Abstract
Internet-related legal issues arise in various contexts, such as white collar crime, consumer protection, free speech, pornography, privacy, and intellectual property. The question whether an Internet Service Provider (ISP) should be responsible for its users’ conduct in all these realms triggers fierce public debate. Legislators around the globe take different approaches to addressing these issues. While some countries adopt a horizontal approach and provide a uniform standard to regulate ISPs’ liability, others provide multiple standards for different contexts. In Taiwan, there is so far no statute that provides a general and uniform legal basis that regulates ISPs’ liability for their users’ conduct. Instead, in 2009, Taiwan’s legislature amended the Copyright Act by adding a new chapter. The 2009 legislation provides a set of provisions that regulates ISPs’ liability for their users’ conduct that infringes other persons’ copyrights. It shields ISPs from copyright liability if an ISP complies with the requirements set forth by this legislation. This 2009 legislation was similar to the safe harbour provision adopted by the United States in the DMCA. This chapter proceeds in five parts. Section “Secondary liability theories” is a brief introduction to the secondary liability theories rooted in U.S. law. Section “Legal standards for secondary liability in Taiwan” focuses on the legislative basis for secondary liability in Taiwan. Section “ISP copyright infringement liability and safe harbour in Taiwan” addresses ISP copyright infringement liability and safe harbor provisions under Taiwan’s Copyright Act. Section “ISP copyright infringement liability in practice” discusses two cases dealing with ISPs’ copyright infringement liability in Taiwan and examines the specific problem of the safe harbour’s scope.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
For instance, the European Union passed Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market in 2000. The Directive applies to all types of illegal activity and provides safe harbours for mere conduit, caching, and hosting service providers under specific circumstances listed in articles 12 through 15.
- 2.
Such as the United States, Australia, and Singapore. In the United States, the statutes that apply to internet service providers include “the Digital Millennium Copyright Act” and “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000.”
- 3.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2000).
- 4.
The English version of Copyright Act of Taiwan is provided by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan, available at http://www.tipo.gov.tw/dl.asp?fileName=332914394849.pdf
- 5.
See Copyright Act of Taiwan, arts. 90quinquies through 90terdecies (2010).
- 6.
See Copyright Act of Taiwan, art. 90quinquies.
- 7.
See Copyright Act of Taiwan, arts. 90septies, 90octies, and 90novies.
- 8.
See, generally, Metro - Goldwyn - Mayer Studios Inc . v . Grokster , Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)[hereinafter Grokster]; In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003); A%26M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
- 9.
Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that “[w]e recognize three doctrines of copyright liability: direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement”).
- 10.
Id. See, generally, Gorman and Ginsburg 2001, 782–806.
- 11.
Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971)[hereinafter Gershwin]. Contributory liability originates in tort law and stems from the notion that one who directly contributes to another’s infringement should be held accountable. See Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 264 (9th Cir. 1996).
- 12.
Gershwin id 1162.
- 13.
Monotype Imaging, Inc. v. Bitstream, Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 877, 886 (N.D. Ill. 2005); Newborn v. Yahoo!, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 181, 186 (D.D.C. 2005)
- 14.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)[hereinafter Sony Corp.].
- 15.
Id. at 442.
- 16.
Grokster, at 933–35.
- 17.
Id. 936–37.
- 18.
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1022 (9th Cir. 2001). The principle of respondeat superior holds an employer responsible for its employees’ actions.
- 19.
Gordon v. Nextel Communs., 345 F.3d 922, 925 (6th Cir. 2003).
- 20.
Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 264 (9th Cir. 1996). The example of a dance hall operator shows that secondary liability is attractive under these circumstances. While performers hired by the venue operators are often without sufficient resources needed for compensating the associated harm, vicarious liability in this instance prevents the externalisation of copyright harm. From an economic perspective, allowing a copyright holder to sue the venue operator rather than suing each performer individually is on the one hand likely to reduce enforcement costs, such as identifying each infringer, gathering evidence and litigating in several lawsuits. On the other hand, the costs for controlling the acts of performers of the venue operators are low because the operator is probably already monitoring the dance hall quite carefully to ensure that patrons are being well treated. In order to avoid vicarious liability, entities like concert halls, stadiums, radio stations, restaurants look for an inexpensive way to acquire performance rights by purchasing blanket licenses from performing rights societies. This saves enormous transaction costs by excluding the need for licenses from each individual copyright holder on the one hand, and by excluding performers from notifying copyright holders in advance every time they intend to perform the copyright work on the other. Additionally, the marginal use problem will be solved because “each licensee will act as if the cost of an additional performance is zero—which is, in fact, the social cost for music already created.” See Lichtman and Landes 2003, id, at 399.
- 21.
