從MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.案看P2P業者之侵權責任 Liability of P2P Operators from the Point of View of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

Abstract

在 MGM 案中，美國最高法院將審理之重心放在P2P 業者「如何使用其分享軟體與系統架構」，P2P 業者是否積極鼓勵其使用者利用其分享軟體與系統架構來侵害著作權，作為衡量P2P 業者侵權責任之最重要因素。科技中立原則在MGM 案中並沒有被否定，蓋美國最高法院認定被告敗訴，其主要原因在於被告以廣告積極地鼓勵使用者將其軟體使用於著作權之侵害。因此，被告必須為製造及散布其軟體負責的原因，並不是該點對點分享軟體本身的性質，而是被告以該軟體經營業務之手段。 The test standard in the MGM case was focused on how the P2P operators utilized their file sharing systems. Actually, the Supreme Court didn't disclaim the technology neutrality principle. In the MGM case, the characteristics of the file sharing systems and software were not the reason why the defendants lost the lawsuit. The defendants lost the lawsuit mainly because they encouraged the registered users to infringe copyrights by advertisement. What the law regulates should be to govern the conducts and their results.

Keywords

• P2P 業者
• 參與侵權責任
• 侵權代位責任
• 科技中立
• P2P Operators
• contributory liability
• vicarious liability
• Technology Neutrality