The ODEX issue - a look at Copyright Law of Japan.
-
It has been noted that Article 38 of Japan's copyright law allows parties to 'distribute by wire a work already broadcast for non-profit purposes'. - Andy Ho, Straits Times 16th August 2007
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_148784.html
Let's take a look at the Copyright Law of Japan.
http://www.cric.or.jp/cric_e/clj/cl2_1.html#cl2_1+SS5
(Performance, etc. not for profit-making)
Article 38
(2) It shall be permissible to diffuse by wire a work already broadcast, for non-profit-making purposes and without charging any fees to audience or spectators.
(3) It shall be permissible to communicate publicly, by means of a receiving apparatus, a work already broadcast or diffused by wire, for non-profit-making purposes and without charging any fees to audience or spectators. The same shall apply to such public communication made by means of a receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes"
The above two Sections of Article 38 places reasonable and fair doubt on ODEX's affidavit and claim to act on TV Tokyo's behalf, until the latter has expressively stated that it has authorised ODEX in a publicly accessible or notarised document, served notice in either Japanese or Singaporean press or any publicly available channel of communication, or accessible through a document request filed in a Japanese court (may or may not be under the Government Organizations Information Disclosure Law. I do not know if TV Tokyo is a state-owned enterprise of Japan); that ODEX may take legal action for TV Tokyo in Singapore for any perceived breach of copyright.
However, do note that Article 38 applies to companies and individuals under Japanese jurisdiction. Therefore, where does that place ODEX's tale of allegedly suing on behalf of TV Toyko in any correct or believable context at this current moment?
Like I said, is anyone going to call the bluff and enquire with the studio in Japan or the Japanese authorities concerned?
This thread should be flame-free and meant for rational discussion on the legal aspects and legality of ODEX's claim of authorised representation for TV Tokyo. -
It shall be permissible to communicate publicly, by means of a receiving apparatus
I'm afraid that this is rather vague and allows abuse, like our laws.
How does Japan defines this? -
Correct me if I'm wrong. The articles basically says that programmes which are already aired, eg. Naruto, Bleach, etc., are allowed to be broadcasted through apparatus that being our TV's and computers, again am I right?
-
I would also question this:
What do they mean by already broadcast ?
First few episodes? Or until every episode has been aired before they could be spread? -
too ambiguous
-
There is ambiguity there, no doubt. But this can be seen as a reasonable and fair defence as well.
-
TV Tokyo will have the same idea as Singapore fans as well.
Ambiguity is not fun to play with and is very hard to get someone to sway to your line of thinking if they already have a perception. -
Something OOT but I kinda like Andy Ho's column on the anime issue today in Straits Times.
Not that I am a fan of his columns cause his usual columns are well, you know, part of why we're 154th.
But I am kinda fascinated by what he wrote today. -
I think Tokyo Tv is only a convenient reason for Odex.
-
We need someone damn zai in the Japanese language to send a good e-mail feedback to them and query on this.Originally posted by LyonK:I think Tokyo Tv is only a convenient reason for Odex. -
This TS I'm helping is a Japanese. Want?Originally posted by CoolMyth:We need someone damn zai in the Japanese language to send a good e-mail feedback to them and query on this. -
Well, if you can convince him to, why not?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:This TS I'm helping is a Japanese. Want? -
what he wrote? i nv suscribe straits timesOriginally posted by CoolMyth:Something OOT but I kinda like Andy Ho's column on the anime issue today in Straits Times.
Not that I am a fan of his columns cause his usual columns are well, you know, part of why we're 154th.
But I am kinda fascinated by what he wrote today. -
No way am I going to type that thing and cut my sleep.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:what he wrote? i nv suscribe straits times
I'm out for the night. -
Once he's done with his PC, I'll contact him. But unlikely he will stay around long enough for me to ask. They always disappear.Originally posted by CoolMyth:Well, if you can convince him to, why not? -
Yeap, I was inspired by that to do this thread lah.Originally posted by CoolMyth:Something OOT but I kinda like Andy Ho's column on the anime issue today in Straits Times.
Not that I am a fan of his columns cause his usual columns are well, you know, part of why we're 154th.
