“Ending” the anti-piracy conference -2

■ “Ending” the anti-piracy conference -2

 This matter is an opposition between two values protected by the constitution, namely the privacy of communications and property rights (copyright); it is also an opposition between IT policy and intellectual-property policy. I viewed this topic as being about adjusting the two.

However, this opposition was an incorrect one. I realized this through our discussions - that the question we set for ourselves should have been how to create a place where the two can coexist, and a region where IT and intellectual property can flourish together.

 By the way, it was pointed out in the countermeasure conference that although Europe places the emphasis on protecting privacy while the U.S. places the emphasis on freedom of expression, Japan places this weight on the “privacy of communications”. Even some within the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications have said that this Galapagos syndrome is restricting policymaking.

The ability to broadly discuss the “privacy of communications” head-on was meaningful. A point was also made that this issue was too heavy to be handled in the intellectual-property headquarters.

Yes. It would be good to have a place to handle the “privacy of communications” in the IT age in its entirety, wouldn’t it?

 Yes, this issue also raises questions about the system that handles policies dealing with IT and intellectual-property issues.

IP issues are mainly handled by the IP headquarters and the Agency for Cultural Affairs, while IT issues are mainly handled by the IT headquarters and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

The limits of this system are being exposed.

This issue is one I have been raising since the reorganization of the ministries 20 years ago, when I left the Japanese government’s departments.

 14 years ago, when equipment manufacturers and copyright holders confronted each other over compensation payments for recording and filming, I personally felt the worsening of relations between IT and IP, which had been in a honeymoon period until then. The power of copies and of spread created by digitization was an advantage as well as a wonder. I participated in the discussions of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Council for Cultural Affairs then, but a solution was not reached, and this issue has had lasting effects to this day.

 And 10 years ago, another confrontation occurred over the introduction of “dubbing 10” along with preparations for terrestrial digital broadcasting. This time, it was a three-cornered fight among right holders (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), broadcasters (the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications), and manufacturers (the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry). The setting was the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and the Telecommunications Council. Although a press conference was held by the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology over the expansion of compensation payments, society could not accept this and a split happened.

 At this time, the roles of chief and deputy examiners were occupied by Professor Jun Murai of Keio University and me, closely resembling the setup in the current piracy issue. It was history repeating itself - specifically, of government offices supporting cases where parts of society are confronting each other being unable to make a judgment.

Through this case, I felt that we had not learned from our past failure, and the difficulty of solving the issue had increased.

Interest in IT and IP has risen compared to the past, and both sides’ opinions are subject to strong criticism, making the situation intractable.

So, what actions must we take in order to aim for a horizon where IT and IP can coexist and flourish together?

I’ll continue wondering to myself.