THE COPYKAT

The United States Copyright Office has chosen the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) as the new entity tasked with licensing and administering rights under the Music Modernization Act. The MLC is seen as the 'establishment choice' in the music rights industry and  is backed by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI), and the Songwriters of North America (SONA). Music Business Worldwide reports that One of the group’s first tasks will be the negotiation of a budget with streaming services who, by law, must fund the collective. It will also include setting up administration and matching services and development of a user portal through which publishers and songwriters will be able to manage rights and royalties. If a funding agreement cannot be voluntarily determined, the MLC and the digital services will go before the Copyright Royalty Board which will set the MLC’s budget through an assessment proceeding.

GMA reports that Japan's Bureau of Immigration (BI) has arrested a fugitive who is said to be one on Japan's "most wanted" list - for copyright infringement. the BI press release says that Romi Hoshino alias Zakay Romi, a Japanese-German-Israeli fugitive, was arrested at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3. The BI said Hoshino, 28, manages "Manga-Mura," allegedly an illegal viewing website of Japanese comics or graphic novels, popularly known as manga, that operated from January 2016 to April 2018. n what is said to be the worst violation of Japan's copyright law, Manga-Mura's operation allegedly cost 320 billion yen or US$2.9 billion in damages, the Bureau reported, citing Japanese authorities.

BoingBoing reports that attorney John Steele, one of the Prenda law copyright 'trolls', has been  sentenced to 5 years in prison. Last month, Paul Hansmeier was sentenced to 14 years in prison and ordered to pay $1.5m in restitution for his role in the firm that BoingBong says "used a mix of entrapment, blackmail, identity theft, intimidation and fraud to extort millions from its victims by threatening to drag them into court for alleged infringement of copyright in eye-watering pornography". Steele cooperated with authorities, while Hansmeier fought the system for longer before entering a plea. Like Hansmeier, Steele has to pay $1.5m in restitution. Both men have also been disbarred. Hansmeier is appealing both the conviction and the sentence. In August 2015 a third Prenda law attorney, Paul Duffy, died. Along with Steele and  Hansmeier, Judicial sanctions had been upheld against him by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for engaging in “abusive litigation” and failing to pay attorney's fees in a porn-downloading lawsuit. In June that year US District Judge David Herndon ruled that Steele and Duffy had "engaged in unreasonable, willful obstruction of discovery in bad faith" in its case. 

And whilst on the fruity topic of trolls, The Electonic Frontiers Foundation has warned that the new Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act would "supercharge" a “copyright troll” industry. IPPro reports that  The CASE Act aims to make it easier for independent creators to better defend their IP from theft, and was proposed in May by Democrat congressman Hakeem Jeffries and Republican Doug Collins - and it has had wide support from the creative industries, in particular photographers and songwriters, musicians and artists. But the EFF argues that the bill would increase the number of trolls filing “many ‘small claims’ on as many internet users as possible in order to make money through the bill’s statutory damages provisions”. Under the bill, the US Copyright Office would gain a Copyright Claims Board, which would reduce costs and easing the burden for creators defending their intellectual property. The legislation would allow the Copyright Office to create a determination process for claims seeking up to $5,000 in damages which the EFF suggest is a "most trivial nod towards due process”. There again, many in the creative sector argue that the CASE Act "addresses a decades-old inequity in America's copyright system: a copyright system that all too often denies individual creators and small businesses a viable means of protecting their creative efforts. When it passes, the bill will give smaller individual creators the same kind of protections that larger scale creators have enjoyed for years."

YouTube has been updating its ways of handling copyright claims with changes that give the owners of the copyrighted content more control over their content - much to the horror of some YouTube users and creators who use other people's content in their work. - but to the delight of others. Digital Information World says "With the new policies, owners of any copyrighted content will now exactly mention the part in the video where the copyrighted material appears. With this feature, they can easily verify whether the claim is legitimate or not and to edit out the content if they don’t want any issues like losing revenue or having the video taken down. With this new update, the whole system will be more clear and very smooth to operate. Video creators will be able to see the part that’s been claimed, and YouTube will allow them to mute the audio during that portion or to easily replace the audio with any free-to-use song from YouTube’s library. If they chose any of these options, the copyright claim will automatically be removed." In February The Verge reported that an anonymous blackmailer has caught at least two YouTube creators in a scheme involving cash ransoms and "esoteric copyright laws". Both creators shared stories of how their channels were being threatened with a third copyright strike — and the possible termination of their channels — from an anonymous extortionist. The scammer offered to reverse the strikes in return for payment to a bitcoin wallet or to an adjoining Paypal account. YouTube now requires copyright owners to provide timestamps for all new manual Content ID claims.  and YouTube said in a blog post that it’s going to be vigilant about policing false claims: “We’ll be evaluating the accuracy of these timestamps. Copyright owners who repeatedly fail to provide accurate data will have their access to manual claiming revoked.”

