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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US