Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Storing Personal Music Online Is Illegal In Japan

Posted by kdawson on from the bad-precedent dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A decision in Tokyo District Court could have implications in Japan for online services that let users store files, if any music files are involved. The court case pitted JASRAC, the Japanese organization that collects fees for public music performances, against Image City, whose MYUTA service lets users employ a central server to store songs from their own CDs, to play on their own phones. The Tokyo District Court handed down a ruling declaring Image City guilty of copyright infringement (Google translation). Despite the music being stored strictly for personal use, the ruling reasoned that the act of uploading music to a central server owned by a company is the equivalent of distributing music to that company. This has implications for other services such as Yahoo! Briefcase and Apple's .Mac, which could mean these companies are guilty of copyright infringement if any of their users in Japan store music in their accounts for personal use. Here are some additional details on JASRAC's activities and methods." Neither article talks about possible appeals, or about how strong a precedent this case sets in the Japanese legal system.

15 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Which is why encryption should be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the data is encrypted, and they don't have the key, you haven't distributed anything to them.

    1. Re:Which is why encryption should be used by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Presumably, given that they didn't have the encryption key in the first instance, having an encryption key in the second that begins deletion is irrelevant. It's still illegal to destroy evidence. Instead of being thrown in jail for what they thought you did originally, they'll just throw you in for contempt and destruction of evidence.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    2. Re:Which is why encryption should be used by PoliTech · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "they'll just start pulling your fingernails out till you cough up the real password."

      If it gets to the point that you will be tortured by Johnny Law for your password, then you have a lot more to worry about than a few MP3s on your hard disk.

    3. Re:Which is why encryption should be used by trewornan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since that's pretty much what's happening at Guantanamo then I guess we have a lot more to worry about than a few MP3s on our hard disks.

    4. Re:Which is why encryption should be used by doughrama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it was argued that MP3.com was guilty of "Making mechanical copies for commercial use without permission from the copyright owner (taken from wikipedia.)" And it was ruled that way. The court didn't rule Fair Use wasn't a defense, they essentially ruled it wasn't Fair Use.

      I agree(d) with the courts decision, though I don't like it. MP3.com was using another companies product for commercial use, lost the argument that they were simply facilitating personal use. Bottom line, a for profit company was commercially using a product which they did not purchase a commercial license for.

      I don't agree with the courts decision regarding Image City, though technically correct. In the US this could probably be covered via a common carrier argument. It's surprising to me that Japan doesn't have some sort of provision like this. Or maybe it wasn't argued well.

  2. This is fubar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So I rent an apartment, and I store some of my music CDs in there, and then the RIAA sues my landlord for copyright infringement?

    If I rent storage space online for my own personal use, I can put anything I want in there, including backup copies of my legally owned music collection.

    Anything less, and my fair use rights are being violated.

    1. Re:This is fubar by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ha! I believe copying whatever the hell we like is a natural right that everyone has.. and copyright is the law that takes that right away from us - apparently for the betterment of society. I don't think it is the choice, but even if it was, I'd rather have more freedom than have more creative works, if that's the choice to be made.

      Unfortunately, every time I get on the soap box, a vocal minority comes and calls me names like "pirate".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:This is fubar by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      apparently for the betterment of society

      Huh? Are corporations already considered "society"? Do you know something I don't know yet?

      Unfortunately, every time I get on the soap box, a vocal minority comes and calls me names like "pirate".

      My parents always said I shouldn't give too much about what other kids call me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. "Online"? by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Online?

    Er. Okay. What is "online" - does this mean on a server somewhere on the vast internet which you've purchased? Or would your personal computer - which is "online" - count?

    "[..] the ruling reasoned that the act of uploading music to a central server owned by a company is the equivalent of distributing music to that company." Uploading music to a central server. So when the user has a networked place to store files, would this qualify? Assuming you were the owner or a business which had one other employee, if you uploaded your music to your server for your business, would this be a violation?

    So many questions.. so many loopholes.. such broad legal decisions.

  4. Good to know by pavera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That the US isn't the only country with a totally screwed legal system and idiots for judges!

  5. Those wacky americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Shifting copyright works? bad.
    Kidnapping and torturing people? ok.

  6. There has to be more to this by NMerriam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about online backup services? They're growing in popularity as bandwidth comes down in price. I have 200 gigs of music included in my encrypted remote backup set. Nobody can get at it but me, it is just random data as far as the host is concerned.

    I can't imagine a nation as technically literate as Japan would essentially make it illegal for people to do remote backup (since 99.9% of people have SOME music on their hard drive, if only the windows startup sound or whatever other audio files come with your OS and applications).

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  7. Encryption is irrelevant by Nymz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the data is encrypted, and they don't have the key, you haven't distributed anything to them.

    Encryption is simply a container, it may be locked but when you tranfer the container, you also transfer the contents.
    1. Re:Encryption is irrelevant by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That (lack of) logic would completely destroy the business of safety deposit boxes.

    2. Re:Encryption is irrelevant by BigDogCH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If you don't bother to find out what's inside before looking after it and it turns out to be full of counterfeit money, should you really be unaccountable because you just held on to the safe?"

       Yes, you should be unaccountable. It isn't your safe, it isn't your contents. This is just like renting a storage shed. Should the owner be liable because someone was storing counterfeit money in their shed?

      "accepting locked containers without asking the contents makes you at least partly liable for the contents because you have been reckless as to whether or not they will be harmful or illegal."

       I am sorry, but this is exactly the sort of logic that destroys our civil liberties. By this logic, the ISP's are liable for the data I send over their networks, the United States Postal Service is liable for the contents of anything illegal that is sent through them, the gun manufacturers are liable for the people who use them maliciously, and a landlord is liable for the plants growing in the basement of the house he is renting out.

      This ideology is spreading like wildfire in the US, disgustingly. A landowner is liable for injuries sustained by trespassers, we cannot peacefully protest without being arrested, and we are not allowed to paint our houses without using a color approved by the neighborhood community. By the time I die, I expect I won't be able to speak to another human without breaking some law.....surely I won't be able to store a friends safe without first inspecting it to be sure it doesn't contain 57 coppies of Spiderman 14.