Explore

Show in map
Proposed Law

Bill on Telecommunication Act

A telecommunications enterprise is required to remove content if an "administrative agency" (not a court) in authority deems that the content violate a law or regulation, such as copyright or defamation law, and the removal is technically possible (paragraph 2 of article 9). The bill was temporally shelved in 2013 due to the controversy, but it is likely the bill will be sent to the Legislature Yuan again with some revision in the future.

General Resources - Taiwan

The Judicial Yuan’s Database for Judicial Decisions (司法院法學資料檢索系統), http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/ Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (台灣智慧財產權局), http://www.tipo.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1
Administrative Decision

Intellectual Property Court, Year 2009, Xing-Zhi-Shang-Geng-Zi No. 48, Criminal Case (智慧財產法院 98 年度刑智上更字第 48 號刑事判決)

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...
Administrative Decision

Intellectual Property Court, Year 2010, Xing-Zhi-Shang-Geng-(II), NO.24, Criminal Case [智慧財產法院99年度刑智上更(二)第24號刑事判決]

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...
Administrative Decision

Intellectual Property Court, Year 2010, Sin-Tsu-Shan-Yi-Tsu No. 59, Criminal Case (智慧財產法院99年度刑智上易字第59號刑事判決)

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.
Administrative Decision

Intellectual Property Court, Year 2010, Sin-Tsu-Shan-Yi-Tsu No. 52, Criminal Case (智慧財產法院99年度刑智上易字第52號刑事判決)

After the enactment of inducement liability of copyright infringement, one important cases of peer-to-peer file sharing services was decided on the ground of inducement liability. This case involved a program called Foxy, which was very popular in Taiwan for few years. 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.