4.20/01
コメント
ハリウッドで、以下の通り、コンテンツＩＤフォーラム（cIDf）主催の国際フォーラムがあり、そこで報告者として喋った内容です。
冒頭で、リラックスするために喋った英語の駄洒落が好評だったのですが、記録に残っていないので、再現できない(^^；)。
【The 2nd cIDf International Symposium】 （第２回cIDf国際シンポジウム）
会 期： 2001年4月20日(金)-21日(土)
会 場： アメリカ、ロサンゼルス
エンターメイテントテクノロジセンタカンファレンスホール
主 催： コンテンツIDフォーラム（cIDf)
〔主な内容〕
【１日目】(講演形式)フォーラムの活動報告、
今後の実証実験の概要と参加募集の説明
【２日目】(ワークショップ形式)電子透かし(メタ透かし技術、リゾリュ-ション)、
ビジネスモデルについてのディスカッション
Contents
1.. What kind of effect would CIDF bring to Copyright Law? Would
it really create a great change?
2. What Kind of effect would CIDF`s attempt bring to Copyright License Agreement? Would this produce any great change in contracts?
3. The new legal problems caused by the attempt of CIDF
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
1. What kind of effect would CIDF
bring to Copyright Law? Would it really create a great change?
My answer to this question is `no`. Nothing particular would change. The major aim of CIDF is to standardize the `Content ID`. But this aim is not particularly new. Rather, it is just a natural result leading from `digital content commerce over the Internet`.
However, `digital content commerce over the Internet` is clearly an epoch-making event not only for business but also for law. This requires important changes in Copyright Law.
In Japan, I know some lawyers who are against CIDF. They seem to feel that it is too radical. However, what is radical is not CIDF itself but the Internet. It appears that these lawyers are unaware of what they are really afraid of.
In relation to this, I would like to speak a little about how `digital content commerce over the Internet` influenced Copyright Law.
Before going into the argument, I would have to claim that I only know about Copyright Law in Japan. From now whenever I say `Copyright Law`, it refers to that of Japan but not of the USA.
Copyright Law is in fact the most mysterious and the most complicated of all the modern law. Copyright Law was made with some presupposition. Yet, those who made Copyright Law were unaware that they were presupposing this. Even today not many people seem to be aware of this. I feel that this is the fundamental reason that Copyright Law appears so mysterious and complicated. Let me speak about this more closely.
ⅰ．Copyright Law was originally for the situation where only few people with money, power, and technology could take part in the process of circulation. It was a straight gate. Corresponding to this strait gate, there was another straight gate. This was for pirates, who violate the copyright law. Very few people with money, power, technology, and courage could be given this title. Either legal or illegal, the process of circulation was exclusive. It was for very few privileged people.
Taken such situation for granted, Copyright Law was regulated as follows. While Pirates are punished for making illegal copies, non-pirate ordinary people are allowed to make copies, given the condition that they do so only for private use.
However, the change has come beyond all imagination. The Internet appeared. Thanks to the Internet, anyone with information became able to take part in the process of circulation of digital contents. It is not any more a straight gate, where only few privileged people can enter. At the same time it is an open door for pirates. The Internet took away the privilege of pirates.
Consequently, the old presupposition of Copyright Law, that
only few people can take part in the process of circulation, no
longer holds true. This changed the distributors as well as the
pirates. Now you can see why copyright Law needs new regulations.
Let me give you some concrete examples.
On the one hand, it is not good to punish ordinary people for
only making illegal copies because they are not outlaws like pirates.
I think that they need enlightenment rather than punishment.
However, on the other hand, it is not good to overlook ordinary
people for making copies for private use. Because they are no
longer innocents in the days of the Internet. Therefore, it is
an urgent task to reconsider the amount of freedom we allow in
to the private use. And this has to be done based on the actual
conditions of the Internet.
ⅱ． Next I would like to talk about a basic change caused by digitalization of contents. Why do I choose such worn-out topic? After the appearance of music CD, we all came to know very well about digital contents.
But I chose this topic because the real worth of digital contents
becomes clear for the first time when it meets the commerce over
the Internet. For this reason, this is a fruitful period for
digital contents.
Digital contents can be easily copied and re-distributed, maintaining
the original quality. Such nature of Digital contents was fully
bloomed for the first time when combined with the Internet.
However, our Copyright Law is not at all ready for this. Because
they were made for the analog contents.
A. When people make copies for private use, they are looked over. That is because their contents are analog.
While staying in New York City this spring, I enjoyed many amateur musicians performing in the subway. When they perform famous music (of course the ones that are not so old), legally speaking, they exploit musical works. And I don't think anyone of them pay royalty. But this is OK. Because this is not digital but analog.
