‘저작권법상 주문형서비스 제공자의 지위에 관한 비판적 고찰’의 再고찰

A Economic Analysis of Copyright

‘방송’ 매체의 서비스가 디지털 기술의 발전으로 方向, 同時性’에서 탈피하여 ‘雙方向, 異時性’으로 확대된다고 해서 소유규제, 내용심의 등의 규제를 받는 ‘방송법’의 적용 범위가 당연히 확장, 즉 ‘방송’ 개념이 확대되어야 한다는논리는 타당하지 않다. IPTV, VOD가 서비스되고 있는 미국과 유럽 나라들이 이를 강한 법적 규제를 받는 ‘방송’ 서비스로 보지 않는 이유는 방송의 공공성과 공익성을 강조하는 ‘방송법’의 성격 자체가 이러한 새로운 서비스를 규제하기에 맞지 않음을 알기 때문이다. 더욱이 ‘매스커뮤니케이션적 이용형태’를 이유로 헌법상 방송의 자유가 차별없이그러한 신규 서비스에도 보장되어야 하고 따라서 저작권법상 ‘방송’과 ‘전송’ 개념이 자의적으로 잘못 규정되었다고비판하는 것은 저작권법과 헌법의 의미 차이를 간과한 해석론적 비약일 뿐이다. 결국, 인터넷 기반의 VOD, IPTV등 새로운 매체의 이용확산에 따른 저작권 문제는 헌법에서 무리하게 출발, ‘방송’ ‘방송사업朴 개념을 확대 정의함으로써 해결할 수 있는 문제가 아니라 ‘의무재송신’ 제도를 손질하거나 영상물 특례규정이나 저작권법 개정안처럼 ‘방송사업자’와는 별도의 ‘디지털음성송신사업자’와 같은 저작권법 나름대로의 사업자 유형을 신설하여 권리처리를 도와주는 방법이 논리적으로나 현실적으로나 타당한 입법론이 된다.

This manuscript provides an overview on the five topics of copyright-related subjects; the necessity of copyright protection, the efficiency of copyright protection, copyright protection and social welfare, principal-agent model of copyright, the impact of digitalization and fared-use. Copyright is not a natural right from the heaven; instead it is a monopolistic prestige adopted by most nations to stimulates the production of arts and studies. In managing copyright system, governments pursue a balance of two objectives; the maximum protection of authors rights and the minimum access cost of people to copyrights, which contradicts each other. The impact of digitalization on fair use and piracy will no doubt continue to dominate discussions of copyright as technical development gather pace. Technical change frequently redistributes benefits, pecuniary and non-pecuniary (freedom of expression, access to information and so on) between market players - producers of ‘old technology* goods and services, producers of 4new technology’ goods and services and consumers. The questions asked with every new technological revolution are the extent to which it could radically change markets, trigger off social change and require a different paradigm of laws and legal and economic institutions. Policy- makers have to make decisions under conditions of asymmetric information: they know more about the present than the future and their information on the effects of new changes to markets, as is well known from the economics of regidation, is provided by interested parties, those with the most at stake - potential winners and losers. Economic costs and benefits, however, may be greatest in total to large numbers of ‘small’ gainers/losers, such as consumers, who do not organise and lobby. Two other observations may be made from the corpus of economic theory: throughout the long history of research by economists on the role of patents in stimulating innovation, no firm conclusions have been reached about the need for IP law to support new industries. Second, changes to law inevitably lag behind technical changes, though markets are able to adapt quickly. Both these points argue for a less interventionist approach by law-makers to new technologies.