컴퓨터프로그램 리버스 엔지니어링의 저작권법상 허용범위에 관한 연구

Abstract

and (4) it does not unreasonably damage the interests of author’s property rights in the computer program. Meantime, the third condition above, as compared with that of the provision of EU Computer Program Directive(2009), is thought to possibly cause different interpretations and applications from the aforesaid provision. And as the reproduction and translation may take place in the disassembly and decompilation process, the subparagraph 34 of article 2 of the copyright law defined the act of decompilation of program codes as reproduction and translation, and so the article 101-4 permitted reverse engineering by restricting the author’s property right concerning the reproduction and translation. According to the subparagraph 34 of article 2, the decompilation of program codes is allowed solely for the purpose of obtaining the information necessary to achieve interoperability(compatibility under copyright law). In addition, according to article 101-4(1), the decompilation of program codes is allowed if the followings are fulfilled: a legitimate doer, the substantiality of both indispensability to obtain the information and difficulty in obtaining the information available, and a confinement to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability, etc. And according to article 101-4(2), the information obtained through decompilation of program codes can be utilized if the followings are fulfilled: the purpose to achieve the interoperability, the utilization irrelevant to the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, nd the utilization apart from the acts infringing on other rogram copyrights. Meanwhile, the points in controversy under this provision are as below: the term ‘interoperability’ should be substituted for the term ‘compatibility’; there seems to be little effectiveness in full embodiment with the definition when in restricting a permitted scope of decompilation of program codes by way of establishing a purpose of behavior of decompilation of program codes; it is difficult to say that the term ‘translation’ is something to be defined as an assortment out of author’s property rights; the difference may occur in between description and interpretation of the inevitability of information required for interoperability; and it is not distinctive, owing to the structural problem of the subparagraph 1 of article 101-4(2), whether such information may be provided to the third party as has resulted from the decompilation of computer codes. Therefore, it is thought desirable to properly revise the provision in question or to duly interpret in the light of related provisions of EU Computer Program Directive(2009) and U.S. Copyright Law. One can see general provision regarding fair use in article 35-3 of the copyright law. By the way, the fair use principle developed in U.S. does its justice according to the “equitable rule of reason“. By this, if a case accords with the fair use principle, reverse engineering of a computer program can be fair use, rather than an infringement. And it is in this respect that there exist the substantive differences of integrated interpretation and physical application from the other provisions restricting the rights under particular conditions with regard to the assumption that reverse engineering of a computer program constitutes copyright infringement. In accordance with general provision of fair use, therefore, one can ascertain whether the use of computer program is to be fair, even if it is not consistent with the provision limiting author’s property rights in computer programs. The article 35-3(1) of the copyright law presents as the criteria of fair use the three-step test in both Agreements; Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and WTO/TRIPs(Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, while the article 35-3(2) suggests the four elements of the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107 as the criteria of concrete judgement in fair use. Therefore, providing that the three-step test of the aforesaid agreement duly applies, reverse engineering undertaken for the purpose other than to achieve the