Participation in the (Art) Museum Policy.

■ Participation in the (Art) Museum Policy.

Museum subcommittee of the council for cultural affairs. Number 1.

I will participate from this term.

We will discuss the promotion of museums, art galleries, zoos, etc.

Prospects of what museums should be like after COVID-19, whilst taking on the major task to revise the Museum Act's registration and curatorial systems.

I will give my personal views on the role art plays in the digital age.

Three initial comments.

1. legal reform.

This clears up a long-standing concern. I support it.

However, why has the system not moved to the point where there is no benefit to registration?

That is also the question of whether there is public support for the institutional change.

It is a community issue, and may be a low priority for the public.

To arrive at legal reform, is it not necessary to make efforts to raise the priority level?

It is important to persuade the public of how important revisions of the Museum Act's registration and curatorial system are for people's lives and the social economy.

It should be stated how when museums change in this way, the benefits to the public will be like this.

At the beginning of the interim summary, museums are viewed as "Facilities that are indispensable to the lives of the people", but we need to make a rigorous evaluation and verification of whether the public actually views them in this way.

2. The role of museums.

WG Chairman Hamada summarized it as follows.

① "Protection and inheritance" - Protection of collections, and the preservation and inheritance of culture

② "Sharing" - Sharing of culture

③ "Cultivating" - Inheritance by future generations

④ "Connecting" - Responding to social issues

⑤ "Managing" - Sustainable management

Sharp, easy to understand, and precise.

The question is whether museums will be allowed to play this role.

Knowledge is rapidly being dispersed due to digitization and networks.

Information and activities are shifting from happening at real places to being virtual.

Conversely, the significance of museums will be severely called into question.

What kind of value will museums strike back with?

Computerization and networking are the central issues.

3. Data sharing.

In order to raise the priority of museum policy and develop a vision, I want to share the data that is a precursor to these things. 

Usage trends: How many people use museums per year/how much time is spent in museums per year?

Market size: What is the total annual operating cost?

Revenue structure: Is the ratio of public, corporate sponsorship, and admission fees sustainable?

How do these basic figures stand when compared with other cultural facilities (education, entertainment, etc.)?

How do they stand when compared to other countries such as G7 and China?

Based on these things,

how do we envision a strategy for growth?

How do we ensure sustainability?

How do we correct the disparities?

I said we needed to draw up policies and strategies based on these things. 

I know it is too much for a newcomer and an outsider to say, but instead of being satisfied with the inside stories of academia and industry, based on the fact that the Museum Act was once setback by legal reforms, etc., I wanted to make a scientific policy argument based on numerical evaluation and analysis, which is usually done in the field of public administration.

Start the discussion.

Read More

The Stir of the Review of the Communications and Broadcasting Administration

■The Stir of the Review of the Communications and Broadcasting Administration

I appeared at the Radio Symposium, "What was behind the Tohokushinsha Film Corporation/NTT entertaining of guests issue?"

The panel consisted of Nobuo Ikeda (ex-NHK), Shin Yasunobe (ex-Ministry of International Trade and Industry), Takeshi Natsuno (ex-NTT Docomo), and myself (ex-Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications).

The independent committee on communications and broadcasting was the point at issue.

I will make a note of what was said and what was not said.

The independent committee comes to the fore every 10 years - from the Hashimoto administration in 1998, to the DPJ administration in 2009, and now this time.

I was in charge at the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications in 1998, and I killed that conversation.

I was against it in 2009 as well, and for one reason: "It would tighten regulations". That hasn't changed.

However, the result of that conversation being quashed 20 years ago has led to the current turmoil, so this time I am not opposed to it.

First of all, how do you evaluate the administration of the past 20 years?

I see the media administration as "Doing well" under the the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

The main objective which is to develop digital infrastructure, has been more successful in Japan than in other countries, and the reputation of the government office has improved since the days of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications.

The independent organizations in the United States., France, and the United Kingdom are much tighter and not transparent.

Conversely, Japan's characteristics are that it is "Weak and narrow".

In my view, the diagnosis of the problem is misplaced, i.e., that it is due to the cozy relationship between the government and the business world, which stems from the powerful authority of telecommunications and broadcasting administrations. Instead, it is the weakness and narrowness of Japan that has led to the current situation.

The Japanese government is weak. It is lax.

