The IPKat's Japanese friend and colleague Kaori Minami has just sent him this little piece of fascinating news from Japan. Writes Kaori:
"The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC) on 27 February 2009, having found that JASRAC's method of comprehensive collection of royalties from broadcasters was a form of private monopolisation prohibited by the Antimonopoly Act (a brief English translation of the Order is obtainable from the JFTC’s website here)
JASRAC, a Japanese collecting society dealing with musical works, has almost a 100% market share. It was the only collecting society for musical works until 2001, when a new law was enacted to reduce the requirements for operating a copyright management business in order to enable other collecting societies to enter the market. e-license Inc was the only company to go into this line of business with regard to broadcasting, but it has almost no such business at present.
According to the Order, all broadcasters are under an agreement with JASRAC, which is employing a method of comprehensive collection. By this method, a royalty is calculated by multiplying broadcasting business income by a fixed rate (1.5%). The actual number of musical works used by each broadcaster is not reported or reflected in the calculation. Broadcasters can pay the royalty on an individual use basis, but no broadcaster does so in that it is far more expensive than the comprehensive method. As a result, the total amount of royalty charged to the broadcaster will increase if it uses the musical works managed by other collecting societies and has to pay additional royalties to them. Although e-license managed musical works which were supposed to be popular, broadcasters rarely used them to avoid paying additional royalties.
JASRAC said in a press statement that they could hardly accept the Order. They are going to file an opposition and take every possible measure to against it. They basically say that the Order is wrong as it does not suggest any alternative collecting method, and amendment of the current method is not feasible by itself unless all the broadcasters agree to it. JASRAC also reportedly says that the current comprehensive method is convenient for broadcasters because they can avoid the time and cost of counting the number of broadcast musical works.
It is understandable to some extent that the current method is beneficial to users. JASRAC’s dominance was accepted for over 60 years, so it may not be easy for a competitor to enter into the market. Nevertheless, it would not be healthy to have no competitor in the market, and the Order may contribute to the transparency of the licensing business in Japan".
The IPKat says, we've been so preoccupied with the battle between collecting societies and competition authorities in Europe for so long that we might easily think this is a purely European problem. Manifestly it is not. Merpel asks, how seriously can arguments based on convenience be raised in an age of white-hot technology in which it should be the simplest thing to have all relevant broadcast material logged, timed and weighed out in order to provide precise user data?
Teach yourself Japanese
here
The IPKat has learnt from ZDNet that ISPs and copyright holders in Japan have reached an agreement by which Japan’s largest four ISPs will ban flagrant copyright infringers. Copyright owners will peruse lists of IP addresses downloading their works, and will then send that lists to the ISPs, who will warn the owners of the IP addresses and, if their behaviour doesn’t change, ban them. ZDNet claims there would be no privacy concerns because copyright owners would only need to look out for their own copyright works.
The IPKat says make no mistake, file sharing of copyright works is very naughty. However, he finds the idea of an agreement on withdrawing internet services stitched up between copyright owners and ISPs rather worrying. Surely it’s for copyright holders to enforce their own copyright and for ISPs to provide internet service unless their under a legal requirement to act as a police force as well?
Info World has just informed the IPKat that Switzerland has warned Logistep, a company that tracks file-sharers for copyright infringements, that its tactics violate Swiss telecommunication law. Under Swiss law, the identity of a subscriber to an ISP can only be revealed for the purpose of a criminal case, not a civil one, since the IP address of a computer controlled by a subscriber is considered "personal" information. To protect its position, Logistep has asked Swiss 
prosecutors to open criminal cases. A civil action is then initiated against the file sharer while the criminal case is ongoing. At this point, it seems that prosecutors usually drop the criminal case and leave everything to the civil action. Logistep has until 9 February to respond to the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner.
Left: starting young - Logistep training its staff on the latest dodging techniques
The IPKat concedes that Logistep's tactics so far have been a neat way of dodging the Swiss telecoms laws. But file-sharing is a neat way of escaping the likelihood of an action for copyright infringement and that's also a sort of dodge.
Meanwhile, the IPKat's friend and fellow blogger Tomasz Rychlicki has sent him this link to an item from Sophos about the first arrest of a computer virus writer in Japan -- for copyright infringement. According to this news item:
"Police in Kyoto have arrested three men, who are said to have been involved in a plot to infect users of the P2P file-sharing network Winny with a Trojan horse that displayed images of popular anime characters while wiping music and movie files. The malware, which has been dubbed Harada in media reports, is believed to be related to the Pirlames Trojan horse which Sophos reported intercepting in Japan last year.
According to Japanese media reports, the three men have admitted their involvement in the crime. Masato Nakatsuji, a 24-year-old student, is said to have written the malware, while 39-year-old Shoji Sakai and Katsuhisha Ikema, 35, are said to have distributed the malicious code via Winny.
The Pirlames Trojan, which is believed to be related to the arrests in Japan, was distributed via Winny and displayed cartoon images.
"Normally you would expect malware writers to be arrested for breaking into computers with their code or damaging data, but in this case he is accused of breaching copyright because he used cartoon graphics without permission in his Trojan horse. Because this is the first arrest in Japan of a virus writer it's likely to generate a lot of attention and there will be many people watching to see the outcome," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos. "Malware is truly a global menace, impacting on every user of the internet, and it is good to see police around the world doing their bit to tackle the problem." ..."
Noting that the effect of this virus was to erase shared files, the IPKat can't help wondering about the motivation of the virus writers. Were they just seeing what they could achieve, or did they have some inherent moral or economic ground upon which to oppose file-sharing?
The IPKat has learnt of a Japanese copyright decision from
Mainichi Daily News. The Tokyo District Court has ruled that a company which sold cheap copies of certain of Chaplin’s films infringed his copyright, which is still valid until 2015. The decision was taken under the old copyright act, which grants individuals rights until 38 years after their deaths.
The IPKat suspects from the report (but isn’t quite sure) that the novelty comes from a dispute over whether the old copyright law applies (all guidance from readers would be appreciated). He’s also not quite sure what the rationale is behind 38 years post-mortem, rather than any other period.
Following a collaboration between the Japanese and US Patent Offices, which started in July last year, the UK Intellectual Property Office will be starting a similar "Patent Prosecution Highway" pilot programme with the JPO for one year as from July 2007.
The stated aim of the project is to "improve the quality of patents and the efficiency of processing applications at both offices". Applicants who have received an examination report from either office will be able to request accelerated examination for a corresponding application at the other office, provided they submit search and examination reports. For UK applicants, this may result in grant typically two years earlier than would normally be the case.
The IPKat wonders how many applicants will actually be wanting to take part in this worthwhile project. In his limited experience, applicants tend to want to delay the expensive process of getting a Japanese patent for as long as possible, not to do both at once. We shall wait and see what happens.
Does anyone know how the USPTO/JPO project is going?
More information is available from the UKIPO, JPO and USPTO.
The IPKat's Japanese friend and colleague Kaori Minami has just sent him this little piece of fascinating news from Japan. Writes Kaori:
