가치격차 현상과 온라인서비스제공자 책임제한 제도 재검토

The limitation on liability relating to material online called safe-harbor rule which was introduced by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 is evaluated to have significantly contributed to the dissemination of content through the Internet and the development of related industries. However, with the development and widespread use of wireless com- munication and Internet technology, the situation has changed. The user- upload content platform, where users upload and share their user-generated content(UGC), became the main channel for content distribution, and online service providers competed with content providers and restricted their growth. This led to a phenomenon called the value-gap. This phenomenon is particularly conspicuous in the music field. In Korea, where the online music market was established as early as in 2005, it is confirmed that online music companies such as <Melon> and <Genie Music> are expelled by <YouTube>. To correct this unfairness, the European Union introduced the Digital Single Market Copyright Directive in 2019, introducing stricter liability rule for online content sharing service providers than the existing safe-harbor rule. In case of Korea, a liability system for the special type online service provider was already introduced in 2006, which made upload-filters mandatory to prevent the sharing of illegal copies. The liability system for the special type online service provider mandates upload filters through administrative regulations, and has limitations in resolving the value gap problem. Accordingly, this study reviewed the European Union's system of limiting liability for online content sharing service providers as a model in which rights owners and service providers can cooperate to promote legitimate content sharing while guaranteeing rights owners' interests. The conclusion can be summarized as follows. First, a new type of online service provider should be defined by using the definition of the online content sharing service providers as stipulated in DSM Directive. Second, the service provider's act of providing the public access the user-upload content should be defined as an act that is considered as an infringement under the Copyright Act, so that the act of providing access to it must be authorized by the right holders. This is different from the DSM Directive in that it stipulates that an online content sharing service provider's act of providing the public access the user-upload content constitute an act of communication to the public. Third, if the service providers failed to obtain a license from the right holders, a stricter standard than the current limitation of liability of the online service provider should be applied. We can refer to the rules for limiting the liability of the online content sharing service providers in DSM Directive.