In the late 1990s, the government drastically eased regulations on fees and entry into the market, and with the exception of the airwaves, eliminated restrictions on foreign investment.

Even if there is a problem with a TV program, at most there is only a warning. There are absolutely no  recommendations to discontinue the program or fines given with unknown grounds, as is the case in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. 

I think this is the right administration for Japan.

If you make it independent, it will get out of control and its degree of transparency will lessen,

Since it is independent from politics and the government, it will not have to make the rounds of the Diet members' meetings, or attend Mr. Natsuno's council for regulatory reform.

For the bureaucrats, this is what they want.

All they do is regulate, so they will regulate hard.

If you look overseas, you can imagine that this will happen.

And the Japanese government is narrow.

The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications had logistics, finance, and insurance in addition to communications and broadcasting.

The postal service was detached when it became the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

in the 1998 administrative reform.

It merged with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Management and Coordination Agency, but there was no exchange, leaving only communications and broadcasting.

Weak and without regard for the problems, the same people have been with the narrow industry for 20 years. The distortion of this issue is the current problem.

A further problem is the fact that the policy agenda in this area has already changed.

The development of digital infrastructure for both telecommunications and broadcasting has been completed, and the development of a system of integrated techniques was completed 10 years ago. There is also the adjustment of mature markets such as reducing the price of cell phones, and local station management issues.

There is a shift from business administration to consumer administration.

The more important agenda includes matters such as the integration of IT and IP policies, data strategy, overseas platform support, personal information protection, security measures, and the digitization of administration, education, and healthcare.

These have been addressed by various parts of the government over the past 20 years.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications remains narrow and does not play a leading role.

This is also exposed as the problem of vertical division in the digital age.

Communications and broadcasting, IT, intellectual property, computers, copyright, security - these government offices are fragmented.

In addition, a Digital Agency will be created.

The separation of regulation and promotion is not a matter of further subdivision, but rather what is important is making them into a large group.

When creating a large organization, it is necessary to review the administrative structure.

Let's promote streamlining and further deregulation.

In terms of monitoring the market, the functions of the dispute resolution committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications should be strengthened.

In terms of program checks, the authority of the BPO, a private organization, should be strengthened.

For monitoring the administration, the Administrative Management Bureau and the Board of Audit should be strengthened.

We do not need an independent committee.

I don't think any sector wants an independent commission that leads to tighter regulations.

I don't see any sponsors to shoulder the policy.

This is also true of a pulse auction.

Even if there is academic and political discussion, it will not become a realistic plan unless there is pressure from industry, users, and foreign countries, etc., to make it happen.

I am proposing a "Ministry of Culture" for the next reorganization of ministries.

A strong government agency that integrates the administration of digital media, including telecommunications and broadcasting, into a large entity. The Digital Agency should be the nucleus.

The content is almost identical to the "Digital Ministry" (Ministry of Digital Economy and Society) proposed by the Federation of Economic Organizations (Keidanren) in 2018.

This has a policy sponsor.

I think it would be productive if, after the creation of the Digital Agency, this commotion develops into being the next agenda for an administrative organization discussion for large entities. 

Read More

Thank you, Tokyo 2020.

 ■Thank you, Tokyo 2020.

After 57 years. It has been 8 years since the bid. The long-awaited Olympics.

Success amidst the whirlwind of controversy over COVID-19.

I shudder to think that the Olympics may not have been held without spectators or whatever.

Athletes and sports are precious.

I respect the young and vibrant men and women who fight beautifully against the negative reactions they receive.

Thank you.

I was in front of the display the whole time.

One TV, three PCs, two tablets, and a smartphone.

I also had another smartphone for taking pictures.

I'm following the Olympics on 8 digital devices at home.

The Olympics is a period of training to improve multiple skills.

According to Yoshimoto Osaki, Chairman of the Board of Directors

"A proper sushi restaurant serves eight people at the same time. The counter is for eight people."

I see. Had I been training in making nigiri sushi at the Olympics?

As It's the Edo Olympics!

There were many amazing achievements from Japan's perspective.

Yui Ohashi was the champion in two swimming events.

Daiki Hashimoto, the flower of gymnastics, was the individual all-around champion and the horizontal bar champion.

Europe's secret techniques, the men's epee team in fencing.

