A new round for content strategy.

 ■A new round for content strategy.

A new round starts at the IP Division. 

A recent action is strategies for content utilization. 

The direction that I laid out as chairperson was given to the Cultural Affairs Council for deliberation, and was summarized as “Copyright systems and policies compatible with the DX era”

There is also movement on anti-piracy measures.

In addition to finding piracy sites guilty, advertising agencies have been ordered to pay compensation to writers.

The Copyright Act has been revised in advance of this, and measures are being taken by all three branches: administrative, legislative, and judiciary.

And content strategy.

I agree with the perspective of define future predictions as 1. virtual space, 2. UGC, and 3. changes in industrial structures.

It is timely to focus on these three as policy themes for content that has been affected in two waves, namely coronavirus and technological changes, and the three are interrelated.

1. The metaverse will be a battle on a new platform. How should we confront US IT companies such as the Big Four and Netflix as Chinese companies such as Tencent also invest capital in Japan?

2. Concerning UGC, rumor has it that YouTube will provide NFT functionality, but will a new revenue/rights model be established, and how will asset values of content be organized?

3. Concerning industrial structures, while consolidation and restructuring of US media progresses, a review of the NHK’s management structure and the licensing system for commercial broadcasters is now being discussed in Japan as well at meetings of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. There is a high probability that not only will content change, but the media industry as well.

I think we should summarize the policies prior to the coronavirus and move forward.

Read More

Broadcasting systems have finally come an important point.

■Broadcasting systems have finally come an important point.

Broadcasting has been treated as an isolated and special position, both in industry and in government, so it has fallen out of the economic value chain and is now in trouble.

The meetings of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications’ conference are treated as broadcasts in the diverse information space, including the Internet, and question the diversity, pluralism, and local properties of culture found there. This is the correct understanding.

In consideration of the deficit of local sites, what should be done about the number and scale of businesses?

Do domestic regulations aimed at eliminating the concentration of mass media from the era when Japan was thriving still mean something?

Things that I have always seen as problems are being discussed in public.

The NHK is also weighing the value of its existence against license fees.

A proposal to make its primary business simultaneous online distribution, as an entity responsible for basic information.

As talk of abolishing BBC license fees in the UK is coming up, it seems that the debate on NHK manner of existence will be taken seriously at last.

Joint ownership of infrastructure between the NHK and commercial broadcasters has also been proposed.

Amendments to the Broadcasting Act that permit NHK simultaneous distribution created an obligation of cooperation between the NHK and commercial broadcasters relating to online deployment, but the foundation for rolling out data business can be created using NHK license fees.

Copyright is also a topic of discussion. A discussion about facilitating rights processing by treating both IP multicast (broadcasting) and unicast (communications), which are handled separately, as broadcasting. The past decision to separate systems based on distribution technology was fundamentally flawed. It took us 20 years to realize.

Read More

Wavering digital utilization and a business law framework.

■Wavering digital utilization and a business law framework.

Amendments to the Telecommunications Business Act are unstable.

1. Institutional development process

The procedure being hasty was presented as problematic by a portion of the industry.

As the state of the world changes rapidly and drastically in this field, it is a matter of the speed and coordination required for preparation of the requisite legal system.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has now held 16 meetings in 10 months, and vigorous discussions continue. It is not hasty in the slightest.

Despite that, a limited gathering of 10 selected experts met once or twice per month to deliberate, but submitted proposals were met with opposition from the business world, leading to readjustments.

This begs the question of whether that process will continue to be valid.

The same is true for coordination outside the conference room.

The lobbying power of the industry is demonstrated, but how will the voices of users, who are supposed to play the main role, be ensured and reflected?

Is the black box coordination in Kasumigaseki that occurs appropriate, not only in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, but also the Personal Information Protection Commission, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the Digital Agency, etc.?

I feel that it is being asked what form of policymaking is suitable for the digital and open era.

The reason for creating the “Digital Policy Forum,” too, is that we believed that a place where experts, stakeholders, policy makers, and others could openly participate and have discussions “constantly” is necessary.

2. Business laws and usage laws

It has been 37 years since the enactment of the Telecommunications Business Act. Now it has been proposed to make businesses that were previously exempt subject to regulatory rules. This is a major shift in legal framework, or policy.

The former Public Telecommunications Act (Public Act) was a law on how usage of NTT equipment of the Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation.

The Telecommunications Business Act (Business Act) was enacted to promote and manage, as a business, the development and sophistication of communications equipment.

