Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

Storing Personal Music Online Is Illegal In Japan 246

Posted by kdawson 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Storing Personal Music Online Is Illegal In Japan More

Storing Personal Music Online Is Illegal In Japan

Comments Filter:

  • Which is why encryption should be used (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28, 2007 @07:27PM (#19303683)
    If the data is encrypted, and they don't have the key, you haven't distributed anything to them.

    • Re:Which is why encryption should be used (Score:5, Funny)

      by vakuona ( 788200 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @07:30PM (#19303689)
      Thank you for the heads up. We shall cover this in an addendum.

      RIAARUS

    • Encryption is irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nymz ( 905908 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @08:05PM (#19303909) Journal

      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.

      • Re:Encryption is irrelevant (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28, 2007 @08:19PM (#19303979)

        The analogy of encryption with a locked container is problematic in this case. If you encrypt something with a properly constructed one-time pad, for example, the ciphertext will be indistinguishable from a random set of bits. Is the plaintext "inside" the ciphertext somehow? Only if you say that all messages of the same length are inside the ciphertext.

        • If it's encrypted with a one-time pad, you have to store that on the phone. And since the one-time pad is the same size as the song, you might as well store the pad on the phone.
        • Logically, you are of course correct. But, as I understand, logic has very little to do with law in this case. No matter how you perform the encryption, the resulting set of bits is "derived" from the original set of bits, and therefore constitutes a derived work, with all the implications. It's not an objective property of the bits itself (i.e. you can't determine it by just looking at the result), but it doesn't matter, as long as one can prove the process that was used to produce the bitset.
      • Honestly, this is rediculous. Where do you draw the line? Where does it become just random data? The fact that I can construct a program to extract Hansons_mmbop.mp3 from your kernel32.dll, does distributing this file mean I am a badguy, even though the data isn't actually there?

        [Yes, I have done this. Akin to 'if (CurrentPos == 2 || CurrentPos == 7 || ...) { fseek(ArbitraryDictFile, ...); fread(ArbitraryDictFile,...); fwrite(NewlyCreatedFile, ...); } else if...']

        • ...I can construct a program to extract Hansons_mmbop.mp3 from your kernel32.dll, does distributing this file mean I am a badguy

          Yes, anyone involved in distributing a song so awful that it makes your ears bleed would be a badguy. :-)

      • Re:Encryption is irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Firehed ( 942385 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @08:50PM (#19304167) Homepage
        I hate that logic. If I give you a safe without telling you its contents or combination, just the instruction to hold on to it until I ask for it back, should you be held accountable for its contents? I'd say no, although I'm sure some idiot in a courtroom would say otherwise. Either way, an encrypted file is even stronger cause for plausible denyability, as its designed to actively prevent anyone but authorized parties to access its contents.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dwater ( 72834 )
      I'm an even better idea!

      Why not use DRM and not give them any permission (unless they pay you, of course)?

  • Those wacky japanese (Score:4, Funny)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday May 28, 2007 @07:29PM (#19303687) Homepage Journal
    Shifting copyright works? bad.
    Animated tentical rape? ok.

  • This is fubar (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28, 2007 @07:32PM (#19303699)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 )

      store some of my music CDs in there
      Yep, cause that's just like copying them. Exactly the same thing.

      Anything less, and my fair use rights are being violated.
      Maybe the Japanese don't have fair use.. Australia doesn't. It's interesting how fair use law says you're allowed to make one copy for "backup" purposes.. then doesn't really define what that term means. In IT, a backup kept on the same site as the original is hardly a backup at all.
      • It's interesting how fair use law says you're allowed to make one copy for "backup" purposes.. then doesn't really define what that term means. In IT, a backup kept on the same site as the original is hardly a backup at all.

        In the US, at least, fair use says nothing of the kind. Fair use is an exception for anything that is fair. Sometimes backups are fair, sometimes they aren't. It depends on the specific circumstances involved.