interoperability may be given a permission as long as the four requirements under the article 35-2(2) are met. There is an article in the copyright law prohibiting the incapacitation of technological protection measures, which stipulates the decompilation of computer program codes to obtain the information necessary to achieve the nteroperability as an exception of incapacitation. And as the legal nature of subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1), article 101-4, and article 35-3 is theoretically an imperative provision, the prohibition of reverse engineering by the contract is deemed to be null and void. The provisions concerning reverse engineering of a computer program under the copyright law should be construed and amended from the direction that promote the development of related industries and technologies. In this regard, there is a necessity sought to rigorously interpret he provision of the article 101-4 and to expand the ermitted scope of decompilation of computer program codes under the article 35-3. In addition, the need to mend the related provisions of the copyright law arises against the above-mentioned matters as regards the rovisions of ecompilation of computer program codes by the ubparagraph 34 of article 2 and article 101-4.; Problems commonly occurring in reverse engineering of a computer program should be oriented to approach of individual solutions from the perspective of balancing the protection of the rights of authors and the promotion of fair use of works, and furthermore the interpretation and application of relevant provisions under the copyright law should be founded upon the ultimate goals : the improvement and development of culture and related industries. And as the studies hitherto conducted of this sort seem to have hovered mostly around the theoretical interpretations on the legal provisions themselves, it leaves something more desired to delve deeper into the provisions concerned with reference to the established discussions and then address the problems with its regulations in a more material way on the basis thereby. On these assumptions, this study suggests a permitted scope of reverse engineering of a computer program under copyright law, problems of related provisions, and proposal for amendment of the related provisions, etc. The term ‘reverse engineering’ in the study herein indicates the behavior and process of apprehending the principle of development and of extracting the varied information, inclusive of the ideas and functional concepts at the computer program employed, by analyzing and investigating computer program in the form of object code through the disassembly and decompilation (of program codes particularly under the Korean copyright law), black box analysis with memory dump included, and manual analysis. Reverse engineering of a computer program, customarily carried out in the related industries, has served for interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, error correction, and program improvement, etc, so that it could contribute to fostering industrial development and associated computer program technologies. Whilst it took a considerable amount of time and money for the computer program development, the analysis by way of reverse engineering requires relatively less time and money to be undertaken, which seems to pose challenges on enterprises that develop a computer program. Therefore, they have tried to prevent reverse engineering by the copyright law and the contract. It has been a matter of substance in the U.S.(United States of America), Japan, the member states of EU(European Union), and Korea as well in the 1980s onwards whether to justify or permit reverse engineering under the copyright law. The industries involved have debated on reverse engineering depending upon their own interest and assertion. To this cause, the government and court in each country, with a prerequisite of developing domestic computer program technologies and industries, commenced either to newly establish provisional institution in copyright law under certain conditions or to authorize its utilization in cases involving reverse engineering. The U.S., by fair use principle, permitted