Japan: land of the rising sun and the shrinking copyright?

"Japan trying to end wartime copyright extensions under TPP" is a snippet of news that this blogger would surely have missed, were it not for the eagle eye of Chris Torrero (thanks!) who kindly furnished this link to the Japan Times. In short:

The Abe government is seeking to abolish wartime copyright extensions in negotiations on the protection of intellectual property rights as part of Trans-Pacific Partnership multilateral free trade talks. In talks with the United States, Japan is demanding that the special arrangements be scrapped if the period of protection for copyrighted works of art is extended under a TPP deal, informed sources said.

Under wartime copyright extensions, the copyright protection period is set about 10 years longer than usual for music and literary works created in the victor countries of World War II, including Britain, the United States and France. Japan was required to honor the extensions when it signed the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty on the grounds that the copyrights of productions in the allied nations had not been protected in Japan during the war.

Among the 12 countries participating in the TPP talks, the United States, Australia and New Zealand are covered by the wartime copyright extensions.

TPP minister Akira Amari, told a meeting of the Liberal Democratic Party in early July that talks with the United States were touching on the advisability of ending the wartime copyright extensions.

The TPP negotiations have been exploring extending the period of copyright protection from the current 50 years to 70 years.

“Japan should not miss this opportunity to demand the correction of the situation that only selected countries have the benefit of very long copyright protection,” a specialist on the Copyright Act said.

Abolition of the wartime copyright extensions for European countries such as Britain and France may be discussed in negotiations between Japan and the European Union on concluding an economic partnership agreement.

This blogger has not hitherto come across anything about Japanese wartime copyright extensions and wonders if readers can contribute any useful information or practical experience of it/

Japan nods to Beijing, opts for right to equitable remuneration

Things are bouncing in Beijing! By Beijing Notification No. 4 Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances the World Intellectual Property Organization notifies us of the deposit by the Government of Japan, exactly a fortnight ago, of its instrument of accession to the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances. However, it's not a straightforward matter. Japan's instrument of accession contains the following declarations:

"Pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Treaty, the Government of Japan will establish a right to equitable remuneration, instead of the right of authorization provided for in Article 11, paragraph (1) of the Treaty, for the broadcasting of a performance done in accordance with Article 94 of the copyright law of Japan by:

(a) a broadcasting organization, using the audiovisual fixation that it made for the broadcasting under the authorization of the person entitled to the right to broadcast the performance in accordance with Article 93, paragraph 1 of the copyright law of Japan;

(b) a person to whom the broadcasting organization referred to in (a) provided the audiovisual fixations referred to in (a), using those audiovisual fixations; or

(c) a person to whom the broadcasting organization referred to in (a) otherwise supplied a broadcasting program pertaining to the authorization referred to in (a), using that broadcasting program."

- "Pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Treaty, the Government of Japan will establish a right to equitable remuneration, instead of the right of authorization provided for in Article 11, paragraph (1) of the Treaty, for the simultaneous cablecasting of a broadcast performance and for the "automatic public transmission of unfixed information" made in order that a broadcast performance be received simultaneously with the original broadcasting exclusively in the broadcasting service area (as defined in Article 34, paragraph 1 of the copyright law of Japan) pertaining to the original broadcasting."

For the purposes of this declaration, "automatic public transmission of unfixed information" shall mean transmission by means of inputting information into an automatic public transmission server (as defined in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph 9 quinquies, i, of the copyright law of Japan) already connected with a telecommunication line that is provided for use by the public, which is carried out automatically in response to a request from the public and which is intended for direct receipt by the public.

- "Pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 3 of the Treaty, the Government of Japan will not apply the provisions of Article 11 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Treaty to the communication to the public of a performance fixed in audiovisual fixations done by means other than cablecasting or "automatic public transmission of unfixed information"."

The date of entry into force of the Treaty will be notified when the required number of ratifications or accessions is reached in accordance with Article 26. Meanwhile Japan joins the three countries that have already committed themselves to the Treaty: Botswana, the Slovak Republic and Syria.

Japan launches Operation Decoy File

This diagram was released by the Ministry to explain
Operation Decoy File

Rocket News 24, a Japanese entertainment site, has reported on Japan's new tactic to combat illegal file sharing: Operation Decoy File. Japan already has strict copyright laws under which illegal downloaders can be jailed for up to two years  and/or a fine of up to  ¥2 million (approx. GBP 13,700) and illegal uploaders can face up to ten years in prison and/or a fine of up to ¥10 million (approx. GBP 68,400).

