소리바다 항소심판결에 관한 연구

Abstract

Appellate courts in Korea found that Soribada users were engaged in direct copyright infringement. In civil cases, the High Court found that Soribada was engaged in copyright infringement. But in a criminal case, the appellate panel of the District Court found that Soribada was not. In this article, I inquire into the question of liability of Soribada. I study Cheongdogun case in Korea, Napster case and Grokster case in United States. Though I analyse the cases, it is uncertain whether Soribada was engaged in indirect copyright infringement. And I study 5 surveys of the economic effect of file sharing on record sales. According to the 2 surveys, file sharing has reduced aggregate sales. But According to the 3 surveys, the sharing has not reduced the sales. As a result, it is not obvious that the sharing has reduced the sales. Copyright holders and online service providers are equal in preventing direct copyright infringement by users. I think that Soribada's duty to remove material from a server is triggered upon notice by copyright holders.