In September 2025, a judgment rendered by Taiwan's IP and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) drew a stricter red line for copyright protection concerning online set-top box operators. Eastern Broadcasting Co., Ltd. et al. v. Elie Technology Inc et al., 113 Min-Zhu-Shang 8, Taiwan's IP & Commercial Court (Sep. 2025).
Both parties to this litigation are well-known companies. The plaintiffs are ten Taiwanese cable TV service providers, while the defendants are providers of a widely used set-top box. The defendants were found liable for infringement in the appellate instance and have now appealed to the Supreme Court.
Taiwan's Copyright Act seeks to strike a balance between copyright protection and technological neutrality for technologies and devices like set-top boxes that may be used for copyright infringement online. The Copyright Act places emphasis on the actors' intent as well as affirmative conduct:
- With respect to technology providers, the law requires the actor's intent to allow the public to use the technology to access infringing content. (Article 87(1)(7); full text of the Articles is provided at the end of this newsletter.)
- With respect to the manufacturer/provider of devices such as set-top boxes, the law requires intent to provide the public access to content which the actor knows is infringing. The law further requires certain types of affirmative conduct by the actor (or through the set-top box) that facilitates public access to infringing content. (Article 87(1)(7); for details, see our firm's August 2021 Newsletter).
- The actors shall be deemed to have the required intent if their advertising or other active measures instigate, solicit, incite, or persuade the public to use the technology/devices in infringement. (Article 87(2)).
In this case, the IPC Court's appellate instance held that the defendants violated all the above Articles based on the following findings:
- Advertising and sales descriptions labeled the product as a “jailbroken ROOT version.” Online user posts also suggested that the set-top box came pre-installed with a ROOT version.
The court noted that jailbroken and root mean granting users the highest level of system permission, thereby unlocking certain original restrictions, including limitations on installing certain apps (such as VPN apps that allow users to avoid IP address-based access restrictions.)
- Users could install to the set-top box an app that compiles and displays multiple channels offering infringing content from servers located abroad. Users could then select and stream infringing content back into Taiwan.
Based on the plaintiff's evidence accepted by the court, the installation process for this app was not straightforward: users had to search for a specific URL (which could be done through the set-top box's Google browser), enter a special “application market” webpage, locate the specific app, and then download and install it. Unsurprisingly, the set-top box itself was pre-installed with such an app, nor did it provide the specific URL or any related instructions.
- If users did not know how to locate or install the app, the “application market” provided a default QR code linking users to customer service personnel—whom the court identified as members of the defendant's corporate group—for guidance.
The first of the above factual elements was not considered by the first-instance court but received significant attention from the appellate panel, likely carrying considerable weight in the formation of its decision, which reversed the first-instance judgment and found the defendants liable for infringement.
The appellate panel emphasized that the conduct of the set-top box operator must be examined within the context of Taiwan's current online-use environment: many consumers purchase set-top boxes precisely in the hope of gaining access to foreign video platforms so as to circumvent fees for cable TV, multimedia-on-demand services, and subscription streaming services. “The purpose of importing and selling set-top boxes is largely to meet such market demand.” The panel noted, “There exists a vast number of online links coaching how to activate and install the apps at issue, making it implausible for the appellees to claim ignorance.”
The appellate panel also cited a recent Supreme Court decision in a copyright case: courts may consider common sense to expose a party's intent when they deliberately create or maintain a seeming “no-intent” state through willful ignorance. This appears to suggest that many users are, to say the least, easily induced to engage in infringing activities. As a result, set-top box operators must adopt a more prudent approach, or implement additional preventive measures, to avoid a finding of infringement.
It is noteworthy that in the first instance, the parties engaged in intensive dispute over the third factual factor, namely, the customer service guidance. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff had commissioned a notary public to video-record the operation of the set-top box and the customer service personnel's guidance, which was conducted through social media. This notarized recording became the primary basis for the court's analysis of this issue.
However, the first-instance judge noted that the customer service personnel merely asked the user to search online using keywords (e.g., “how to install apps on a set-top box”), and that the search, selection, and understanding of results differ among individuals. This conduct, the first-instance judge reasoned, was distinct from directly providing guidance on where and how to download, install, or use the problematic app.
The appellate judgment, however, clearly imposed a higher standard on set-top box operators.
As the defendants have appealed to the Supreme Court, whether the appellate judgment will be upheld remains to be seen and is worth continued attention.
[Appendix: Copyright Act Provisions Found Infringed in This Case]
Article 87.1: “Any of the following circumstances, except as otherwise provided under this Act, shall be deemed an infringement of copyright or plate rights: …
7. To provide to the public computer programs or other technology that can be used to publicly transmit or reproduce works, with the intent to allow the public to infringe economic rights by means of public transmission or reproduction by means of the Internet of the works of another, without the consent of or a license from the economic rights holder, and to receive benefit therefrom.
8. Knowing that the works broadcast or transmitted publicly by another person infringe economic rights, with the intent to provide the public to access such works by the Internet, acting as follows, and to receive benefit therefrom:
(1) To provide the public with computer programs which have aggregated the Internet Protocol Addresses of such works.
(2) To direct, assist or preset paths to the public for using computer programs in the preceding item.
(3) To manufacture, import or sell equipment or devices preloaded with the computer programs of the first item.”
Article 87.2: “A person who undertakes the actions set out in subparagraphs 7 or 8 above shall be deemed to have ‘intent' pursuant to that subparagraph when the advertising or other active measures employed by the person instigates, solicits, incites, or persuades the public to use.”