Advertisements such as “Watch unlimited movies and TV shows for free forever” and “No more monthly fees for cable TV or streaming platforms” flood the market for TV boxes (also known as set-top boxes), luring consumers to purchase these devices and join the growing ranks of TV box users. But are these great-sounding bargains genuine? In reality, tracing the source of these “free” movies and TV shows often reveals that they originate from unauthorized uploads by unidentified individuals on the internet. The prevalence of TV boxes has become a seedbed for pirated content, harshly impacting the invaluable creative works of the film and television industry.

Taiwan’s Copyright Act—enacted for the purposes of “protecting the rights and the interests of authors with respect to their works” and “promoting the development of national culture”—certainly could not be left idle in countering this threat. Taiwan’s government has made concerted efforts to keep the Copyright Act and judicial practice in pace with rapidly emerging and evolving technology products like TV boxes. From the Copyright Act’s basic provisions on reproduction and public transmission rights to its subsequent amendments, the shapers and interpreters of the law have strived to provide authors with enhanced protection and foster a healthier environment for creative work.

In the history of amendments to the Copyright Act, two revisions closely related to TV boxes stand out: the introduction of P2P provisions in 2007 and of TV box provisions in 2019. This article, the first in a two-part series, focuses on the pre-2019 versions of the Copyright Act and explores how the Act historically addressed the challenges posed by TV boxes.

I. Articles 91 and 92 of the Copyright Act: Reproduction Rights and Public Transmission Rights

 Prior to the 2019 amendment, the Copyright Act’s guarantee of reproduction and public transmission rights granted exclusively to authors served as the first line of defense against TV box infringement, offering important basic protections.

Analyzing past TV box-related cases reveals a common pattern of infringement of authors’ reproduction and public transmission rights: unauthorized individuals illegally access signals, reproduce them into data packets, and publicly transmit them to TV box users via cloud servers over the internet.

For example, in a judgment by Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, the accused, Wang Zhiyuan, in collaboration with an unidentified individual from China, without consent or authorization, set up a server room at his residence. Using leased telecommunications and cable TV services, they intercepted television channel signals. These signals were decoded and reproduced, converted into data packets, and uploaded in real time to cloud servers, from which they were publicly transmitted over the internet to consumers using Unblock Tech TV boxes. This enabled consumers to stream these illegally obtained TV shows on demand. The court held that Wang and the unidentified individual from China, out of joint intent, distributed these unauthorized works through reproduction and public transmission, infringing the economic rights of 11 companies including TVBS Media Inc.

It is worth noting that, aside from those who attempt to profit by reproducing and publicly transmitting others’ works without authorization, consumers who view illegally uploaded audiovisual works online may also, due to the technical requirements of network relay transmission, be culpable of temporary reproduction during the viewing process. Article 22(3) of the current Copyright Act expressly exempts temporary reproduction for the purpose of “lawful” network relay transmission from infringing the rights of copyright holders. However, network relay transmission involving unlawful or infringing content does not appear to fall within this exception. Consequently, while no cases have been brought by copyright holders against consumers for illegal reproduction thus far, cause for concern about consumer infringement of reproduction rights cannot be entirely ruled out.

In summary, the Copyright Act safeguards authors’ reproduction and public transmission rights, and any unauthorized actions involving these rights constitute infringements of the authors’ economic rights in their works. The Act clearly prohibits anyone without authorization from reproducing others’ works and publicly transmitting them to TV box users. Furthermore, those who participate in such acts with joint intent and contributory activity, or who aid in the infringement process, may be held liable as co-offenders or abettors.

II. Article 87(1)(7) of the Copyright Act: The P2P Clause

In the early 2000s, peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software such as BT, eMule, Foxy, and ezPeer surged in popularity. Leveraging a decentralized, peer-to-peer network architecture, these platforms enabled users to download files while simultaneously uploading them for others, creating an efficient and decentralized channel for sharing resources online. While this convenience attracted a massive user base, it also fueled the rampant proliferation of pirated audiovisual content. The inherent characteristics of P2P technology mean that users transmitting unauthorized works through such platforms inevitably engage in reproduction and public transmission during the download and upload process, thereby violating the Copyright Act.

In response to the limitations of the original Copyright Act, which could only regulate users of P2P technology and failed to deter malicious providers of P2P software who profited by facilitating online piracy and the exchange of unauthorized audiovisual content, the Act was amended in 2007 to include Article 87(1)(7), commonly referred to as the “P2P Clause.” This clause targets those who, with intent to allow the public to infringe others’ economic rights by means of public transmission or reproduction, provide to the public computer programs or other technology that facilitate such acts and benefit by doing so. By deeming the act of “providing” such things to be an infringement of copyright, the clause imposes legal liability on those who assist in infringement, thereby strengthening measures against online piracy.

In practice, the P2P Clause also plays a significant role in safeguarding authors from forms of infringement involving TV boxes. For instance, certain manufacturers and sellers of TV boxes pre-install P2P software on these devices, enabling consumers to access pirated audiovisual content illegally circulating online after purchase. In such cases, not only do the consumers infringe copyright holders’ economic rights through unauthorized reproduction and public transmission, the P2P Clause also extends the Copyright Act’s scope to malicious providers of such illegal TV boxes. These providers, who profit by embedding P2P software in their products and promoting them through advertisements or other methods to attract public buyers, are now also subject to legal accountability.

An examination of Taiwan court judgments to date regarding the criteria for applying the P2P Clause to TV box manufacturers and sellers reveals two critical factors. First, the TV boxes must come pre-installed with the relevant software, rather than requiring users to download it themselves. Second, the pre-installed software must employ P2P or other similar technologies. In essence, for the P2P Clause to apply, the pre-installed software must enable users to reproduce or publicly transmit others’ works, not merely allow them to “view” infringing content through the software.

III. Conclusion

Prior to the 2019 amendment, the Copyright Act addressed TV box-related infringements primarily through the existing protections of authors’ rights of reproduction and public transmission, supplemented by the newly added P2P Clause. These provisions target both individuals who directly reproduce or publicly transmit others’ copyrighted works and those who provide computer programs or technologies facilitating such acts. Together, these measures effectively reinforced the legal protection of authors’ reproduction and public transmission rights in cases involving TV box infringements.

However, with rapid technological advancements, the nature of TV box infringements also evolved. Manufacturers and sellers began embedding computer programs or preset pathways within TV boxes, linking them directly to third-party websites hosting illegal audiovisual content. This enabled consumers to easily access pirated materials in a newly emerging form of infringement. In such cases, the manufacturers and sellers no longer needed to personally reproduce or publicly transmit the content and the embedded software no longer relied on P2P or similar technologies. By leveraging hyperlinks, they effectively circumvented the scope of existing regulations, creating a loophole in the Copyright Act.

In summary, this article has outlined TV box infringement issues and their interaction with the Copyright Act prior to the 2019 amendments. To follow up on the trends highlighted above, our next article will delve into the subsequent developments in the Copyright Act and give an overview of the state of practical implementation today.

For more information on copyright and IP protection and enforcement matters in Taiwan, please contact us at gkuo@winklerpartners.com or ychen@winklerpartners.com.

Written on 30 April 2025 by Gary Kuo, Yi-kai Chen and Ying-Chu Shih.