      • In IT, a backup kept on the same site as the original is hardly a backup at all.

        This statement assumes you rely on backups for disaster recover. That in turn assumes you have very lax recovery point and recovery time objectives. Backup could never meet my DR RTO and RPO; I rely on replication for DR. I use backups to restore deleted files and programmer errors. Offsiteing my backups gains me nothing but decreased security and a long restore time. That said backup probably has plenty good enough RTO/RPO fo

    • The people vs. Sum Dum Guy for storing his original CD's in a rented storage building. The owners of that building have no right to possession of the CD's.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by asninn ( 1071320 )
      Your fair use rights? You DO realise that this is in Japan and that your US-American laws don't apply there, right?

  • "Online"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScytheBlade1 ( 772156 ) <scytheblade1@ave ... m ['geu' in gap]> on Monday May 28, 2007 @07:34PM (#19303713) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • I know the two sources are confusing, but the key point is that the 3rd party, whom is considered to be in possession of music licensed to you, commits infringement when they transfer the music back to you. Only you, the licensee has permission to do transfers, copying, etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MidnightBrewer ( 97195 )
      This is Japan. This ruling is totally useless. First of all, the market for people who want to save their music online to listen to on their cell phones is very small indeed; "full browsing" internet time costs 300 yen (US $2.50) just to initiate, and cellphone-centric browsing is pretty pricey as well. There are all-you-can-eat plans for about 5000 yen a month, but since they make several cell phone models that are designed to be music players and offer multiple gigabytes of internal storage, not to ment

  • Good to know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pavera ( 320634 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @07:35PM (#19303715) Homepage Journal
    That the US isn't the only country with a totally screwed legal system and idiots for judges!
    • I think the legal system is one weak point the bigger problem are the fucking lobbies and their incredible power.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        Are you referring to the USA, or is that a problem in Japan too?

        I heard about one guy running for US president who is refusing contributions from corporations. I'm still wondering who he/she is. I would consider donating and I'm not even a US citizen.
    • Judges, at least here, can't do anything but rule according to the law. I actually remember a verdict that contained something along the lines of "I can't help it, it's the law" (and yes, it was immediately appealed by the general attorney).

      A judge MUST heed the law. Whether he likes it or not, whether he deems it right or not. He is bound by the legal system. Which is usually a good thing, since that's what the separation of powers is about. If the judge could ignore laws he doesn't like, he would essentia
  • So, if I have illegal documents in a safety deposit box, is the bank or holder responsible for what is stored?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 )
      If the bank hangs a sign outside which says "make unlawful copies of your documents and store them here for easy retreival!" then yes, yes they are responsible.

      I'd mention some examples from history of when banks have been found responsible for storing things of value which were aquired in dubious ways.. but I don't want to give you reason to invoke Godwin's law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pofy ( 471469 )
      No, but if it was in Japan, and if someone had the copyright to the work in those documents, and the banks copied those documents and sent them to you again, THEN the bank might commit copyright infringment. At least it was so decided when it was music files and an online service.

  • There has to be more to this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <NMerriam@artboy.org> on Monday May 28, 2007 @07:45PM (#19303775) Homepage
    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).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Isao ( 153092 )
      I have 200 gigs of music included in my encrypted remote backup set.

      Where are you storing 200GB of data at reasonable rates? From the US that would be over $100/month.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NMerriam ( 15122 )
        Dreamhost, I paid about $15 for the first year after discounts. It's a lousy web host, and I'm not exactly storing critical stuff there, but as an offsite backup for things I also have backed up on a USB drive, it's a good deal. I have my truly important files backed up to several different hosts, but that set is only about 10 Gigs so it's easily in the limits of pretty much every online service.

        I'm currently trying out Mozy.com, as well (though their Mac service is still in Beta and doesn't yet support tru
      • You can just use Amazon's S3 at USD0.10 per GB per month.

