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.

9 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. 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.
  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. 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.
  6. 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.