Japanese Law Enforcement Uses New Copyright Law To Arrest 27 File Sharers

from the lock-'em-up dept

Last year, we noted that Japan had put in place ridiculously draconian copyright laws that criminalized unauthorized downloads, DVD backups and even watching infringing YouTube videos in some cases. And, of course, what good is a law if it's not used? So, Japanese law enforcement apparently went on a big raid, searching 124 locations and arresting 27 people. Those arrested may face between two and ten years in jail, because that's a reasonable punishment for sharing something. I don't see how this makes anyone respect copyright any more, or gives anyone any additional incentive to support the legacy players who are using this system to put fans in jail.

Filed Under: arrests, criminal copyright, file sharing, japan, law enforcement


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    JP Jones (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 6:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: @ Rikuo the obstinate little pirate:

    1) Wrong. Creators are granted a limited right to maintain a monopoly on their works. If creators had the sole right to copy their work, publishers couldn't exist, because they are by definition copying someone else's work.

    2) Difficulty of creation has no relevance to a creator's rights, it doesn't now, and never has. This is completely off-topic.

    3) Law for copyright exists to grant creators a limited exclusive right to a new idea before it is added to the public domain for the improvement of society. This is to incentivise creation.

    4) Wrong. Copyright specifies who can distribute original copies. Other individuals can profit besides the original owner. This is painfully obvious if you think about the concept of, I don't know, every store in existence.

    5) Technically true. Life + 70 years (or 120+ in the case of corporations) is not effectively limited. Anything that is limited for two lifetimes may as well be unlimited for all practical purposes.

    6) There may not be a right to copy, but there is freedom of speech and the freedom to do what I want with things I have. Copyright prevents me from doing something I could otherwise do, therefore it is removing a right by definition. We, as a society, accept this in a limited degree in order to incentivise creation. Since the limitation is gone, and my rights are being ignored, I see no reason why I should respect the rights I am granting another person if they refuse to respect mine.

    7) The method of copying is irrelevant, both in reality and in copyright law.

    Your all-caps opening is wrong, too. If I buy something, it's mine. I can give it to whoever I want. Copyright is removing that right.

    You can copy and paste as many times as you want but it will never be true.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.