It is a framework that 1. regulates and manages telecommunications carriers that have line equipment, yet 2. encourages telecommunications companies, or providers, that do not have them to participate with minimal regulations, and 3. excludes: businesses that do not act as media for telecommunications: exempts databases, the web, commerce, etc.

In the 80s and 90s, competition policies for telecommunications carriers were so effective that they served as a model overseas. We became an infrastructure superpower.

In the latter half of the 90s, due to the spread of the Internet, the main role shifted from 1. the infrastructure layer to 2. the service layer. Significant deregulation was performed.

Then, in the 2010s, the center of gravity shifted to 3. the application layer, that is, the exempt region.

With deployment of the application layer and recognition of user protections as an important issue, two “Consumer” Policy Divisions have been established at the Telecommunications “Business” Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

Measures for Internet use safety and the like have increased in depth.

So now, user protections are the goal, and action will be taken for the application layer, which was previously exempt.

Protect users with the Business Act. As the focus shifts from the initial regulation of infrastructure equipment to services and then applications and we trend toward user-based policy and the focus shifts toward user administration, the question arises whether the Business Act is fine as is.

A large legal framework theory in the form of a shift to usage laws, or a return to the Public Act, may also be in question.

Read More

A digital policy forum starting 20 years after reorganization of the central government

■A digital policy forum starting 20 years after reorganization of the central government

It has been 20 years since the reorganization of the central government. It also marks 20 years of digitalization. The “Digital” Agency finally being born as a result of such speaks to the slowness of Japan’s progress, but the fact that funds, laws, and personnel were gather in such a short period of time to launch it is a remarkable feat that is a testament to the horsepower remaining in this country.

In 1997, Hashimoto’s administrative reforms dissolved the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and issued an interim report that communications and broadcasting would be handled by an independent regulatory commission. Movements aiming to merge with the Ministry of International Trade and Industry or unify with the Ministry of Transport arose within the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. The former was a movement viewing communications policy as industrial policy, and the latter was a movement viewing such as infrastructure policy.

As a result of political coordination, it ended up as an internal bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. This is because the understanding that communications policy is horizontal administration across all fields, rather than vertical administration for industry and infrastructure, won out.

However, horizontal administration by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications did not make progress. The IT division was placed in the Cabinet Secretariat in an attempt to demonstrate horizontal power, but the two major issues laid out in the eJapan strategy of 20 years ago, namely, administrative and educational computerization, are the same as the two major issues laid out in last year’s Basic Policy. There has been no progress.

The digital defeat laid bare by coronavirus. Both government and education are inferior to overseas. There are grave delays in the public sector, including medical care. Rather, management DX, including telework, is not progressing. Is this not the result of all the winners of the Showa era, the world-leading such and such, rejecting DX for the entire Heisei era because they were the winners?

It would be cruel to place the blame on the country. It is a defeat for “everyone.” However, what digital policymakers should regret is the lack of power during that time to raise the priority of digital policy to the top of national policy. What made us aware of our defeat and made digital king was coronavirus, not digital proponents.

What organization is responsible for digital policy? Ever since the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications was established as a compromise, I have advocated for establishment of a “Ministry of Culture” as the next step. It is a vertically and horizontally integrated government office that governs administration of communications/broadcasting, computer/software, IT/intellectual property, and culture/copyright.

This is largely the same as the Ministry of Information, Economy and Society that the Japan Business Federation advocated for in 2018, but I am not claiming copyright. My sense for naming is better. Wouldn’t a government office with such a long name be second rate?

The Digital Agency, suddenly established in the wake of defeat, is the offspring of digital becoming top priority, and we should welcome it.

However, the Ministry of Culture or the Ministry of Information, Economy, and Society is the lowest common denominator of digital policy, but the Digital Agency, which concentrates on administrative computerization, is the greatest common divisor. The outcome of turning it into an organization was exactly the opposite.

Therefore, its mission is sharp. If the entire government goes through DX, the role of the Digital Agency will end. The mission of the Digital Agency is to work diligently and dissolve quickly.

Conversely, who should undertake the role of fostering a permanent digital social economy, which is entrusted to the concept of the Ministry of Culture. Defeated countries cannot afford to waste time reorganizing vertical government offices over and over.

The reason why we started the “Digital Policy Forum” made by collaboration between industry, academia, and government at the same time as the launch of the Digital Agency is to create, with “everyone,” players who embrace that idea. I pray that this attempt will serve as a step toward recovery.

Read More