reverse engineering of a computer program, whilst the EU gave a permission to black box analysis and decompilation by way of confining the author’s property rights in computer program under certain conditions at the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (, which was thereafter replaced with the Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (hereinafter called “EU Computer Program Directive(2009)”)). The copyright law authorizes the exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and the production of derivative works to the owner of author’s property rights of computer programs. Therefore, if the reproduction and the production of derivative works would exceed a permitted scope under the copyright law or by the copyright owner, then the author might be entitled to claiming his or her rights against such an infringement. Opponents of reverse engineering have attempted to forbid reverse engineering by utilizing this framework of principle in the copyright law. Meanwhile, proponents of reverse engineering have thought it improper to forbid the discovery of ideas and functional concepts contained in computer program by the use of reverse engineering technologies under the copyright law. Moreover, since reproduction of computer program by reverse engineering is considered something interim prior to completing final development, this sort of reproduction does not constitute a violation against which the author may be authorized to raise a claim. The copyright law, though based on the premise that the reproduction and translation made in the course of reverse engineering are copyright infringement, has partially permitted reverse engineering by way of confining the author’s property rights in computer programs. And on account of the general provision of fair use which was newly established on the copyright law, the permitted scope of reverse engineering has been broadened further to apply. In the process of black box analysis including memory dump, either temporary or permanent reproduction may take place, and thus the subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) of the copyright law put a restriction onto the author’s right with regard to the reproduction accordingly. As this provision restricts the right of reproduction only, it can hardly make the basis of decompilation of program codes. This provision can put a restriction on the author's property right under the following conditions: (1)the person having a justifiable right to use a copy of a computer program; 저작권법상 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링의 문제는 저작자의 권리의 보호와 저작물의 공정한 이용을 조화시키는 관점에서 접근하고, 저작권법상 리버스 엔지니어링 관련 규정들의 해석 및 적용은 저작권법의 궁극적인 목적인 “문화 및 관련 산업의 향상발전”에 기초해야 한다. 그리고 지금까지 한국에서의 연구들은 대부분 법률 규정의 해석론에 그치고 있기 때문에, 기존의 논의를 참고하여 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링에 관한 법률 규정을 분석하고 그 문제점들을 구체적으로 검토할 필요가 있다. 이러한 전제 하에, 이 논문에서는 저작권법상 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링의 허용 범위, 관련 법률 규정의 문제점 및 개정안을 제시한다. 이 논문에서 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링은 매뉴얼의 분석, 메모리 덤프를 포함하는 블랙박스 분석, 디스어셈블리 및 디컴파일(한국 저작권법상 프로그램코드역분석) 등을 통하여, 목적코드 형태의 컴퓨터프로그램을 조사하고 분석함에 의해 해당 프로그램에서 아이디어와 원리를 포함한 정보를 추출하고 개발 원리를 파악하는 행위 또는 과정을 말한다. 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링은 산업계에서 관행적으로 행하여 온 것으로, 컴퓨터프로그램의 개선, 오류수정, 상호운용성의 확보 등을 위해 이용되어 컴퓨터프로그램 관련 기술 및 산업의 발전에 기여해 왔다. 그러나 컴퓨터프로그램의 개발에는 상당히 많은 시간과 비용이 필요한 데 비해 리버스 엔지니어링에 의한 분석에는 비교적 적은 시간과 비용이 필요하므로, 리버스 엔지니어링은 컴퓨터프로그램을 개발한 기업들에게 심각한 문제이기도 했다. 이에 따라 저작권자들은 저작권법, 계약 등을 통해 리버스 엔지니어링을 방지하고자 했다. 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링의 저작권법상 정당성 및 허용 여부는 1980년대부터 미국, 일본, 유럽연합의 회원국, 한국 등에서 중요한 문제였다. 컴퓨터프로그램 관련 산업계는 이러한 리버스 엔지니어링의 문제를 두고 자신들의 이해관계에 따라 찬성과 반대의 입장을 전개하였다. 이에 대해 각국의 정부 및 법원은 자국의 컴퓨터프로그램 관련 기술 및 산업의 발전의 전제하에, 일정한 요건에 따라 저작권법상에 리버스 엔지니어링을 허용하는 규정을 두거나 판례에서 이를 인정하였다. 미국은 공정이용의 원칙에 의해 리버스 엔지니어링을 허용하였고, 유럽연합은 “컴퓨터프로그램의 법적 보호에 관한 1991년 5월 14일의 유럽 공동체 지침”(이 지침은 “컴퓨터 프로그램의 법적 보호에 관한 2009년 4월 23일의 유럽의회 및 이사회 지침”(이하 “EU 컴퓨터프로그램 지침(2009)”이라 한다)에 의해 대체되었다)에서 일정한 요건 하에 컴퓨터프로그램의 저작재산권을 제한함에 의해 블랙박스 분석과 디컴파일을 허용하였다. 저작권법은 컴퓨터프로그램의 저작자에게 복제, 배포, 2차적저작물작성 등에 관한 독점배타적인 권리를 부여한다. 따라서 복제와 2차적저작물작성이 저작권법이나 저작권자에 의한 허용 범위를 넘어가면, 이에 대해 저작권자는 저작권 침해를 주장할 수 있다. 