1. He/she has never been to Japan.
2. He/she has no idea of how the law is actually applied in practice.
First, let me clear the air about something, I in no way condone copyright infringement. I think a person should support the artists that they like by buying their works. Because if you don't, your artist's work might disappear. However, the viewpoints I give are based on my experience of what ACTUALLY happens in the court system. Does this mean I'm telling everyone to break the law because your chances of getting caught and/or prosecuted are slim or none? No, I'm not saying that. What I am trying to convey is how the court system works in practice.
Unless, I'm mistaken, Robato takes the stand that if a law imposes criminal penalties, if you violate a law, you will go to jail.
And I do not misstate Robato's facts, I merely quote'em.
Robato wrote:The example I gave was just an example. you could be taking high quality photos in a museum (which would have a sign saying "no photos") and then creating a book to sell. Which is another example of you going to jail for the crime. (Japan would most definitly get you on criminal and civil)
In my vocabulary, definitely=100% certainty that an event is likely to occur. In REALITY, based on my experience, just because you infringe a copyright, the chances of you being convicted and sentenced to jail are very low.
Let's run through the criminal process.
1. You have to get caught.
2. Once caught, the police will have to arrest you.
3. Once arrested, the prosecutors will have file charges against you.
4. If charged, the court will have to find you guilty.
5. Once found guilty, the court will have to sentence you.
Now, let's look at what actually happens IN REALITY.
1. You will not get arrested by beat cops. They generally have no knowledge of IP law. They only know about crimes against the person and personal property. Most criminal copyright infringement suits are pursued from the prosecutor's office]Provide you statements with factual evidence as I have please. [/quote]
Okay, I will.
Remember my statement about how a lawful purchaser of a copyrighted work can be criminally prosecuted for circumventing the copy protection?
You said:
Robato wrote:Breaking copy protection isn't what will put you in jail.
Eh, wrong answer. The U.S. DMCA changed that and the recent law that Japan adopted might also change that. A person can be criminally prosecuted for breaking copy protection. What are the chances of that actually happening? Very low.
Next topic is fair use which you still don't quite grasp. Before I quote you again, I will explain what the fair use doctrine is. When users invoke fair use, they ARE STIPULATING that they have committed infringement. However, their infringement is excused by...are you ready for this? Tadah--fair use. What this means is that the fair use right is a limitation against the copyright owner's exclusive rights. This means that when you invoke fair use, you DON'T have to obtain the copyright owner's permission. It does make sense. If a user has obtained the copyright owner's permission to use the work, why would the copyright owner be suing the user?
Now, let's see what you have to say about this in terms of Japanese law:
Robato wrote:Are we speaking about Japan again??? OK!!!!! LETS READ JAPANESE LAW!!!Section 7 Exercise of Rights
(Authorization to exploit works)
Article 63. (1) The copyright owner may grant another person authorization to exploit the work.
(2) Any person who obtained such authorization shall be entitled to exploit the work in the manner and to the extent so authorized.
(3) The right of exploitation thus authorized may not be transferred without the consent of the copyright owner.
(4) Unless otherwise stipulated in a contract, such authorization to broadcast or diffuse by wire a work shall not imply the authorization to make sound or visual recordings of the work.
(5)The provision of Article 23, paragraph(1) shall not apply to such making transmittable of a work, by a person who has obtained such authorization with respect to the making transmittable of the work, as being made repeatedly or by means of another interactive transmission server in the manner and to the extent so authorized, provided that such manner and extent are not concerned with the frequency of the making transmittable of a work or an interactive transmission server to be used for the making transmittable of a work.
Section 7 has nothing to do with fair use at all. This section basically states one of the many exclusive rights that a copyright owner has, and the rights a licensee has with respect to the work's rights. Again, If I get permission from the copyright owner, I would be arguing a contract interpretation defense, not fair use.
Subsection 5 of the Civil Code is what parallels the U.S.'s fair use doctrine. This section covers the limitations on the copyright owner's exclusive rights. For example:
Article 30.(1) It shall be permissible for a user to reproduce by himself a work forming the subject matter of copyright (hereinafter in this Subsection referred to as a "work") for the purpose of his personal use, family use or other similar uses within a limited circle (hereinafter referred to as "private use").
Therefore, in Japan, if I made a back-up copy of music CD for my sister or brother, I could. Under the U.S.'s fair use law I am not allowed to do that.
Now that I've backed up my statements, is there anything that I've stated that is contrary to the law in its ACTUAL APPLICATION? But you can speak from actual practical experience can't you? You're not just relying on your three copyright classes right? I mean, I'm just relying on my three years of law school and actual work experience in the criminal defense field and civil intellectual property field.
