Explore

(1) Intermediary Liability of Copyright Infringement. The inducement liability of copyright infringement was enacted in 2007 under the influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). However, there is a critical difference between them with regard to the requirement of the resulting acts of infringement by a third party. In Grokster, the court holds that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” However, according to the subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1, article 87 of Taiwan’s Copyright Act, the intermediary’s behavior of enabling copyright infringement itself can be deemed an...

Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability and Aiding Liability. Article 15. A person who has a legal obligation and is able to prevent the results of the occurrence of an offense but has failed to do so shall be equal to have caused the occurrence of the result by his positive act. If a conduct of a person causes the danger of producing the result of an offense, the person has a legal obligation to prevent the occurrence of the result. Article 28. Each of the two or more persons acting jointly in the commission of an offense is a principal offender. Article 29 A person who aids another in the commission of a crime is an accessory notwithstanding that the person aided does not know of the assistance.

Prior to the enactment of inducement liability of copyright infringement in 2007, a peer-to-peer file sharing service called Kuro was found guilty in joint criminal enterprise liability by Taiwan Taipei District Court in 2005, which was the first criminal ruling against peer-to-peer file sharing services in the world. The case was appealed to the Taiwan Superior Court. It was later remanded to the Intellectual Property Court by the Supreme Court. The Intellectual Property Court found the defendant was guilty in joint criminal enterprise liability. See Taiwan Taipei District Court, Year 2003, Su-Zi No. 2146, Criminal Case (臺灣臺北地方法院 92 年度訴字第 2146 號刑事判決); Taiwan Superior Court, Year 2005, Zhu-Shang-Su-Zi No.5, Criminal Case (臺灣高等法院 94 年度矚上訴字第 5 號刑事判決); Supreme Court, Year 2009, Tai-Shang-Zi No.6117, Criminal Case (最高法院 98...

In contrast to Kuro, another peer-to-peer file sharing services, ezPeer was initially found neither guilty in joint criminal enterprise liability nor aiding criminal liability by Taiwan Shilin District Court in 2005. The case was appealed to the Taiwan Superior Court. It was later twice remanded to the Intellectual Property Court by the Supreme Court. In the end, Intellectual Property Court found the defendant was guilty in joint enterprise criminal liability in 2011. See Taiwan Shilin District Court, Year 2003, Su-Zi No. 728, Criminal Case (臺灣士林地方法院 92 年度訴字第 728 號刑事判決);Taiwan Superior Court, Year 2005, Shang-Su-Zi No.3195, Criminal Case (臺灣高等法院 94 年度上訴字第 3195 號刑事判決) ; Supreme Court, Year 2009, Tai-Shang-Zi No.113, Criminal Case (最高法院 98 年度台上字第 1132 號刑事判決);Intellectual Property Court, Year 2009, Xing-Zhi-Shang-Geng-Zi...

Another case of peer-to-peer file sharing services involving a less known program called Kupeer was also decided on the ground of inducement liability. The defendant was found guilty in co-perpetration of joint copyright infringement of article 92 and the inducement of copyright infringement of paragraph 4, article 93 of Taiwan’s Copyright Act.