Civil Code of Taiwan, article 185 paragraph 1(2012). The English version of the Code provided by Ministry of Justice can be found at “Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China” website, available at http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=B0000001
- 22.
Civil Code of Taiwan, article 185 paragraph 2.
- 23.
Civil Code of Taiwan, article 185.
- 24.
Civil Code of Taiwan, article 188.
- 25.
545 U.S. 913 (2005).
- 26.
Id., 918.
- 27.
Grokster, 941.
- 28.
See Legislative Yuan of Taiwan, Copyright Act Amendment Documents, available at http://lis.ly.gov.tw/lgcgi/lgmeetimage?cfc9cfcdcec6cfcec5cec8cad2cec8c6
- 29.
See infra “ISP Copyright Infringement Liability in Practice” (discussing the ezPeer case and KURO case).
- 30.
See also article 184 of the same statute (providing that “[a] person who, intentionally or negligently, has wrongfully damaged the rights of another is bound to compensate him for any injury arising therefrom. The same rule shall be applied when the injury is done intentionally in a manner against the rules of morals.”)
- 31.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, articles 84–103.
- 32.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 84 (providing that “[t]he copyright holder or the plate rights holder may demand removal of infringement of its rights. Where there is likelihood of infringement, a demand may be made to prevent such infringement.”)
- 33.
See Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 85, paragraph 1 and article 88.
- 34.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 85.
- 35.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 85, paragraph 2.
- 36.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 88, paragraph 2 (providing that:
With regard to the damages referred to in the preceding paragraph, the injured party may make claim in any of the following manners:
1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 216 of the Civil Code; provided, when the injured party is unable to prove damages, it may base the damages on the difference between the amount of expected benefit from the exercise of such rights under normal circumstances and the amount of benefit from the exercise of the same rights after the infringement.
2. Based on the amount of benefit obtained by the infringer on account of the infringing activity; provided, where the infringer is unable to establish costs or necessary expenses [of the infringing act or articles], the total revenue derived from the infringement shall be deemed to be its benefit.
If it is difficult for the injured party to prove actual damages in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, it may request that the court, based on the seriousness of the matter, set compensation at an amount of not less than ten thousand and not more than one million New Taiwan Dollars. If the damaging activity was intentional and the matter serious, the compensation may be increased to five million New Taiwan Dollars.)
- 37.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 88bis.
- 38.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 89.
- 39.
In Taiwan, copyright infringement can give rise not only to compensation of damages but also to criminal liability. Articles 84-90quarter of Copyright Act of Taiwan provide for civil liability, and articles 91–103 provides for criminal liability.
- 40.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 3, paragraph 1, subparagraph 19.
- 41.
Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd. is a Taiwan Company which provides services of internet network, GPRS, 3G and mobile Virtual Private Network (MVPN). See Chunghwa Telecom, About CHT, available at http://www.cht.com.tw/en/aboutus/aboutcht.html
- 42.
The “contact window information” must include: (1) the name of the individual or institution, address, contact telephone, fax number and electronic mail address of the contact window, and (2) the format of electronic signatures accepted, or the information on willing to accept the notification document without electronic signature. See Regulations Governing Implementation of ISP Civil Liability Exemption, article 2 (2009). These Regulations are adopted pursuant to Article 90terdecies of the Copyright Act by TIPO.
- 43.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90quinquies, paragraph 2.
- 44.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90sexies.
- 45.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90septies.
- 46.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90octies.
- 47.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90novies.
- 48.
See Copyright Act of Taiwan, articles. 90quinquies, 90septies, 90octies and 90novies.
- 49.
See 17 U.S.C. § 512 (c).
- 50.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90decies, paragraph 1 (providing that “[a]n information storage service provider shall forward notice to the allegedly infringing user of any measures taken under Article 90octies, subparagraph 3, by the contact method stipulated between the service provider and the user or by the contact information left by the user. However, this requirement shall not apply if the nature of the service provided makes such notice impossible.”)
- 51.
Regulations Governing Implementation of ISP Civil Liability Exemption, article 3.
- 52.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90decies, paragraphs. 2 and 3.
- 53.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90decies, paragraph 3.
- 54.
Regulations Governing Implementation of ISP Civil Liability Exemption, article 5.
- 55.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90decies, paragraph 4.
- 56.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90decies, paragraph 5.
- 57.
Id.
- 58.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90duodecies.
- 59.
Copyright Act of Taiwan, article 90undecies.
- 60.
Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1204–05 (N.D. Cal. 2004); see Lee 2014, 160.
- 61.
The Iindictment of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Taipei District Court, Taiwan, Case Number: 92 Jen Tzyh No.16389/21865 (Dec. 1, 2003).
- 62.
The indictment of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Shih Lin District Court, Taiwan, Case Number: 91 Jen Tzyh No.10786, 92 Jen Tzyh No.4559 (Dec. 4, 2003).
