A shocking bombshell has exploded in Taiwan's legal technology circle. The startup Lawsnote was sued for copyright infringement by the veteran legal database provider "Lawbank", and after three years of defense, the court's first instance ruling on June 26 sentenced the founders Guo Rongren to 4 years in prison, Xie Fuya to 2 years in prison, and ordered a civil compensation of NT$154.5 million.
As soon as the news broke, the legal and startup circles were in an uproar, and public opinion was divided. This case is not just a simple copyright lawsuit, but more like a judicial precedent storm about the boundaries of public data and innovation.
Founder Guo Rongren also shared his heavy-hearted thoughts after the verdict. Let's first look at the background of this case.
Background of Both Companies and Litigation Claims
Lawsnote, established in 2016, bills itself as the "Google of the legal world", dedicated to using artificial intelligence and big data to improve legal search and application experience. Its products cover free and subscription services, and have been deeply appreciated by young legal professionals.
Lawbank, the plaintiff, is a veteran in Taiwan's legal information industry, established in 1991. It has long been contracted to build government legal regulation systems, including the "National Legislation Database" and "Judicial Yuan Judgment Query System", playing the role of a "maintainer" of government legal information for many years.
Lawbank sued Lawsnote for using web crawlers to automatically extract hundreds of thousands of data from websites like "Lawbank Legal Network", including legal evolution, content, attachments, and storing them in their own database for commercial profit purposes.
In 2021, the New Taipei District Prosecutor's Office raided Lawsnote's cloud and hard drives, discovering up to 500,000 potentially infringing data. The prosecutor formally indicted Lawsnote in 2022, accusing them of violating Article 91 of the Copyright Act for reproduction and Article 359 of the Criminal Code for obstructing computer use (illegally obtaining electromagnetic records).
The court determined that:
- Lawbank's legal evolution and article editing have the nature of "compilation works" and are protected by copyright;
- Lawsnote's mass acquisition and internal storage through crawlers exceed "fair use";
- The scale of infringement and commercial purpose make the case serious.
Therefore, the founders Guo Rongren was sentenced to 4 years in prison, Xie Fuya to 2 years, the company must compensate Lawbank NT$154.5 million, and pay a fine of NT$1.5 million.
The first-instance verdict sparked discussion about whether legal data is "copyright-free" under web crawling, dividing public opinion. The Lawsnote founders also expressed their thoughts on the evening of the 27th.
Lawsnote Founders: What Law Do We Want?
After the first-instance verdict, Lawsnote founder Guo Rongren posted a long article on June 27 evening, painfully questioning the court's logic and social values: "What kind of law do we really want?"
Guo's post pointed out that Lawbank has long been a contractor for government legal databases, with many legal systems maintained by courts. When government agencies upload legal changes, they must operate and maintain them through Lawbank. Lawsnote used crawlers to gather publicly available legal information in Taiwan, cross-referencing to verify content accuracy. Lawbank was originally in the crawling target, but when they discovered random additions, Lawsnote stopped extracting content.
Guo Rongren regretted that the judge determined that merely using crawlers to extract the court company's "publicly available legal data" constitutes the crime of obstructing computer use under Article 359: illegally obtaining electromagnetic records of another's computer or related equipment. Facing a heavy sentence of four years, Guo directly stated it was absurd, as the verdict leads to two conclusions:
- Using crawlers to extract data might constitute the crime of obstructing computer use
- Lawbank owns the copyright to the "legal content", "legal evolution", and "legal attachments" of the national legal database
Guo Rongren said, "The government's national legal database and Lawbank's legal network data are essentially the same, but the copyright belongs to Lawbank? And the court's view that web crawlers might constitute the crime of obstructing computer use means that all future crawlers could be illegal, and even every copy-paste action on the internet might be considered unauthorized electromagnetic record acquisition!"
He pointed out that most of Taiwan's government legal information still heavily relies on specific vendors like Lawbank for maintenance. Lawbank, as a long-term government contract winner, has a "legal platform" and "government database" content almost identical, but the court's determination of its full copyright would essentially "privatize" public legal information.
Even more shocking is the court's use of Criminal Code Article 359, treating automated copy-paste crawlers as "unauthorized electromagnetic record acquisition", making crawler use a potential criminal act. Guo directly stated: "This essentially declares that in the future, every program developer, every internet copy-paste action, could lead to imprisonment."
He lamented: "Reality hit me hard. A four-year sentence, a hundred million in compensation made me understand that establishing a startup in Taiwan is more miserable than being in a fraud group." This statement sparked widespread online discussion, with reactions ranging from anger to outrage, and some even forming support groups.
Supporters argue that the data used in the Seven Laws case originally belonged to the "public domain" and should be freely accessible by everyone, rather than monopolized by a few companies.
Illegal Copy and Paste? Civil Society Calls for Support of Seven Laws
This case sparked legal, technological, and startup industry attention and debate within just two days, with many citizens initiating support and setting up a support website. Supporters believe that laws should protect creators' rights while also encouraging innovative use of public data (such as legal regulations in this case). In the era of rapid information technology advancement, the judiciary should establish clear and reasonable "public data usage guidelines" to prevent startups from entering gray areas and facing severe penalties.
This case highlights the copyright legal issues faced by many information technology companies using automated programs and AI models. In Taiwan, where legislation has not yet caught up to modify or create new specialized laws, it is indeed worth considering and promoting legislative needs.
Although the first-instance ruling is not the final decision, its impact has already transcended the law itself. This copyright judgment controversy has opened up the core contemporary issue of data ownership in Taiwanese society: Can the law's value protect existing interests while maintaining innovation space?
Moreover, web crawling is a very old programming technique. Facing the arrival of the AI era, if laws continue to measure data, works, and creation using outdated tools and concepts, the next startup like Seven Laws may choose not to be born in Taiwan.