B. Copyright license agreements are actually made for the analog situation. Not only are analog contents deteriorative, they also lose their quality when copied. This allowed Copyright owners to be generous about copyright license and reproduction for private use. Copyright Law too has confirmed this attitude.
However, since the appearance of digital contents, especially when combined with commerce over the Internet, the situation has changed drastically. Copyright owners can no longer stay generous. They have to claim for the copyright. They should demand regulations for the private copy making, including the ones with educational purpose.
Incidentally, when I first came to the USA and went to a bookstore in New York city, I saw many people sitting on the floor, reading and making notes. I was deeply moved. In Japanese bookstores only kids read books sitting on the floor. And they only read comic books, Manga. The other day, I went to a bookstore in New York to look for some book for my research. I am shy and lazy. So, instead of sit on the floor and make notes, I took pictures of some pages of the book with my favorite digital camera. It was so easy and fast. After finishing my research, I suddenly wondered: Is it legal or illegal? My reason answered `It is legal. No problem! `. However, my heart immediately said `It is illegal, isn`t it? `.
ⅲ Conclusion
We need to amend Copyright Law in the face of the progress of
digital contents and commerce over the Internet. Easier said
than done. I suspect that there are big obstacles for this, namely
mysterious and tricky nature of Copyright Law. In order to remove
such obstacles, first and foremost we need to closely examine
the nature of Copyright Law. The Internet will be useful for
this. Someone said that the Internet is a monster. But I would
put it this way: The Internet is a mirror. As a lawyer, I have
been always feeling that trouble is a mirror to people concerned.
Because trouble exposes the true character of them mercilessly.
The Internet is a great mirror. It also exposes the nature of
Copyright Law.
2. What Kind of effect would CIDF`s attempt bring to Copyright License Agreement? Would this produce any great change in contracts?
My answer to this question is `no`. Nothing particular would change. This is because, as mentioned previously, the goal of CIDF is not particularly new. It is no more than a natural result leading from `digital content commerce over the Internet`. If there were anything new at all, it is the embedment of a new unique code in digital content.
As I explained previously, `digital content commerce over the Internet` was epoch-making. This requires a fundamental change in the contracts of copyright.
Till recently, typical contract of copyright was copyright license agreement made between copyright owner and privileged distributor who controls the process of circulation. They are, for example, publishers, record companies, movie companies, and TV stations. However, after the appearance of the Internet, copyright owners became able to circulate their work without the help of such distributors. Consequently, as a party of the contracts about "digital content commerce over the Internet" are concerned traditional distributors such as publishers record companies, movie companies, and TV stations have disappeared.
As the traditional distributors disappeared, the new ones emerged.
What do they do? They transmit digital contents through the
Internet. What is important here is that their position is as
public as a telephone company or an electric company. So if they
forget their public nature and pursue their own interests, it
loses its quality. To prevent such undesirable situation, we
need to depend on the state regulations.
3. The new legal problems caused by the attempt of CIDF
We cannot ban illegal copies by `watermark`. But by using
the `watermark`, we can easily detect illegal copies. Such technology
has never existed in history of Copyright Law or of any other
law. Because of this, `watermark` actually causes new legal problems.
(1) Along with the appearance of `watermark`, hacking of watermark
started. However, there are no regulations about such hacking
in Japan. Copyright Law in Japan was amended in 1998 concerning
copyright protection. There were two main
Amendments. First one is related to the evasion of technical
means of protections. And the second one is about the alteration
of rights management information. Unfortunately, these amendments
did not concern hacking of watermark. Why not? I think that
the legislator of Copyright Law simply forgot it. So please do
not forget about this next time.
(2) To use the watermark and detect illegal copies, we need to check the contents such as attachments of E-mails. However, is it legal to check this way? By doing so, do we not fringe the privacy of the computer owners?
To look into the contents would be, I think, a clear privacy
infringement.
However, as far as we just check if there is `Content ID`, it
is OK. Because it is similar to a metal detector at an airport.
(3) Next topic is not directly related to `prevention against illegal copies` but related to the problem of private information. `Content ID` is embedded in each content. By reaching information in personal computers we can gather information about how users exploit contents. However, is this a privacy infringement? In the case of (2), which I explained previously, we only detect the servers, which is a type of public space. However, in this case, we detect personal computers, which is a personal area. In such area, privacy must be respected. So to reach private information this way without an authorization is, I think, a privacy infringement.
以上
Copyright (Ｃ) daba