일시적 복제에 관한 소고 – 최근 사례 중심으로 –
A Study on the Temporary Reproduction – Focusing on the Recent Cases–
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Under the internet and mobile network circumstances, temporary reproduction be made inevitably by using digital works. In the past, under the former copyright act , the issue whether the temporary reproduction can be included the scope of reproduction was a highly controversial issue. After the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, the amended copyright act clarified that temporary reproduction shall be included the scope of the reproduction by amending the definition provision. The main issue of discussion has changed from the recognition issue of temporary reproduction to the issue that how can it be protected to what extent and what can be exceptions and limitations. But there are still remaining ambiguous concepts and terms on the amended copyright act. Legislations and rulings can be used to establish the specific standards regarding temporary reproduction have yet to be set. Recently, Seoul Central District Court and the Court of Justice of the EU made rulings regarding temporary reproduction. Seoul Central District Court’s ruling is the first ruling of temporary reproduction under the amended copyright act after the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America. Court’s ruling addresses classic issue regarding temporary reproduction to RAM and other issues highly controversial. The Court of Justice of the EU made ruling that temporary reproduction made from ordinary web browsing does not infringe copyright. Article 5 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet cache of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5 (5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorization of the copyright holders. When similar cases will occur, these rulings can be considered to establish the specific standards regarding temporary reproduction.
Abstract
Under the internet and mobile network circumstances, temporary reproduction be made inevitably by using digital works. In the past, under the former copyright act , the issue whether the temporary reproduction can be included the scope of reproduction was a highly controversial issue. After the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, the amended copyright act clarified that temporary reproduction shall be included the scope of the reproduction by amending the definition provision. The main issue of discussion has changed from the recognition issue of temporary reproduction to the issue that how can it be protected to what extent and what can be exceptions and limitations. But there are still remaining ambiguous concepts and terms on the amended copyright act. Legislations and rulings can be used to establish the specific standards regarding temporary reproduction have yet to be set. Recently, Seoul Central District Court and the Court of Justice of the EU made rulings regarding temporary reproduction. Seoul Central District Court’s ruling is the first ruling of temporary reproduction under the amended copyright act after the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America. Court’s ruling addresses classic issue regarding temporary reproduction to RAM and other issues highly controversial. The Court of Justice of the EU made ruling that temporary reproduction made from ordinary web browsing does not infringe copyright. Article 5 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet cache of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5 (5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorization of the copyright holders. When similar cases will occur, these rulings can be considered to establish the specific standards regarding temporary reproduction.
참고문헌 (19)
- 남효순, "인터넷과 법률 III" (2010), 법문사
- 오승종, "저작권법 제3판 전면개정판" (2013), 박영사
- 이해완, "저작권법" (2012), 박영사
- 이호선, "유럽연합(EU)의 법과 제도" (2006), 세창출판사
- 최경수, "저작권법개론" (2010), 한울아카데미
- 제레미 리프킨, "소유의 종말" (2001), 민음사
- 신재호, "저작권법" (2008), 법문사
- 최상필, "일시적 저장과 공정이용", 선진상사법률연구, (43), pp.21~40 (2008), 법무부
- 박인회, "저작권법상 일시적 복제에 관한 소고 - 한미 FTA 합의문을 중심으로 -", 외법논집, 34(1), pp.109~129 (2010), 법학연구소
- 강기중, "저작권법상 일시적 복제에 관한 연구", 지적재산 & 정보법연구, 4(2) (2012), 한양대학교 법학연구소
- 김인철, "일시적 복제 도입의 문제점", 과학기술법연구, 18(3), pp.151~190 (2012), 과학기술법연구원
- 신재호, "한·미 FTA 이행을 위한 개정 저작권법에 관한 검토", 상사판례연구, 25(2), pp.291~333 (2012), 한국상사판례학회
- 염호준, "한미자유무역협정에 따른 일시적 복제에 관한 검토" (2009), 서울대학교 기술과 법 센터
- 임원선, "일시적 복제의 보호 입법에 관한 연구", 계간 저작권, 24(1), pp.4~26 (2011), 한국저작권위원회
- 이진태, "일시적 복제와 기억장치와의 관계", SW IPReport, (7) (2007)
- 저작권위원회, "한미 FTA 이행을 위한 저작권법 개정 방안 연구", 저작권연구자료, 47 (2008)
- 한국저작권위원회, "저작권 관련 유럽연합 지침, 저작권관계자료 2011-08", ~ (2011)
- 문화체육관광부, "개정 저작권법 해설서" (2012)
- 사법재판소, 인터넷을 보기 위한 일시적 복제는 저작권 침해 아니다, "저작권동향", 2014, ~