- 63.
Id.
- 64.
Decision of Taipei District Court, Taiwan, Case Number: 92 Su Zi No. 2146 (2005); see also Tsai, supra note 32, at 85.
- 65.
Decision of Shih Lin District Court, Taiwan, Case Number: 92 Su Zi No. 728 (2005).
- 66.
Id.
- 67.
Id.
- 68.
Decision of Intellectual Property Court, Taiwan, Case Number: 99 Xing Shang Geng Er Zi 24 (2012).
- 69.
The concept of media neutrality arose from the U.S. Supreme Court White-Smith Pub. Co. v. Appollo Co. decision. See White-Smith Pub. Co. v. Appollo Co., 209 U.S. 1 (1908).
- 70.
- 71.
Decision of Intellectual Property Court, Taiwan, Case Number: 98 Xing Zhi Shang Geng Yi No. 16 (2009); see Tsai 2005, 86.
- 72.
Stone 2007, C9.
- 73.
See eBay, What is VeRO and why was my listing removed because of it?, available at http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/questions/vero-ended-item.html
References
Journal Articles
Ballon, Ian C. 2009. Secondary Copyright Liability. American Law Institute – American Bar Association Continuing Legal Education SP016: 1257–1315.
Becker, Gary S. 1968. Criminal and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–224.
Elkin-Koren, Niva. 2006. Making technology visible: Liability of internet service providers for Peer-to-Peer traffic. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 9: 15–76.
Freiwald, Susan. 2001. Comparative institutional analysis in cyberspace: The case of intermediary liability for defamation. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 14: 569–655.
Frischmann, Brett M., and Mark A. Lemley. 2007. Spillovers. Columbia Law Review 107: 257–301.
Hamdani, Assaf. 2002. Who’s liable for cyber wrongs? Cornell Law Review 87: 901–957.
Hylton, Keith N. 2007. Property rules, liability rules, and immunity: An application to cyberspace. Boston University Law Review 87: 1–39.
Kim, Eugene C. 2007. Youtube: Testing the safe harbors of digital copyright law. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 17: 139–171.
Lee, Jyh-An. 2014. Policy implications of the ISP safe harbor in copyright law. National Taiwan University Law Review 43 (1): 143–207.
Lemley, Mark A. 2007. Rationalizing internet safe harbors. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 6: 101–119.
Levin, Elizabath K. 2009. A Safe harbor for trademark: Reevaluating secondary trademark liability after Tiffany v eBay. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 491–527.
Lichtman, Douglas, and William Landes. 2003. Indirect liability for copyright infringement: An economic perspective. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 16: 395–410.
Tsai, Huei-ju. 2005. Media neutrality in the digital Era a study of the Peer-To-Peer file sharing issues. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property 5: 46–89.
Wan, Ke Steven. 2011. Internet service providers’ vicarious liability versus regulation of copyright infringement in China. Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 2011 (2): 375–412.
Wang, Yi-Ping. 2009. Internet service provider civil liability immunity provisions in copyright act. The Taiwan Law Review 173: 25–41.
Zhang, Zhong-Xin. 2008. The legislative trend of internet service provider copyright infringement liability and its limitation (Wang Lu Fu Wu Ti Gong Zhe Zhe Zuo Quan Qin Hai Ze Ren Xian Zhi Zhi Li Fa Si Kao Yu Fang Xiang). Taipei Bar Journal 347: 28–44.
Book
Goldstein, Paul. 2003. Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox. California: Stanford University Press.
Gorman, Robert A., and Jane C. Ginsburg. 2001. Copyright: Cases and materials. New York: Foundation Press.
Book Chapter
Sun, Andy Y. 2007. Contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement. In Copyright law and the information society in Asia, ed. Cristopher Heath and Kung-Chung Liu, 227–268. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Online Document
Chang, Mag. 2012. Internet Use Hits All-Time High in Taiwan. Taiwan Today http://taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=193241&ctNode=413. Accessed 14 Aug 2015.
International Intellectual Property Alliance. 2013. 2013 Special 301 Report on Copyright Protection and Enforcement: Taiwan. http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2013/2013SPEC301TAIWAN.PDF. Accessed 14 Aug 2015.
Stone, Brad. 2007. EBay says fraud crackdown has worked. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/technology/14ebay.html?_r=0. Accessed 14 Aug 2015.
Organization Site
Taiwan Intellectual Property Office. 2015. Copyright Law. http://www.tipo.gov.tw/. Accessed 14 Aug 2015.
Online Database
Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China. 2015. Civil Code. http://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=B0000001. Accessed 14 Aug 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, LS. (2017). Internet Service Provider Copyright Infringement in Taiwan. In: Dinwoodie, G.B. (eds) Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers. Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55030-5_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55028-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55030-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)