Do we carry out a drastic reform of the Copyright Act?

I presided over the “Building the Next Generation Intellectual Property System” symposium.

The Next Generation Intellectual Property System Committee held at the government had three pillars.

1) A flexible copyright system

2) A response to new information goods by AI and others

3) A response to cross-border copyright violations

The result was reflected in the Intellectual Property Strategic Program.

We began the symposium with a discussion on a flexible copyright system. We discussed what course of action should be taken for the initiative dealing with the gradation of a restrictions systems, centralized management, a ruling system, and the right to request monetary remuneration. Experts compared systems used in the United States and Europe while debating the laws. These discussions are also being held by the council of the Agency of Cultural Affairs, where they are in the process of making it into legislature.

Personally, I am more concerned with the Intellectual Property Strategic Program’s promise to “construct a set of guidelines.” The laws concerning these matters are vague, causing a risk for companies because the interpretations and applications of these laws is unpredictable. That is why we should include these interpretations into the new guidelines. The government, scholars, judges, companies, lawyers, or other related parties can work on the agreed interpretations.

The importance of archives was also pointed out. While the United States is competing ruthlessly over orphan works, Japan should turn its attention towards archive strategies. We must substantially lower the costs involved in copyright processing.

Professor Kitsuregawa of the University of Tokyo mentioned that while the United States is shifting its power from traditional companies to IT companies, Japan remains stubbornly rigid. He urges for us to become a game-changing country. This is a problem for all genres, and not only copyrighting.

He also voiced his concern that the Copyright Act is too difficult to decipher, and that it should be rewritten for better comprehension. I agree. The problem here is the system for the next generation. We would like to start work on the drastic reform of the current Copyright Act, originally written in 1971, for the first time in 50 years.

Fukui, an attorney, mentioned that we have become a society where all citizens transmit information, and that the Copyright Act applies to us all now. For this reason, it should be slimmed down. Fukui also called for the change of the opt-in system to an opt-out system, forming a system that focuses on making copyrighted works useable.

Copyright system experts may never call for a drastic reform of the system. It is the duty of the Intellectual Property Headquarters to fearlessly make the need known and pave the way for others. I believe that now is the time for us to start working on it seriously.