| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 財經法律學研究所 === 103 === This study is attempted to research on related legal issues of broadcasting the program signals for the cable TV industry. Currently, it encountered great competition in digital convergence and various emerging video media, thus whether the explanation of traditional copyright shall be adjusted along such phenomenon is the focus of this study. Digital Convergence is communication platforms among televisions, telecommunications, networks, and mobile services, at provides comprehensive services by integrating and applying technology and equipment. In addition, the emerging media, OTT industry, is an open network platform transmitting video and audio content to users’ terminal device for further viewing; as a result, it causes a great impact on the cable TV industry.
The Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) had promulgated an official letter to divide the process into original broadcast and rebroadcast for transmitting signals to viewers’ home by Cable TV system operations (SOs). This study advocates the undertaking of criminal responsibilities that shall be discussed by means of intentional offense subjectively. SOs only provide broadcasting platforms and cannot preview or change the broadcasting content of TV channels and programs, thus it is appropriate that content providers who are responsible to produce program content shall bear those criminal responsibilities. At the same time, the transmitting process of cable TV signals shall not be separated severed as to its form, instead, shall be regarded as a complete one-phase public broadcasting action.
Public broadcast and public transmission in the cable TV industry have also encountered certain issues in products transformation and channel licensing. In recent years, the Compensation for Fair Use of Music Works promulgated by Copyright Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) has caused many SOs to apply deliberations to TIPO, and file appeal and administrative litigation for those administrative dispositions made by TIPO. Due to the difficulties in defining and limiting public broadcast and public transmission actions, disputes about channel licensing between the cable TV and IPTV platforms prolong, thus it is worthy of further observation on whether those difficulties can be overcame from the Copyright Act or not.
Under our Cable Radio and Television Act, the must-carry system does not amount to copyright infringement, and SOs don’t need to pay any royalty to copyright owners. However, these can be existed only if there is stronger purpose of public welfare; in other words, equality of public interests and private interests shall be taken into consideration. Thus, the author suggests that we shall either cancel must-carry system, or, maintain the status quo on certain channels, and not all channel signals of radio TV stations ever.
|
|---|
