Intellectual Property Headquarters Copyright Task Force: Part 2

■ Intellectual Property Headquarters Copyright Task Force: Part 2

Intellectual Property Headquarters Copyright Task Force, Interim Summary, Continued.

Based on the bold recognition explained in the first part, the second half, "Compatibility between measures to facilitate use in response to the digital age and protection of rights holders' interests," organizes the issues of each theory.

Formulation of usage guidelines that balance the development of UGC and respect for rights holders. Promoting the development of a rights information database. Optimization of content production transactions. These are the kinds of items discussed.

It also suggests reviewing the provisions of the copyright law regarding situations where analog and digital, real and online have different effects on the interests of rights holders.

Regarding the difference in rights between broadcasting and the Internet, the Agency for Cultural Affairs has taken the initiative to take steps to address this issue. It will be interesting to see if there are other cases like this.

The point to pay attention to is the mention of “utilization of soft law.”

The legal system, i.e., hard law, was emphasized in copyright, and disputes tended to be left to the courts. However, with digitalization dramatically changing the environment for producing and using copyrighted works, and the amount of coordination and consensus-building that has exploded, the limits of relying on legislation and the judiciary are clear.

In discussions on legal revisions, there are more and more occasions where the formulation of guidelines with the participation of relevant parties is required.

This time, he expressed his recognition that he would "promote consensus building among parties with the involvement of administrative agencies as necessary" and "create innovation in the combination and interrelationships of soft law and positive law."

Okay.

So, what we discussed this time was about "promoting centralized and smooth rights processing."

We discussed the following four schemes for facilitating the use of content:

1) Restricted Rights with Compensation

2) Mixed type (centralized management and limited rights with compensation)

3) Extended Concentration License

4) Fundamental review of the arbitration system

1) is a conventional method, 2) is a system that we are trying to create with broadcasting network distribution, 3) is a system that has been introduced in Europe but has not been introduced in Japan, and 4) is a modification of the processing method.

In particular, 3) handling of extended centralized licensing became a point of contention.

Coordination among ministries and agencies was more difficult than among committee members, and it was tangled up to the end.

While coordinating with the intellectual property secretariat, which is promoting bold discussions, and the Agency for Cultural Affairs, which is responsible for the system, the Regulatory Reform Council and the Liberal Democratic Party also joined in to find a common ground.

In the end, the time was up, and the task force members made an "interim summary."

I will leave out the legal issues as they are too technical.

In my own way, paraphrasing this very roughly, I think the difference in this new scheme is not in terms of interests or benefits, but the difference in attitudes toward the system itself, before reaching the argument of legal correctness.

Rights protection on the right, promotion of distribution on the left, that kind of stance.

Is it the line of responsibility of maintenance of the existing system vs. the Garapon system?

In the meantime, the Intellectual Property Headquarters came in and asked for opinions.

And that's why I didn't give an answer as to what to do.

In this respect, the form is different from the piracy debate.

It was a confrontation between the two protections of copyright and confidentiality of communications, and it was a reconciliation of interests rolling before our eyes that divided the industry and the ministries in charge.

This time, it is a philosophical effort to anticipate future issues and prepare a system.

The full-fledged discussion with stakeholders will start from now on.

However, it is epoch-making that a fundamental review of the arbitration system was shown through discussions this time.

The arbitration system for cases where the right holder is unknown has been reviewed, but in order to promote a wider range of use, the involvement of the government will be eliminated and outsourced to the private sector. It will also digitize applications and relax requirements. That is what will happen. This will be a specific institutional project in the future.

A broad outlook for the future and an immediate system/environmental improvement to resolve current issues.

As socio-economic DX accelerates, how to deal with copyright often becomes a two-way street.

Thank you for your continued support.

In addition, I felt that the resolution of the content problem by partial adjustment of the copyright system has reached its limit. A comprehensive media policy approach that includes communications and broadcasting systems and IT policies is necessary.

To do this, we need a cross-ministerial group of about six ministries.

I think it is a good theme to think about at the time of reviewing Kasumigaseki, including the establishment of the Digital Agency.