. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/W/379/Add.1
10 October 2002
(02-5486)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
Follow-up questions by the United States
Addendum
By means of a communication from the Permanent Mission of the United States, dated
19 September 2002, the Secretariat has received a copy of the following follow-up questions that the
United States has communicated to the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and
Matsu.  These questions supplement those posed by the United States in document IP/C/W/379.
_______________
CHINESE TAIPEI
1. Please explain further how Paragraph 1, Article 5 of the present Copyright Law, which reads
"1. Oral and literary works" provides protection of  performances of works other than "pre-existing"
works, as noted in your response to USG Question 2(b).  Does your law, for example, protect a live
musical performance where the subject-matter of the performance is not based on a pre-existingwork?
2. Paragraph 2, Article 22 of the Copyright Law provides performers with the exclusive right to
reproduce fixations of their performances, but does not appear to directly provide performers with the
exclusive right to control unauthorized fixations of their performances.  How does your governmentprovide performers with the exclusive right to control unauthorized fixations of their performances?
3. ln your response to USG Question 2(e), your Government states that the term "within a
reasonable scope" in Article 51 of the Copyright Law is further defined by Article 65 of the Copyright
Law. Please provide the source of authority that clarifies the connection between these two
provisions.
4. Please provide the most recent version of the draft amendments to the Copyright Law.  Please
provide a copy of the explanatory notes supplementing the draft amendments to the Copyright Law
(i.e., those which explicitly state that temporary copies are to be treated as reproductions).  Please also
provide the source of authority which indicates that those explanatory notes shall be used as
guidelines binding authority by courts and/or administrative agencies.
5. We would appreciate receiving information on the scope of responsibility of the Joint Optical
Disk Enforcement Task Force.  For instance, is it the responsibility of the Joint Optical Disk
Enforcement Task Force to inspect all optical disk plants in Chinese Taipei?IP/C/W/379/Add.1
Page 2
6. Please clarify, if a defendant ought reasonably to have known that an act or copy is infringing,
will he be subject to liability under Article 87(2) of Chinese Taipei's Copyright Law?
7. If the infringing use of a computer program is  not for direct profit and not on a commercial
scale, what remedies does the Copyright Law provide to the rightholder in the programme?
8. With respect to your response to USG Question 2(f), what types of utilization may be made
by the user under Article 106 of the Copyright Law (i.e., distribution right, reproduction right)?  Does
Article 106 allow a user to continue to reproduce a work, for instance, within this 2 year transition
grace period or only sell off pre-existing copies?
9. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the draft amendment to Article 56 of the Patent
Law.
__________