This only means the company is the one that really sends the data, and not you. It's not your home computer the one that is sending files, it's one private company server. The Court interpreted that Myuta acts as an intermediary between you and yourself (at least in theory), so they must be responsible for this transmission.
The fact that the receiver is an unspecified individual just helps to this potential infringement, since even with the best active measures, it's an impossible task to be completely sure that the receiver is the true owner. This is what they mean by 'one unspecified individual'.
And who knows, perhaps they use this 'download' so that a group of people hear them. The final use of the file is completely unknown, so the Court can't stablish it won't have problems with Copyright Laws. That's what happens in declarative judgements, there can be some doubts.
Nevertheless, even with possible appels, this decision is quite interesting, and I think JASRAC has some possibilities of winning an eventual case against this kind of services. Let's see how this ends.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the receiver is an unspecified individual just helps to this potential infringement, since even with the best active measures, it's an impossible task to be completely sure that the receiver is the true owner. This is what they mean by 'one unspecified individual'.
And who knows, perhaps they use this 'download' so that a group of people hear them. The final use of the file is completely unknown, so the Court can't stablish it won't have problems with Copyright Laws. That's what happens in declarative judgements, there can be some doubts.
Nevertheless, even with possible appels, this decision is quite interesting, and I think JASRAC has some possibilities of winning an eventual case against this kind of services. Let's see how this ends.