson, Oliver E., THE ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS OF CAPITALISM (2002).
32. Wilcox C. & Shepherd W. G., PUBLIC POLICIES TOWARD BUSINESS (5th ed., 1975)
引用判決：
1. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell, 754 F. Supp. 1150 (M. D. Tenn. 1991).
2. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell, 754 F. 2d 1429 (6th Cir. 1992).
3. A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
4. American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994).
5. Baker v. Howard County Hunt, 188 Md. 223 (Md. 1936).
6. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903).
7. BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe, 4 F.C.R. 81 (F.C.R. 2005)
8. BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).
9. BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
10. Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, 489 U.S. 141 (1989).
11. Boosey & Kawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998).
12. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
13. Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F. 2d 851 (9th Cir. 1988).
14. Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn. Inc., 104 F. 2d 661 (2nd Cir., 1939).
15. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).
16. Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
17. Folsom v. March, 9 f. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841).
18. George E. Warren Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
19. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
20. In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003).
21. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, 209 Wis. 2d 605 (Wis. 1997).
22. Kelly v. Ariba, 336 F. 3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003).
23. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998).
24. LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 433 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
25. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
26. Mattel, Inc. v. Pitt, 229 F. Supp. 2d 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
27. Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mt. Prods., 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003).
28. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005).
29. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
30. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
31. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).
32. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
33. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
34. Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D.N.Y. 2000).
35. Umg Recordings v. Mp3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D.N.Y. 2000).
36. Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 (D. Cal. 2006).
37. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007).
38. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis.).
39. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F. 3d 1452 (7th Cir. 1996).
40. Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
41. Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973).
42. Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 420 U.S. 376 (1975).
43. Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2000).
引用法條：
17 U.S.C 106 (2006)
17 U.S.C 107 (2006)
17 U.S.C. 109(a) (2006)
17 U.S.C 1201(a)(1)(A) (2006)
17 U.S.C. 1201 (a)(2). (2006)
17 U.S.C. 1201 (C). (2006)
17 U.S.C 1202(a). (2006)
國會立法資料：
Latman, Alan, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works, Study No. 14 in Copyright Revision, Studies Prepared for the Subcomm. On Patents, Trademark and Copyrights of The Comm. On The Judiciary, United States Senate. 86th Cong., 1st and 2d Sessions (1960 & 1961).
H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 65-66 (1976)
|
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理研究所
91359502
97 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0091359502 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理研究所] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