Consecutive judo championships for Shohei Ohno and Risako Kawai.

Sena Irie won the women's boxing championship for the first time.

The dramatic turnabout with the "Gon Zeme" (full on aggressive attack) also energized me.

The table tennis team of Mizutani and Ito, and skateboarders Yuto Horigome and Momiji Nishiya.

There were also siblings who got gold medals. 

The Abe siblings in judo, and the Kawai sisters.

Getting the silver medal in women's basketball, Inami getting the silver medal in women's golf, and Kajihara getting the silver medal in the women's omnium are also great achievements.

Japanese women are amazing!

I counted the medals.

Gold 27: women-14, men-12, mixed-1.

Silver 14: women-8, men-5, mixed-1.

Bronze 17: women-8, men-8, mixed-1.

Total 58: women-30, men-25, mixed-3.

The red team won overwhelmingly.

Naomi Osaka, Kento Momota, Daiya Seto, men's 400m relay, and men's soccer.

Some of the athletes were expected to get gold medals, but were unable meet those expectations because of local pressure or something.

However, the gold rush in other events is dazzling, and I feel positive.

I also learned how unreliable the media's pre-event reviews can be.

Before being held, the legacy of the Olympics was as follows:

1. To return the Olympics to being the Olympics.

2. To show the recovery from COVID-19

3. Preserving data for the future

These are the 3 points I considered.

1. Return to a tournament which is athlete-centered, and focused on sports. 

This was a success. 

I was opposed to there being no spectators, nevertheless, watching baseball on the Internet with only the sounds of catching, the crack of the bats, and players' voices, and no play-by-play broadcasting or commentary, gave me a new fascination.

I also felt that it could be done in a devolved way, in local cities, rather than big cities. 

2. Showing the recovery from COVID-19.

This was shown. 

In particular, I think it brought light to the world given the fact that the event was held without any serious problems in Japan, where life without masks has not returned as it has in Europe and the United States, and where the infection situation is getting worse.

3. We still don't know about data. How much of it will become available in the future.

But we have AI/IoT, 4K8K5G, robots/drones.

We were able to display a comprehensive showcase of technology.

Robots working on the track, live coverage through AI, displaying the per-second swimming speed.

IoT cameras were a big success on the bike track.

I want to use all the data left behind by these devices.

e-Sports also left its mark.

The IOC-sponsored "Olympic Virtual Series" held five events before the Olympics, including baseball, cycling, and rowing.

I very much hope that it will be connected with the Paris and Los Angeles games.

To bring it back to Japan once again, we came third in gold following the United States and China. Overall, Japan ranked 5th behind the United States, China, Russia, and Great Britain. 

Never in the future will Japan rank so highly with the great powers of the world. 

The number of medals won at the Olympics reflects the power of a nation. It is a clear indication of the overall economic, cultural, and political power. Nothing surpasses this event in the battle over national flags and anthems. It is a symbol of modern national sovereignty.

That is how I have thought. 

That Showa-era thinking has been clearly overturned.

New city-based competitions such as skateboarding and climbing were cooler, showing smiles rather than a hungry spirit, and what they shouldered was not the nation, but love and friendship.

The sight of rivals carrying Misugu Okamoto, who placed 4th with her full on aggressive attack in the skateboarding women's park event, is a historical scene that shows the change of the times.

Skateboarding has street and park events, and Japan got three golds out of four from Horigome, Nishiya, and Yosozumi in the men's and women's events combined. It is our forte.

Moreover, the four female medalists are aged 19, 16, 13, and 12!

They had fun, laughed, and put the country second.

The fact that the teens presented such an image (sorry to go back to the country again) made me think that Japan has a future.

Japan's specialities of baseball, softball, and karate won't be held in Paris.

It was a treat for Tokyo to host the event.

That's enough of medals and nations right.

That's what I feel like I am being told by girls who could be grandchildren.

The modern, nationalistic Olympics, in which we compete for medals in desperation, will be overturned, and it will become a super-modern, leisurely, fun festival.

I think this is the greatest legacy.

I would like to thank the participants and all those involved who overcame opposition, criticism, and disorder to hold the Olympics.

Thank you so much.

Until Paris in three years, I will be drinking in the lingering excitement of these games.

Read More

Comprehensive Policy Across Content and Media

■Comprehensive Policy Across Content and Media

The last meeting of the season for the content subcommittee of the Intellectual Property Division has been held. 