Now Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has announced, in conjunction with the film and music industries in Japan, that it will launch Operation Decoy File. The excellently named operation involves introducing - would you believe it? - decoy files containing copyright messages into popular P2P file sharing networks. The user clicks on a file intending to download a film or song and instead receives the following message (kindly translated by Rocket News 24):

"A Warning from the Organisation to Raise Awareness of Copyright. Files with the same name as this contain content which is in violation of copyright when distributed over P2P networks such as Winny or Share.

Knowingly downloading and of course uploading files that are protected by copyright law without the consent of the owner over the internet is illegal copyright infringement. Please stop immediately.

Also, from 1 October 2012, downloading content which is known to be available for sale is punishable by a maximum 2-year prison sentence and/or ¥2,000,000 fine.

Our copyright organisation is working to eliminate copyright infringement by file sharing software. In addition to consulting the police to obtain the disclosure of user’s identities, we want to focus on user education."

File sharers have naturally attempted to differentiate between the films and songs they are trying to download and the text files, for instance by checking the size of the files. A thought process which the Japanese authorities are likely to also have had, causing them to at least try to camouflage their decoy files. The Ministry has made it clear that they want to see whether it is possible to reduce the already low incidence of file sharing in Japan by increasing copyright awareness, a tactic which might work better in Japan than other countries.

Japan introduces new download sanctions

Illegal downloaders in Japan now face prison terms of up to two years and fines of nearly 2 million yen (U.S. $25,679 or £15,900) from today. The Japanese government says that the move is aimed to protect the film industry and stop falling music sales in the World's second largest music market, where record industry officials estimate only one in 10 downloads are legally purchased. The Recording Industry Association of Japan says the legal download music market shrank 16% in 2011, the second consecutive year of decline. The slide comes despite global sales of digital music increasing 8% last year to $5.2 billion, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Japanese content owners hope the new regime will mirror the success of the ‘three strikes’ legislation introduced in South Korea which the IFPI says warns off 70% of infringers after the first notification, and France where according to the IFPI peer-2-peer piracy levels declined by 26% after the introduction of the law Hadopi. Illegally uploading copyright material in Japan carries a maximum 10 year prison sentence and 10 million yen fine. The Japanese legal profession had some concerns about the new penalties and had asked the government to leave the matter as a civil law rather than a criminal law matter, pointing out that downloads by individual's was 'insignificant' in terms of damage to rights owners. 

 http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/01/business/japan-music-piracy/index.html

Japan Moving Towards Fair Use?

According to an article on Japan Today, an advisory panel in the Japanese government has approved “a plan to tolerate the unlicensed use of copyright works.”

Under the panel’s suggestion, copyrighted works caught in the background of a film or picture will not need to be licensed.  Photo credit: Japan Firefox DevCon 2006_4209 CC-BY-NC-ND Gen Kanai available at Flickr.

This tolerating attitude only applies to certain unlicensed uses and appears similar to fair use and fair dealing concepts.  Currently, the allowed uses are much more vague than a specific fair dealing list, and even a bit more obtuse than the US’s four-factor fair use test.  So far, the Japanese allowed uses seem to focus on the nature of the use:

“use of a copyrighted work may be tolerated if the use itself is not the main purpose and the dependence on it is light, if the use is minor and reasonably required in the course of a legal use, or if the use is not aimed at seeing or hearing copyrighted expressions.”

Commenter Mr. Dog - who has invested a lot of energy into explaining the difference between copyright and trademarks, patents and what-you-think-IP-is in the comment section – noted that a fair use type of protection would bring Japan more in line with the rest of the world.

This plan may see draft legislation as early as next month.

Japan limits private use exception

This report was written by Kaori Minami for the 1709 blog:


An amendment to the Japanese Copyright Law was passed on 12 June 2009.

Although it covers various issues including the exploitation of orphan works, caching associated with search site services, and making available to the public for the welfare of the persons with visual or aural disabilities, the main feature may be the provision which makes downloading of sound or visual recordings of copyright digital contents illegal when the contents were uploaded illegally and the downloader knows it (Article 30-1-iii).

The above amendment is stipulated as an exception to the private use exception (Article 30-1). Therefore, the scope of the private use exception will become smaller.

When this issue was proposed in 2007, it induced massive public opposition. In response to this, the amendment is limited to the above scope and punitive clauses are not provided. Mere streaming of the illegally uploaded contents is considered to be outside of the scope of the above provision. 　
Some people are concerned that the new provision may have a negative impact on the use of legally uploaded copyright material. It is also pointed out that the amendment may not be used much as detecting a downloader is not easy. However, it appears that the new provision is generally welcomed because it protects legitimate on-line distribution services and may help the development of such businesses.

The amendment will become effective as of 1 January 2010.