Slashdot Mirror
Storing Personal Music Online Is Illegal In Japan
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.
If the data is encrypted, and they don't have the key, you haven't distributed anything to them.
Shifting copyright works? bad.
Animated tentical rape? ok.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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.
That the US isn't the only country with a totally screwed legal system and idiots for judges!
So, if I have illegal documents in a safety deposit box, is the bank or holder responsible for what is stored?
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.
So if you upload it to your own server this decision wouldn't necessarily apply. This brings up some interesting ideas; suppose a server farm was operated as a co-op where all the users own shares of the server farm. Now, if they upload music to this server farm are they distributing it to someone else?
How about if someone you don't know downloads a copy of a song from your server while you're not watching - is this distribution?
The record companies are setting legal precedents right and left these days - but I wonder if they realize what kind of corner they're painting themselves into. The basic idea of the copyright owner being the one who decides who gets copies of his work for a limited time is sound. I don't think even a hardened pirate can honestly argue against this. But this simple idea has been blown up and perverted far beyond what it was intended to be by greedy businessmen. The push-back from the general public is getting stronger by the day and it's just a matter of time before these companies find themselves holding the short end of the stick.
Want to hasten that day? Inform others of what's going on, and defund the crooks by refusing to purchase their products. Take the money out and they'll fold up very quickly.
There have been several similar rulings in lower courts in Europe, and all have been changed in higher courts. It is typical for a lower court to totally miss the deeper and more technical implications of cases such as this one.
...
The company has been providing a service to the consumer, but has not used the implicated files or distributed them to other users. As such, the company itself is not guilty of anything - let alone copyright violations. If they were, we would soon see virtually every MP3 device manufacturer being sued for copyright violations.
What is next - Suing Smith & Wesson for murder? Suing Ford for driving too fast? Suing every phone company on the planet for terrorist activities and every ISP for hacking and industrial espionage?
It is rulings such as this one that shows there is a reason for having multiple levels in the court system. And also why the judges in the higher courts are paid better
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
How to build a huge mp3 collection:
1. Launch company that stores users' music online
2. Users send you all their music
3. W00T! check out my huge crappy mp3 collection.
I haven't figured out where to put "Profit" in there. I guess that's because I'm Canadian.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Encryption is simply a container, it may be locked but when you tranfer the container, you also transfer the contents.
(...) 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.
Sounds a lot like a safe deposit box to me. I entrust the company with my possessions in a central location (the bank vault), but the ownership doesn't change hands. I've in no way distributed the music to the bank just because I put it in my safe deposit box, that's ridiculous. Also, that notion of "distribution" would be completely ridiculous for a company. Shared hosting? Co-lo? Rented terminal services? All of those involve uploading data to a central server owned by a different company. By no means is that distribution to whomever is doing the hosting. Also think of things like Google apps, are you distributing things to Google now whenever you use their tools? I hope the actual ruling made more sense than that sentence.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Will they try to prosecute across borders like the States does?
No, they'll send giant robots after us.
Music on your keitai is big business: the cell phone providers have their own music download services, and on most phones, you do not have the ability to upload mp3s or the like yourself (there are certainly some exceptions, and I believe Vodaphone phones generally did allow you much more freedom in this regard. Vodaphone were very much the minor player in the market though.)
... as a copyright violation. With progressively higher-level manufacturing moving to China, there is strong support from the government to encourage industry to develop and invest in IP, with correspondingly strong IP laws.
Services like MYUTA threaten to undermine a very lucrative source of revenue, and the music industry is a very, very powerful lobby: Sony for example were able to have the law rewritten such that importing CDs of Japanese music that Japanese publishers had licensed to overseas companies for distribution would be illegal
Wow, I will never figure out Japan.
In Japan, it's acceptable and perfectly legal to walk into Tsutaya (i.e. the Japanese "Blockbuster"), rent an armful of CDs, rip to your heart's desire, and then return them the next day.
This reminds me of the time last year when, in the name of safety, the Japanese government tried to make it illegal to sell used electronic items.
This is still just a district court ruling, so it doesn't set any "precedent" in the sense of binding other courts. It may influence how other district courts consider similar cases, but then again it may not; my impression is courts at the same level generally act rather independently. (There was a pair of high-profile cases late last year on privacy rights vs. government databases, where two separate high courts came to completely opposite conclusions for essentially the same circumstances.)
IANAL, of course. I just live here.
For the curious, the decision itself (PDF, in Japanese) can be found here.
The court's decision is pretty narrowly defined - if the server is owned by someone else, then uploading music to it is considered distributing.
How about this;
Do Microsoft have servers (eg hotmail) in Japan to which users can upload files?
If so, were a user to upload, say, the Linux *kernel* to such a server is Microsoft now *distributing* the Linux kernel? And then the GPL would swing into effect...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Hehheh, reminds me of something nerdy...
During lunchtime, two developers and a bunch of electronics guys take a stroll around the building. On the way back, one asks, where are we going? Straight through, the other says. Dev 1 doesn't see the hall through the building and asks "Straight through the building?" The other says: "No, unless you brought your mech." Developers laugh out loud.
Electronics guys look totally puzzled. "A what? A mekk?"
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
First, are you out of your mind? Speaking of bad logic... even comparing actual Theft (let alone copyright infringement) with murder and rape is outrageous. Murder and rape take something that can NEVER be restored.
Second, Theft actually deprives you of your personal belongings. That means you're going to have to spend more money to buy it again. Copyright infringement deprives you of potential earnings. This loss (though it is a real problem, and could ruin a person financially) is completely impossible to quantify in most cases, due to variables that are impossible to know. For example, you have no way of knowing if every person who obtained the copy of your work illegally would ever have paid for a legal copy if he could not have obtained one illegally. This does not make copyright infringement right or even OK, but it does mean that your "lost income" may well never have existed at all, and you have lost nothing.
Third, it has been shown many times in many ways that copyright infringement can actually help the author/artist by spreading his work and making it far more popular than if the copyright infringement had never occurred.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Headcase88 mentioned music. You did not. Besides, is the prospect of a larger variety of professionally made movies and video games worth restricting the freedom of people to use computing machinery? And why are video games subject to copyright for 95 years?