리버스 엔지니어링의 반대론자는 이러한 저작권법의 원리를 이용하여 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링을 금지하고자 하였다. 그러나 리버스 엔지니어링의 찬성론자는 리버스 엔지니어링을 통해 컴퓨터프로그램에 포함된 아이디어 및 원리를 알아내는 것을 저작권법에 의해 금지할 수 없다고 생각했다. 더욱이 리버스 엔지니어링 과정에서 일어나는 컴퓨터프로그램의 복제는 최종적인 컴퓨터프로그램을 개발하기 전의 중간적인 것이므로, 이런 복제에 대해 저작권자가 권리를 행사할 수 없다고 생각했다. 저작권법은 리버스 엔지니어링 과정에서의 복제 및 변환 행위를 저작권의 침해로 전제하고, 일정한 요건 하에 복제 및 변환에 대한 저작재산권을 제한함에 의해 리버스 엔지니어링을 허용했다. 그리고 현행 저작권법에 신설된공정이용의 일반규정에 의해 리버스 엔지니어링의 허용범위가 넓어졌다. 메모리 덤프를 포함하는 블랙박스 분석 과정에서는 일시적 또는 영구적 복제가 일어나므로 저작권법 제101조의3 제1항 제6호는 복제에 대한 저작재산권을 제한하였다. 이 규정은 복제에 대한 권리만을 제한하므로 프로그램코드 역분석의 근거 규정은 될 수 없다. 이 규정에 의한 저작재산권 제한이 성립되려면, 정당한 권한에 의하여 프로그램을 이용하는 자일 것, 컴퓨터프로그램의 아이디어・ 원리의 확인을 위한 프로그램의 기능을 조사・ 연구・ 시험하기 위한 목적일 것, 프로그램을 이용 중인 때일 것, 저작재산권자의 이익을 부당하게 해치지 않을 것 등의 요건을 충족해야 한다. 그런데 세 번째 요건은 EU 컴퓨터프로그램 지침(2009)의 관련 규정에서의 요건에 비해 단순하게 기술되어, 이 지침의 요건과는 다르게 해석될 수 있다. 그리고 디스어셈블리 및 디컴파일 과정에서는 복제 또는 변환이 일어나므로, 제2조 제34호는 프로그램코드역분석 행위를 복제 또는 변환으로 정의하였고, 제101조의4는 복제 및 변환에 대한 저작재산권을 제한함에 의해 프로그램코드역분석을 허용하였다. 제2조 제34호는 프로그램코드역분석이 상호운용성(저작권법상 호환을 말한다)에 필요한 정보를 얻을 목적일 것을 허용요건으로서 규정하였고, 제101조의4 제1항은 프로그램코드역분석의 허용요건으로서 적법한 행위자일 것, 상호운용성에 필요한 정보 획득의 비용이성과 프로그램코드역분석의 불가피성이 있을 것, 상호운용성에 필요한 부분에 한할 것 등을 규정하였다. 그리고 제101조의4 제2항은 프로그램코드역분석에 의해 얻은 정보의 이용요건으로서, 상호운용성 목적일 것, 표현이 실질적으로 유사한 프로그램의 개발・ 제작・ 판매가 아닐 것, 프로그램의 저작권을 침해하는 행위에의 이용이 아닐 것 등을 규정하였다. 그런데 이 규정의 문제점은, 호환이라는 용어 대신 상호운용성을 사용해야 한다는 점, 정의 규정에서 행위의 목적에 의해 프로그램코드역분석의 허용범위를 제한하는 것은 실효성 없을 수 있다는 점, 변환이라는 용어는 저작재산권의 하나의 유형으로 정의하기 어렵다는 점, 상호운용성에 필요한 정보의 획득이 불가피한 경우라고 기술한 것과 그 해석이 다를 수 있다는 점, 제101조의4 제2항 제1호의 구조적 문제점으로 인하여 프로그램코드역분석 결과로 얻은 정보를 제3자에게 제공해도 되는지 여부가 불명확하다는 점 등이다. 따라서 문제가 되는 부분은 EU 컴퓨터프로그램 지침(2009)과 미국 저작권법의 관련 규정들을 참고하여 해석하거나, 적절하게 개정하는 것이 바람직할 것으로 생각한다. 저작권법 제35조의3은 공정이용 일반규정이다. 그런데 미국에서 발전된 공정이용의 원칙은 “형평법상의 합리성의 원칙”에 따라 공정이용의 여부를 판단한다. 이에 따라 공정이용의 원칙에 부합하면 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링은 침해가 아닌 공정한 이용이다. 이런 점에서, 이 규정은 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링을 저작권의 침해로 전제하고 특정한 요건 하에 그 권리를 제한한 규정들과 다르다. 따라서 공정이용의 일반규정에 따르면, 저작재산권의 제한 규정에 부합하는지 않더라도 컴퓨터프로그램의 이용이 공정한지 여부를 판단할 수 있다. 저작권법 제35조의3은 제1항에 베른협약(문학・ 예술 저작물의 보호를 위한 베른협약) 및 WTO/TRIPs 협정(무역 관련 지적재산권에 관한 협정)의 3단계 테스트를 공정이용의 기준으로 제시하고, 제2조에 미국 저작권법 제107조의 네 가지 요건을 공정이용의 구체적 판단 기준으로 제시한다. 따라서 상기 협정의 3단계 테스트에 합치한다는 전제하에, 제35조의2 제2항의 네 가지 요건을 충족하면 상호운용성 이외의 목적으로 행한 리버스 엔지니어링도 허용될 수 있다. 저작권법에는 기술적 보호조치의 무력화 금지 규정이 있는데, 이 규정은 무력화 금지의 예외로서 상호운용성을 목적으로 한 프로그램코드역분석을 규정했다. 그리고 제101조의3 제1항 제6호, 제101조의4 및 제35조의3의 법적 성격은 강행규정이므로, 계약에 의한 리버스 엔지니어링의 금지는 무효이다. 저작권법상 컴퓨터프로그램의 리버스 엔지니어링 관련 규정들은 컴퓨터프로그램 관련 기술 및 산업의 발전을 촉진하는 방향에서 해석하고 개선해야 한다. 이런 점에서, 제101조의4 규정을 엄격하게 해석하더라도, 제35조의3에 의해 프로그램코드역분석의 허용 범위를 확대할 필요가 있다. 그리고 프로그램코드역분석에 관한 제2조 제34호 및 제101조의4 규정에 관하여 앞서 제시한 문제점들에 대해 법률의 개정이 필요하다.| Problems commonly occurring in reverse engineering of a computer program should be oriented to approach of individual solutions from the perspective of balancing the protection of the rights of authors and the promotion of fair use of works, and furthermore the interpretation and application of relevant provisions under the copyright law should be founded upon the ultimate goals : the improvement and development of culture and related industries. And as the studies hitherto conducted of this sort seem to have hovered mostly around the theoretical interpretations on the legal provisions themselves, it leaves something more desired to delve deeper into the provisions concerned with reference to the established discussions and then address the problems with its regulations in a more material way on the basis thereby. On these assumptions, this study suggests a permitted scope of reverse engineering of a computer program under copyright law, problems of related provisions, and proposal for amendment of the related provisions, etc. The term ‘reverse engineering’ in the study herein indicates the behavior and process of apprehending the principle of development and of extracting the varied information, inclusive of the ideas and functional concepts at the computer program employed, by analyzing and investigating computer program in the form of object code through the disassembly and decompilation (of program codes particularly under the