Article 92 of the Copyright Act does not punish those who prepare to commit, attempt to commit or commit negligently, so objectively it cannot be constituted without a public performance as mentioned. If merely recording the musical work in the karaoke machine without anyone requesting and singing the song would constitute public performance, it would essentially include those who only prepare or attempt to commit Article 92 of the Copyright Act. Obviously, this punishment is not in accordance with the Act. Although it is difficult for economic right holders to seize other’s public performances by the karaoke machine on the spot, this difficulty could be resolved by enabling the karaoke machine to record the time and number of times the song is requested. Therefore, even though the complainant has difficulty to gather evidence, it is hard to say that the basic principles of human right protection-the presumption of innocence- has been violated. And the leaderboard of requesting songs listed by karaoke operators sometimes advertises for music companies, or creates a buzz to appeal to customers. Besides, many leaderboards are fake. The authenticity of the mentioned “Taiwanese leaderboard” is obviously in doubt, and it is difficult to infer that the disputed song has been requested and performed publicly.

Public Performance, Karaoke Machine, Song Request