With the nation feeling the pressure of being listed on the US Special 301 Priority Watch List, intellectual property rights (IPR) have become a hotly debated topic. In particular, with respect to whether non-habitual and random copyright infringements should be subjected to mandatory prosecution, the Ministry of Justice and Executive Yuan have divergent views.
The ministry feels that, with the exception of habitual copyright infringers, copyright infringements should be prosecuted only upon complaint filed by the injured parties. Under pressure from the US, however, the Executive Yuan feels that all forms of copyright infringements should be subjected to mandatory prosecution. This is a serious issue worthy of discussion.
First and foremost, from the standpoint of copyright theory, the ultimate legislative intent of copyright law is to promote cultural development. Protecting the copyrights of authors is only a means to that end, rather than an end itself. So, where a piece of work has already been widely disseminated and used by many without opposition from the author, interference by the government's police power will only hinder cultural development. Moreover, it would not only contradict the author's free will, but also obstruct the goals of the copyright law.
Next, in terms of the legislative policy, most continental-law countries make copyright infringement a crime prosecuted only upon the filing of complaints. For example, both in Japan and South Korea, the copyright law explicitly includes such provisions. Just as in Taiwan, German law imposes mandatory prosecution for habitual copyright infringers, but not the non-habitual infringers. As one can plainly see, prosecuting copyright infringement based on complaint is a uniform practice in continental-law countries.
About 10 years ago, the US was in more of a trade deficit with Taiwan, not to mention that the pressure of the Super 301 list was even greater, yet Taiwan still declined -- at least seven times -- US demands to make copyright infringement subject to mandatory prosecution. The pressure for trade retaliation now cannot be any greater than it was 10 years ago. So why is the government so easily caving into US demands?
On the law enforcement side, the existing copyright law already imposes mandatory prosecution against habitual infringers. So long as the government enforces the law effectively, it ought to be sufficient to curb the practice of malicious copyright infringement. As for the average random copyright infringement cases, nine out 10 involve individuals who lack understanding about what constitutes copyright infringement. Placing these cases under mandatory prosecution really does little to the crack down on copyright infringement. Instead, it will only increase the number of unnecessary litigations. Innocent and average individuals will also be implicated unnecessarily.
Take the downloading of MP3 files for example. If the number of files downloaded is de minimis, the general understanding is that no copyright infringement has occurred. However, how does one determine how much constitute a de minimis number? A small number of judges and prosecutors went as far as believing that copyright is infringed when one song is downloaded.
There are simply too many such issues that are disputed even within the legal circle. If copyright infringement is suddenly made a crime subjected to mandatory prosecution, how can the people not feel worried? Moreover, many disputes continue to exist with respect to the criteria of "fair use" both from the standpoint of theories and application. Once copyright infringement is made a crime subjected to mandatory prosecution, members of academic circles will likely report copyright infringements by those belonging to different academic factions, even where they are not the injured parties. The prosecutor would then have the investigate the case no matter what. Not only will the academic field become chaotic, but no good is done for cultural development of the country. Is this consistent with the legislative intent of the copyright law?
The piracy of copyrighted works is a global problem. Even in places such as the US, Canada and the EU, infringements frequently occur. Taiwan must end piracy because it needs to for its own long-term development, not just to escape the pressure of trade retaliation from the US. This pressure arises because of enforcement problems in Taiwan, rather than legal enactment problems. However, to escape revenge, we often make perfunctory legal amendment. As a result, the law becomes increasingly strict -- and twisted -- even as the pressure of trade retaliation continues to heat up. Whether copyright infringement should be made a law subjected to mandatory prosecution is a legal and professional question. Lawmakers and the government cannot ignore it.
Hsiao Hsiung-lin is a lawyer in Taipei.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath