Multimedia playback devices commonly known as “set-up boxes” need only be connected to a television and the internet to view channels or programs, thus offering ease of operation. TV operators and telecommunications operators alike have accordingly favored this convenience in delivering legitimate, paid viewing services to consumers. 

 

However, beginning in the mid-2010s, another category of similar devices emerged in the market, promoted as offering subscription-free viewing. Through either built in or separately installed applications, consumers were able to watch various television channels, programs, and audiovisual works that would otherwise require a paid subscription. These set-up boxes typically entice consumers to access unauthorized, illegal programs through sales pitches such as “one-time purchase, lifetime free access,” leading to widespread infringement of the copyrights held by television channel operators.

 

To fill the regulatory gap that then existed with respect to this type of infringement, the Copyright Act was amended in May 2019 to add Subparagraph 8, Paragraph 1, Article 87 (hereinafter “Set-Up Box Provision”). Under this provision, an operator is deemed to have infringed copyright property rights where, knowing that works broadcast or transmitted publicly by another person infringe copyright property rights, the operator nonetheless intends to provide the public access to such works by the Internet, and to gain benefit therefrom, by performing any of the following actions: (1) providing the public with computer programs that have aggregated the Internet Protocol Addresses of such works; (2) providing direction, assistance, or preset paths to the public to use computer programs in the preceding item; or (3) manufacturing, importing, or selling equipment with built-in computer programs of the first item.

 

Notably, the legislative reasons for this provision specifically state that where a set-up box has no embedded or preset program links, and does not instruct users to install illegal audiovisual programs, it falls outside the scope of the provision under the principle of “technology neutrality.” This carve-out has led some vendors to market their products as “clean version” set-up boxes, meaning barebones devices shipped without any pre-loaded illegal audiovisual application, as a means of circumventing infringement liability.

 

It is worth considering whether the “clean version” claim is truly sufficient to exclude copyright infringement liability, or merely serves as a guise for evading legal responsibility. In this regard, the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (hereinafter the “IP Court”) has recently reached markedly different conclusions in two civil cases concerning copyright infringement by “clean version” set-up boxes. 

 

Both cases involved the same ten plaintiffs, all well-known television channel operators, asserting infringement claims regarding the same model of set-up box. Yet because the conduct and degree of active assistance of the defendants differed in the two cases, the outcomes diverged significantly, making a comparative examination particularly illuminating.

 

In IP Court Civil Judgment 114-Min-Zhu-Su-Zi No. 83 dated May 29, 2026 (hereinafter “the Present Case”), the plaintiffs alleged that when the defendant company sold the set-up box at issue (hereinafter “Disputed Set-Up Box”), it published an advertisement featuring a channel listing claiming access to Taiwanese cable TV and over two hundred channels (hereinafter “Disputed Advertisement”). On this basis, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, together with an unidentified manufacturer in Mainland China, jointly infringed the plaintiffs' right of public transmission, and further alleged that the defendant's conduct simultaneously constituted infringement of copyright under the Set-Up Box Provision. The defendant raised a “clean version” defense, asserting that the product it sold was a barebones device without any illegal program installed, and that the advertisement itself stated that “software must be downloaded and installed separately,” so no infringement had occurred.

 

The court in the Present Case found that the plaintiffs had not actually obtained and verified the Disputed Set-Up Box sold by the defendant, but instead relied on the Disputed Advertisement, notarized materials from the Prior Case (as defined below), and the guilty criminal judgment in the Prior Case to infer the defendant's infringement in the Present Case solely on the basis of an identical model number and the advertised channel listing. The defendant, by contrast, produced rebuttal evidence including purchase invoices, licenses, and internal guidance documents, and argued that the screenshot of the advertised channel listing submitted by the plaintiffs bore no date, making it impossible to confirm whether it reflected the defendant's website content after the legislative addition of the Set-Up Box Provision.

 

The court found that, since the plaintiffs had not obtained the set-up box actually sold by the defendant to ascertain its internal software configuration, it was difficult to infer on this basis that the Disputed Set-Up Box shared the same functionality as the infringing product in the Prior Case, and therefore no joint infringement by the defendant and the manufacturer could be established.

 

Furthermore, the court found that the Disputed Advertisement had already clearly stated that “software must be downloaded and installed separately,” and that the plaintiffs had failed to produce concrete evidence that the defendant had directed or assisted in installation of illegal software, or preset a path for downloading the same. Accordingly, the court found it difficult to conclude that the defendant's conduct satisfied the elements of the Set-Up Box Provision; the defendant's “clean version” defense was thus accepted by the court, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed in their entirety.

 

By contrast, in Judgment 113-Min-Zhu-Shang-Zi No. 8 dated September 4, 2025 (the “Prior Case”), the IP Court reached a markedly different conclusion. Although the defendant in the Prior Case likewise raised a “clean version” defense, the court rejected it. The court found that, although the Disputed Set-Up Box did not embed any illegal programs directly, it had been shipped from the factory with root mode already enabled (jailbroken) by the manufacturer and usage restrictions already lifted. In addition, the device came with a preset path for launching the relevant illegal program, as well as a QR code linking to overseas customer service. Accordingly, consumers could install illegal programs simply by following a sequence of prompts or seeking guidance from customer service.

 

Moreover, the advertising materials of the defendant in the Prior Case actively enticed consumers using terms such as “jailbroken root enhanced edition.” In addition, numerous installation tutorial links circulated online, circumstances which the defendant in the Prior Case should have known of but deliberately declined to investigate. In addition, the plaintiffs in the Prior Case had actually obtained the Disputed Set-Up Box and engaged a notary public to conduct an actual personal-experience notarization. This process fully documented the operational path for downloading and installing the illegal program, together with a record of customer service personnel actually responding to consumer inquiries. The supply chain could also be traced back to a direct partnership with the manufacturer. Based on this pattern of active involvement and the sufficiency of direct evidence, the court found that the defendant in the Prior Case had satisfied the elements of the Set-Up Box Provision and was deemed to have committed copyright infringement.

 

Comparing the two judgments reveals that a “clean version” label alone does not provide immunity against infringement liability for set-up box vendors. Rather, courts will look beyond surface labeling and comprehensively weigh the specific circumstances of each case, including the vendor's conduct, the degree of assistance provided to consumers in obtaining illegal software, marketing language (such as “jailbroken version”), and whether customer service guidance or preset installation links were provided, in determining whether the elements of infringement under the Set-Up Box Provision are satisfied.

 

Furthermore, at the enforcement level, although prosecutors and police may employ technical measures such as domain seizure or suspension of DNS resolution to curb sources of such copyright infringement, vendors that adopt operating models such as overseas customer service or clean-version hardware to evade liability may still create considerable challenges in identifying the responsible party and gathering evidence. Resolution of this difficulty awaits the continued development of more effective judicial and administrative response strategies.