        ]{

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Eivind ( 15695 )
        Nonsense. That'd be $10/month from for example dreamhost, and you'd get tons of other goodies included in the deal. (full shell-access, personal jabber-server, one included domain-registration, up to 3000 email-accounts, unlimited MySQL-databases and subversion-repositories (included in your disk-quota though) etc, etc, etc.

    • I can't imagine a nation as technically literate as Japan would essentially make it illegal for people to do remote backup

      You never know, it might be overturned on an appeal, but it does show how yesterdays copyright laws can be interpreted negativly when applied to todays technology.

  • Bad, but not as bad as it looks at first glance (Score:5, Informative)

    by Whuffo ( 1043790 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @07:54PM (#19303841) Homepage Journal
    The court's decision is pretty narrowly defined - if the server is owned by someone else, then uploading music to it is considered distributing.

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 )

      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.
      Way to equate people who value freedom over "more creative works" as pirates.

      You didn't even get the concept of copyright correct. It's not "who gets copies", it's "who gets to make the copies".

      Big difference.

    • 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.

      Avoid ad hominem attacks (like calling copyright opponents "hardened pirates") if you want to be taken seriously. And you haven't been paying attention if you think no one would honestly argue against copyright (for example, see this article I wrote [gardnerman.com]).

    • 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...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        Ah. Nice point. I wonder.... :)

        If only it were that simple...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pofy ( 471469 )
        They would have to send it back to the user. It was not the user uploading music that was copyright infringement, it was when the service company sent a copy back that there occured copyright infringement. *If* the same could apply to software, of course Microsoft or anyone else could possibly commit copyright infringement. Of course, just because they would distribute something does not mean they have also agreed to the GPL (or any other contract). They can just be (possibly if in Japan and so on) infringi
    • Just a thought, but would it be legal to upload music files that are in the public domain? If so then that means these services can only be used with free music. So if these services get popular, then so does non commercial music. Sounds like a good thing.
  • 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 manuf

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mangu ( 126918 )
      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 ...

      ...and why judges should be held responsible for their decisions. In too many places they have the concept that, for the sake of "judicial independence", judges cannot be prosecuted based on the decisions they make at the bench. I think that's bullshit. If a decision a judge makes causes some side-effect, the judge should be held respon

  • My huge mp3 collection (Score:5, Funny)

    by billcopc ( 196330 ) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Monday May 28, 2007 @08:02PM (#19303891) Homepage
    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.

    • I haven't figured out where to put "Profit" in there. I guess that's because I'm Canadian.

      Simple, sell a CD that teaches people how you did it.

      -How to buy Real Estate with NO MONEY DOWN!!!
      -How to play the Stock Market with my custom, exclusive, computer software program.
  • 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.

    It goes beyond that, at least, according to Gigazine. What the Gigazine [google.com] article is alleging is that the court decision implies that any use of online storage for copyrighted materials, ANY copyrighted materials, is a violation. Storing photos, movie clips or articles would run afoul of the decision as well. You'd have to wonder if even email could survive u

  • Like a safe deposit box? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @08:08PM (#19303923) Homepage
    (...) 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 )
      Umm.. you made a copy when you gave it to them.. they made a copy when they gave it back.

      The wording of copyright law is what makes no sense. Whenever copyright law talks about "making a copy" the original drafters of that legislation were thinking about people doing work to, say, typeset a printing press. They weren't thinking about the world that we live in today, where making a copy is a part of many automatic processes. That's why they never really felt too bad about regulating it. It wasn't somethi

  • Music on cell phones (Score:5, Informative)

    by HalfFlat ( 121672 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @08:22PM (#19303995)
    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.)

    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 ... 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.
    • Please mod parent up. For an analogy, this is similar to the control US conglomerates have over ring tones. Why are people still paying out the nose to their phone service provider for ring tones? Because you can't upload third party stuff to your own phone. Japanese phone companies aren't stupid; they want that same level of control over their own customers.