But I am kinda fascinated by what he wrote today. -
the link is in the first post.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:what he wrote? i nv suscribe straits times
-
and knowing Japanese animation studios' working culture, this reckless damaging of PR and brand management might not be something they would want as well.Originally posted by LyonK:I think Tokyo Tv is only a convenient reason for Odex. -
Finally I find some material on HWZ that makes awful lot of sense lah..
Normally, it may not be good to cross-quote from another forum, but this chap lawlipoppy raises two interesting points through looking at our own Copyright Act.
2. It appears that ODEX is rely on section 136.
Let's see 136(1):
136. —(1) A person who at a time when copyright subsists in a work —
(a) makes for sale or hire;
(b) sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade offers or exposes for sale or hire; or
(c) by way of trade exhibits in public,
any article which he knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an infringing copy of the work shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 for the article or for each article in respect of which the offence was committed or $100,000, whichever is the lower, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
----
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe downloaders will not fall under 136(1) as they don't satisfy 136(1)(a) to (c) [Continued in 3.]
he then goes on to mention that even under Section 136, the accusation is on shaky ground.
3. Let's now consider s136(2):
136(2) A person who at a time when copyright subsists in a work has in his possession or imports into Singapore any article which he knows, or ought reasonably to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the purpose of —
(a) selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing for sale or hire, the article;
(b) distributing the article for the purpose of trade, or for any other purpose to an extent that will affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright in the work; or
(c) by way of trade exhibiting the article in public,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 for the article or for each article in respect of which the offence was committed or $100,000, whichever is the lower, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
---
Once again, a normal downloader will not infringe this section, as the commercial element required in this subsection is not satisfied.
Link
---------------------------
Right, now we see that in both Sections, the offence hinges on "will affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright in the work"
Now then, consider that the owner(s) of the copyright of the work falls under their own Copyright Law in Japan. One might argue quite successfully about the unique nature of fan-sub culture in that it drives community growth and diffusion of product popularity, and key sideline business as well..
Andy Ho wrote a damn tight article. Kudos to him.
-
interesting read. thanks lazerlordz for the insightful info. although some ambiguity needs to be further clarified and sorted out as menioned but hey, at least now we have something on our side for defence.
-
Haha no probs.Originally posted by Gordonator:interesting read. thanks lazerlordz for the insightful info. although some ambiguity needs to be further clarified and sorted out as menioned but hey, at least now we have something on our side for defence.
Well, thank Andy Ho for that article that got me curious.
It's not often that I praise a Straits Times article..
Japanese Copyright Law has a grey area, and so does ou Copyright Act. In fact, under the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement signed in 2004, we had to change our Copyright Act to be more flexible and open-ended for the Courts to decide.
Lastly, if the "demand letter" posted in HWZ is to be believed, then perhaps they need to be clear about which Statute was violated by the downloaders.
If they cannot do this, then something doesn't feel right. -
Section 136 is pretty clear, unless I'm wrong. I don't know Japan politics.
But looking at the laws, there are quite are few which could be invoked. I don't know if there's any particular section that will take precedence over the other, but if that's the case, we will be in for a hard fight. -
A fight is better than none at all, which was at the initial stage.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Section 136 is pretty clear, unless I'm wrong. I don't know Japan politics.
But looking at the laws, there are quite are few which could be invoked. I don't know if there's any particular section that will take precedence over the other, but if that's the case, we will be in for a hard fight.
If there's one thing good that has come out of this, it's that even non-otakus are incensed enough by such appalling behaviour. -
Yeah... but we have to see how the case goes. Currently, only local laws apply, so a lot of people are hurt right now.Originally posted by LazerLordz:A fight is better than none at all, which was at the initial stage.
If there's one thing good that has come out of this, it's that even non-otakus are incensed enough by such appalling behaviour.
If the case could go to Japan... we may see different results. -
I think it all depends on whether any accused is willing to go to trial with a legal team that is IT "MediaSentry case" and IP-savvy, and also knows a fair bit about the Japanese legal aspect of this case.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Yeah... but we have to see how the case goes. Currently, only local laws apply, so a lot of people are hurt right now.
If the case could go to Japan... we may see different results.