Korean copyright law), black box analysis with memory dump included, and manual analysis. Reverse engineering of a computer program, customarily carried out in the related industries, has served for interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, error correction, and program improvement, etc, so that it could contribute to fostering industrial development and associated computer program technologies. Whilst it took a considerable amount of time and money for the computer program development, the analysis by way of reverse engineering requires relatively less time and money to be undertaken, which seems to pose challenges on enterprises that develop a computer program. Therefore, they have tried to prevent reverse engineering by the copyright law and the contract. It has been a matter of substance in the U.S.(United States of America), Japan, the member states of EU(European Union), and Korea as well in the 1980s onwards whether to justify or permit reverse engineering under the copyright law. The industries involved have debated on reverse engineering depending upon their own interest and assertion. To this cause, the government and court in each country, with a prerequisite of developing domestic computer program technologies and industries, commenced either to newly establish provisional institution in copyright law under certain conditions or to authorize its utilization in cases involving reverse engineering. The U.S., by fair use principle, permitted reverse engineering of a computer program, whilst the EU gave a permission to black box analysis and decompilation by way of confining the author’s property rights in computer program under certain conditions at the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (, which was thereafter replaced with the Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (hereinafter called “EU Computer Program Directive(2009)”)). The copyright law authorizes the exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and the production of derivative works to the owner of author’s property rights of computer programs. Therefore, if the reproduction and the production of derivative works would exceed a permitted scope under the copyright law or by the copyright owner, then the author might be entitled to claiming his or her rights against such an infringement. Opponents of reverse engineering have attempted to forbid reverse engineering by utilizing this framework of principle in the copyright law. Meanwhile, proponents of reverse engineering have thought it improper to forbid the discovery of ideas and functional concepts contained in computer program by the use of reverse engineering technologies under the copyright law. Moreover, since reproduction of computer program by reverse engineering is considered something interim prior to completing final development, this sort of reproduction does not constitute a violation against which the author may be authorized to raise a claim. The copyright law, though based on the premise that the reproduction and translation made in the course of reverse engineering are copyright infringement, has partially permitted reverse engineering by way of confining the author’s property rights in computer programs. And on account of the general provision of fair use which was newly established on the copyright law, the permitted scope of reverse engineering has been broadened further to apply. In the process of black box analysis including memory dump, either temporary or permanent reproduction may take place, and thus the subparagraph 6 of article 101-3(1) of the copyright law put a restriction onto the author’s right with regard to the reproduction accordingly. As this provision restricts the right of reproduction only, it can hardly make the basis of decompilation of program codes. This provision can put a restriction on the author's property right under the following conditions: (1)the person having a justifiable right to use a copy of a computer program; (2)the purpose to research, study, and test the functions of a program to verify the ideas and functional concepts constituting the basis of the program; (3)it is in the course of using the computer program