How to Deal with the TPP Copyright Provisions

I am evaluating the TPP, but I do have great concerns about its copyright provisions.

The TPP copyright chapter establishes protection period extension and removes the requirement for a formal complaint from the holder for prosecution. The US desires both, and both signify increased protections for providers. This correlates to a reduction in user rights.

Japan had built a copyright system that struck a balance between users and providers. Compared to the US and others, its structure thoroughly considered the benefits to users and consumers. This will crumble.

We can conversely take the perspective that the decision benefits holders, but the crumbling of the provision and use ecosystem also correlates to long-term cultural weakening. Is this even truly good news for providers? A calm analysis is required. And what kind of domestic regulations can deal with this crumbling balance? It is a serious situation.

Up to now, I have asserted that the lack of a formal complaint requirement for prosecution is more critical than copyright term extension. It means that even if the copyright holder does not prosecute the person who committed illegalities, law enforcement authorities will crack down on the criminal by their own determination. 

The copyright term extension would mean that comics, animation, and games sold currently would become available for public use 50 years after their authors have passed away, which is of little use to creators in the present and benefits the US business world, where older works sell readily. In either case, the consumer gains nothing. Nevertheless, there is not much economical impact.

On the other hand, disallowing laws that require a formal complaint from the victim is a thing that has sustained Japanese pop culture through the implicit fertile breeding ground of shared culture between pros and amateurs, and if we consider this reality, I decided that destroying that ecosystem is a fundamental problem.

Regarding the TPP and disallowing requirement of formal victim complaints, certain forethought was also incorporated but, now then, how can domestic system safeguards be provided?

Recently a meeting was held at the Office of the Prime Minister. Aside from Prime Minister Abe, also in attendance were Cabinet Minister Aiko Shimajiri of Information Technology Policy and Cabinet Minister Hiroshi Hase of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Concerning copyright, they declared that they would act so as to avoid the atrophy of derivative works.

I was also in attendance, but I was surprised by this unanticipated statement. It revealed that the government had earnestly grappled with the TPP IP negotiations and come to weighty decisions.

Conversely, consideration of this matter had already begun at an Agency for Cultural Affairs copyright council, and we also discussed our course of action hereafter at the IP (Intellectual Property) HQ committee of which I am chairman.

Discussion is not limited to safeguards; dynamic discussions of systems and policies are also sought. With this decision as the impetus, I want to develop even larger institutional IP theories.