At the last meeting, I said that seeking a partial solution within the framework of copyright law would not lead to an optimal solution, and I sensed that people were thinking "what on earth are you talking about".

I was given 5 minutes to explain and so had homework to do to prepare. Though I was chairman, I made the following comments as a member of the committee.

------

First of all, content policy.

Starting in the 1990s, the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications were all dealing with the issue separately, but in 2003, the Intellectual Property Headquarters was established and a cross-organizational framework was put in place.

Efforts have been focused on overseas development and Internet support.

Overseas development has shown results, with overseas sales increasing over the past five years in every category, including anime, movies, and broadcasting.

On the other hand, Internet development differs greatly depending on the field.

The effects are finally beginning to show.

Overseas players are a threat in terms of piracy in manga, there is Netflix and other overseas streaming of anime, there is the use of cloud computing by Google and others for gaming, and there is Spotify and other platforms for music.

Measures differ by category. For example, there are anti-piracy measures for comics, integration with telecommunications for TV, development of new areas such as e-Sports for games, and copyright handling rules for music.

Measures that cross categories and collaborate with other fields are more important.

As discussed in the Cool Japan Strategy, measures to collaborate with other industries such as food, fashion, and tourism will be important.

Next is the media policy.

Linking with media and IT for hardware for content distribution is more important, and its policy needs to be looked at in conjunction as well.

Television has played a major role in Japanese content, but the structure has changed with the development of telecommunications/the internet. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication has played a central role in telecommunications and broadcasting policy.

In 2003, when the Intellectual Property Headquarters was established, terrestrial digital broadcasting began, and in 2006, the Takenaka roundtable conference under the Koizumi administration reported a review of the telecommunications and broadcasting legal framework, which led to significant deregulation.

Fifteen years later, NHK finally implemented simultaneous broadcasting over the Internet, a bill to revise the Copyright Law was submitted to the Diet, and the major task of integrating telecommunications and broadcasting was accomplished.

However, before I knew it, the Internet had taken over as the new innovator of media, and the difference in power was so much that NTT's annual profits alone were enough to buy all the leading stations. U.S. operators were on the offensive with data and AI-based businesses.

The contrast is that while TV stations' advertising is shrinking due to COVID-19, Internet advertising has overtaken TV, and video streaming is booming with the special demand that comes with people staying at home. 

In the past, content and media, and software and hardware were one and the same. Equipment manufacturers made music records, etc., however, recently, the hardware and software industries are often at odds with each other, even when it comes to compensation for sound and visual recordings and anti-piracy measures, and integrating the two has become a challenge.

There are two major waves that content and media face, and they are COVID-19 and technology.

COVID-19 has brought live entertainment to a halt and the industry has been hit hard, while on the other hand, video streaming and e-Sports are growing rapidly with a special demand that comes with people staying at home. 

The structure of the industry will change after COVID-19, but there doesn't seem to be a strategy that comprehensively addresses this.

In terms of technology, AI and data will continue to revolutionize content and media, and 5G will also bring significant changes.

However, strategies that comprehensively address this are also lacking.

The majority of advertising will be targeted advertising based on data and AI; games will be played using the cloud system, so game consoles will no longer be necessary; and broadcasting will be possible via 5G - how will these changes be perceived? 

The main players in advancing these reforms will be IT companies and platform providers in the United states. China will also be an influential player.

There has been discussion about strengthening restrictions on foreign investment in broadcasting. However, the issue of whether to draw up a strategy that excludes foreign investment, or one that introduces foreign investment is also a point of contention.

This is why I raise the issue.

It may no longer be possible to obtain the optimal solution only by individual policies such as considering things specifically for each category, and copyright.

We now need to have a cross-sectional view of content and media.

It is necessary to integrate intellectual property policy and IT policy, and to formulate a cultural and industrial policy.

That is what I am saying.

------

That was my 5 minutes.

I have always said this, so there is nothing new in it, but it is a reiteration of my emphasis on comprehensive policy now that I have done my homework on the major integration of the Broadcasting Act and the Copyright Act.

Although I had some concrete ideas, such as the reorganization of ministries and agencies and measures to promote the introduction of technology, I did not touch on them, but rather gave general remarks.

Read More