Revision of the Copyright Act to complete the convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting

■ Revision of the Copyright Act to complete the convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting

A bill to revise the Copyright Act has been submitted to the Diet.

These are measures to make it easier to send library materials online, and measures to facilitate simultaneous online distribution of broadcast programs.

I have been particularly involved in the latter debate.

I hope it will be institutionalized.

There are four measures for simultaneous broadcast delivery.

1. Expanding distribution rights restrictions

2. Creation of permission presumptions

3. Compensation for non-centralized content and content not requiring permission

4. Expansion of arbitration

1. Allow distribution of things that can be broadcast without permission, such as school education programs and parliamentary speeches.

2. It is presumed that those who have received permission to use for broadcasting will also have permission for distribution, unless there is a specific indication of intention.

4. Expand the arbitration system to include distribution.

We will line up the mechanisms that are handled differently for broadcasting and distribution.

And I think 3 is more important.

This facilitates the use of records/demonstrations and video demonstrations that are not centrally managed and require individual licenses for distribution.

Records and demonstrations do not require permission for broadcasting, but permission is required for distribution. However, things that are centrally managed are processed smoothly.

This revision is a mechanism that allows content that is not centrally managed, so-called outsiders and non-members, to be used without permission if compensation is paid.

It is the invention of a system called "mixed type" that mixes centralized management and rights restriction with compensation.

For video demonstrations, permission is required for broadcasting, but there are exceptions that do not require permission for rebroadcasts. For rebroadcasts that are not centrally managed, we will create a mechanism that allows them to be OK without permission as long as they pay a fee.

As a result, the copyright system corresponding to the convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting will be established.

It has been nearly 30 years since the term "communications/broadcasting convergence" was coined.

Broadcasting online distribution is common overseas, and only Japan was not able to watch it online at the same time.

NHK will finally start in 2020. When I was summoned to the Diet deliberations on the revision of the Broadcasting Law, I testified that it was 12 years late.

The revision of the copyright law this time was even slower.

There were many moments to discuss. 

1997 was when we made the transmittable right. In 2001, the Telecommunications Service Use Broadcasting Law was created. In 2010, the communication broadcasting legal system was changed to Garapon.

But the broadcasting side is reluctant, and it has been pointed out that copyright is a problem in the last 2-3 years.

It has been 10 years since radio simultaneous delivery began via radiko . We are still waiting until the start of TV simultaneous distribution.

Seen from the outside, this is an urgent issue for a country defeated in the digital war, and we should keep pace with overseas systems.

However, in order to move forward, we first need to collect and coordinate the opinions of all stakeholders.

In addition, this case is also linked to the legal system of telecommunications and broadcasting.

One of the causes of the problem was that the copyright system and the Communications and Broadcasting Law had been separately discussed.

Copyright is a private conflict of interest issue, a “meaty” world.

Business and politics.

It is fiction, such as entrusting it to a third-party council such as academism.

As I keenly felt during Dubbing 10, the government does not have the power to solve it.

Stakeholders' managers can reach an agreement with the boss of the other party they are confronted with, and make people say, "Hey, that's okay," through politics.

The system is then dropped into the Council → Government → Diet.

If we don't move things forward outside the conference room of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, we won't move forward.

I didn't think that the institutional theory would be settled smoothly.

I felt that the broadcasting side's sense of humanity was weak.

The benefits of revising the system should be shown to rights holders and consumers more.

We should show more seriousness in facing the reform of the system.

However, with a sense of urgency, we were able to come to a conclusion without the turbulence we had expected.

It seems that the Agency for Cultural Affairs and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications have put in a lot of work.

At a meeting of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, I commented, “I appreciate the response of the Agency for Cultural Affairs and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, which coordinated this troublesome matter in a short period of time and even drafted a bill.” Sometimes I give praise.

“I have seen many times that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau has become a wall and struggled to coordinate within the government regarding the formulation of the bill. I hope that this case will proceed smoothly,” I added.

In addition, with the involvement of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and the Agency for Cultural Affairs, guidelines will be formulated for presumption of permission, and a similar scheme for compensation will be established. I added, “The copyright system was weak in terms of joint regulation and soft law between the public and private sectors.”

Enactment of hard law, development of soft law. This will put an end to a long-standing problem.

The important thing is for the broadcasting industry to make full use of the system and make a serious effort to respond to the Internet as a business.

The die has been cast.