저작권법상 공중송신의 유형 및 그 법적 취급에 관한 연구

There is much ambiguity about the classification of "public transmission" in Korean Copyright Act. The Act provides that the concept of "public transmission" has sub-concepts such as broadcasting, forwarding, digital audio transmission. But it is still unclear whether the real time webcasting including the transmission of video is broadcasting or 'the other type of public transmission'. I find that the revised act intended to exclude such type of transmission from the concept of broadcasting in order to avoid excessive expansion of the concept. This finding also leads to the same conclusion about IPTV transmission which is not on demand. It means that those types of transmission should be treated as the other type of public transmission. But even though this conclusion is justifiable in the respect of interpretation of the Act, it causes several problems such as the gap in the protection of performers and phonogram producers, the unreasonable discrimination between broadcasting and IPTV transmission, the problem of 'near-forwarding'. I propose the revision of Copyright Act as followings in order to solve them. 1. We should add provisions to define the new concept of "digital video transmission" and give performers the right of digital video transmission while giving the phonogram producers the remuneration right regarding that kind of transmission. 2. We should consider introducing the special provision to regard real time IPTV transmission as broadcasting. 3. We should consider specifying the near-forwarding services and regarding them as forwarding.