      This has little to do with copyright, and everything to do with control. Think DRM.
  • That is exactly the same BS ruling that killed MP3.com back in 1999 when the original Diamond Rio Flash/MP3 mobile player changed the world. What gives the government the right to tell you what you can do with the data you bought for the express purpose of playing it yourself?

    Hell, in the US, even CDs have been allowed to be loaned to friends, played at parties, like analog records always were. These copyright exceptions to outlawed monopolies and free speech are only rationalized by protecting some return
  • What if I own a computer which happens to be connected to the internet that stores music? Is that already "storing online"? What if I happen to own the server myself that stores the music, does that break the law? If that server is connected to the internet, does it then? Or when that server belongs to my company? What if I allow access to my computer at home, which is not a dedicated server but used as my storage space for my digital music? What if I don't allow "file access" to it, but applications that I

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pofy ( 471469 )
      It was not the "storing online" that was illegal. It was the copying and sending the music to users that was. And in this case the one doing it was Image City who owned and managed the system. The user was, according to the court an unspecified party hence the infringement. If you own and manage your own service for your own files, it would seem to be no problem at allm at least not in Japan. Of course, if you allow others to download from your servers you would be guilty as well it would seem.

  • Go figure. (Score:3, Informative)

    by i_like_spam ( 874080 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @09:12PM (#19304325) Journal
    Wow, I will never figure out Japan.

    In Japan, it's acceptable and perfectly legal to walk into Tsutaya [tsutaya.co.jp] (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 [akihabaranews.com].

    • It almost makes it sound like this is part of an effort by some music lobby and not really because Japan cares that much.

  • Not much of a "precedent", per se (Score:5, Interesting)

    by achurch ( 201270 ) on Monday May 28, 2007 @09:18PM (#19304373) Homepage

    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 [courts.go.jp].

  • Music storage services: Storage usage is copyright infringement - Tokyo District Court

    In a judgement on a lawsuit based on a dispute as to whether a service allowing users to store data, such as their own CDs, in "storage" on the internet, so that they can download it to their mobile phones and listen to it whenever they like, constitutes copyright infringement, the Tokyo District Count (Makiko Takabe presiding) ruled that the service does constitute copyright infringement.

    The service in question is "MYUTA"

  • Just finished reading the decision (here [courts.go.jp], as mentioned in my other post). Some interesting points:

    • The case was not an actual infringement case; it was brought by the service provider itself, asking for a declaration of non-infringement, and the court said no, there's a potential for infringement so you don't get your declaration.
    • The act of converting audio files to 3G2 format (for sending to mobile phones) on the server is an act of the server operator, even if it was initiated by the user, so it has

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pofy ( 471469 )
      Could it be that since anyone in theory could acess the account using the password/whatever and the server doesn't make sure it is the same person, just someone using the same account and so on, they feel it is "the public"? Seems strange indeed, especially if applied to other things, but perhaps that is part of their reasoning.
  • Apps are created as a reaction to the state of things, integration leads to advancement, then the old come in and regulate it to the way it was. Why the fuck should we even bother... let them stay in the stone age. Let them destroy any trust remaining towards systems... they're old, stale, centralized, non-communicative, without advancement, full of self-justification and built on negative re-inforcement. Sustaining such systems is only possible in the short term. They should be happy to see inventivene
  • If your computer is connected to the internet, and therefore a part of the internet, then won't any music files stored on your computer necessarily be online?
  • Now, that's a silly outcome. Couple of "what if" scenarios:

    1. What if I rent my laptop from IBM, and I burn my purchased CD onto my laptop? Am I "distributing" to IBM? Is IBM infringing?

    2. What if I lease a server in Akamai for myself. I then upload my personal collection to the rack server for personal streaming anywhere in the world (only to myself). Am I "distributing" to Akamai? Is Akamai infringing?

    3. What if I store my music on my home computer which I purchased, I then stream to myself at wo

Slashdot Top Deals

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Close