# Anti-downloading law passed in Japan



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 1, 2012)

*A few hours ago Japan introduced new anti-piracy legislation designed to clamp down on illegal file-sharing. In most countries users are only targeted when they upload copyright-infringing material to other Internet users, but the new law’s wording means that simply downloading unauthorized material could result in a jail sentence.*

From today, knowingly downloading copyright infringing material can result in a two-year jail sentence or a fine of 2 million yen ($25,680). But there could be complications.

Tracking uploaders of infringing material is a fairly simple affair, with rightsholders connecting to file-sharers making available illicit content and logging evidence. However, proving that someone has downloaded content illegally presents a whole new set of issues.
https://torrentfreak...m-today-121001/


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 1, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSLlZh9yelk


----------



## Sterling (Oct 1, 2012)

Wow, I wonder how big the backlash is going to be. I'm pretty sure that many Japanese citizens download stuff heavily like many of us.


----------



## Walker D (Oct 1, 2012)

This is fucked up :/


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Oct 1, 2012)

I don't think now is the time for such drastic laws. This will end badly for everyone involved.


----------



## pokefloote (Oct 1, 2012)

2 years in PRISON?

1: "What are you in here for?"
2: "Downloaded Imagine:Horse Trainer. How about you?"
1: "Murdered two people."


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 1, 2012)

This is going end very very badly.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Oct 1, 2012)

JAPCTA strikes again.


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 1, 2012)

An isp might lose some of their customers if they were known to turn in their customers for such offences. I know I would probably be looking for a new isp if that ever happened here. I know for fact that here in USA an isp needs to keep logs of what you do on internet for 3 months (last I checked a few years ago).


----------



## Shoat (Oct 1, 2012)

The* Iron Fist* does not work in the 21st century.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 1, 2012)

Shoat said:


> The* Iron Fist* does not work in the 21st century.


It's like you haven't heard of Russia, alongside many other ex-USSR countries that disguise themselves as democracies. Mind you, the ones that didn't "liberate themselves". Or China, for instance. Or North Korea.

Iron Fist works perfectly fine, it's a matter of the society, not the concept.

That said, this law changes nothing. Knowingly downloading and/or sharing copyrighted content has always been illegal and penalized, this is just a law that specifically states penalties.


----------



## Shoat (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Shoat said:
> 
> 
> > The* Iron Fist* does not work in the 21st century.
> ...




Let me expand it a bit:

The Iron fist does not work in countrys that have _actually arrived_ in the 21st century.
Which dictatorships and fake democracies certainly have not. But Japan has.

And if american and european citizens can fend off a law way less severe than this, then this cannot hold either.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 1, 2012)

Shoat said:


> The Iron fist does not work in countrys that have _actually arrived_ in the 21st century.
> Which dictatorships and fake democracies certainly have not. But Japan has.
> 
> And if american and european citizens can fend off a law way less severe than this, then this cannot hold either.


That's debatable. Japan certainly has a technologically-advanced society, but certain obsolete traditional concepts have survived within their society due to its somewhat isolationist attitude towards cultural influences throught the years. Mostly in the past, but still. Now, I'm not saying they're backwards - they're merely different from us, and its up to the Japanese to decide whether they find this law to infringe upon their rights or not.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 1, 2012)

So if viewing copyrighted material on YouTube (or on any video hosting site) isn't specified in the law then why is it a concern?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 1, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> So if viewing copyrighted material on YouTube (or on any video hosting site) isn't specified in the law then why is it a concern?


*Technically* watching a stream is a form of downloading, since the video buffers up to the computer's memory, thus it downloads, in a way. That's a semantic issue though.


----------



## Click This (Oct 1, 2012)

I see two results.

1. The law is enforced. The court system overflows from backlogs and will end up like the Russian court system. Fucked up. Buildings the size of the Metropolitan Government skyscraper will be built to serve as prisons.

2. Massive backlash and protests. The law is not enforced and dropped.

Either way, big no.


----------



## Rydian (Oct 1, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> So if viewing copyrighted material on YouTube (or on any video hosting site) isn't specified in the law then why is it a concern?


Well Pizza isn't normally considered a vegatable, but that didn't stop a specific ruling counting it as one...


----------



## Click This (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > So if viewing copyrighted material on YouTube (or on any video hosting site) isn't specified in the law then why is it a concern?
> ...



With a wide interpretation of the law, they can get you for that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 1, 2012)

Click This said:


> With a wide interpretation of the law, they can get you for that.


Like I said - legal semantics. It would all run down to a fight between the defense and the prosecutor, the more experienced parrot would win.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 1, 2012)

Either this won't really be enforced at all, or there is going to be one hell of a shitstorm. At least that might serve as a deterrent for other nations with similar laws in the works.


----------



## ouch123 (Oct 1, 2012)

Spoiler: Funny Response









Spoiler: Serious Response








This will either be interesting or horrifying news to follow. Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Oct 1, 2012)

Teah like this is gonna stop them, they'll never stop pirating they're wasting their time.


----------



## NightsOwl (Oct 1, 2012)

Poor Japan. Wish stupid stuff like this wouldn't happen. I wouldn't want to go to jail for downloading an image off a site and it being illegal to do so. (If that is the case.)

That's just silly. I hope this falls through. Even for Anti-Piracy, this is stupid.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 2, 2012)

Click This said:


> I see two results.
> 
> 1. The law is enforced. The court system overflows from backlogs and will end up like the Russian court system. Fucked up. Buildings the size of the Metropolitan Government skyscraper will be built to serve as prisons.
> 
> ...




This will work is the same way it already works in Japan with gambling, prostitution, (uncensored) pornography, and drugs .... you're only breaking the law if the yakuza says you are.


----------



## narutofan777 (Oct 2, 2012)

Is this about torrents or cyberlockers?


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2012)

I hear Japan has some very nice VPNs for people to use.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 2, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I hear Japan has some very nice VPNs for people to use.



Sauce Linkz?


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> the_randomizer said:
> 
> 
> > I hear Japan has some very nice VPNs for people to use.
> ...



Uh, not sure what the legality is of linking to any VPN here on the Temp; don't want to get banned.


----------



## Valwin (Oct 2, 2012)

Ok ok how will this affect my Japanese school girl puke videos? Will this affect Japanese uploading them?


----------



## ferofax (Oct 2, 2012)

As of tomorrow, October 3, a similar law goes into effect in our country. It's currently being petitioned though, mainly because of one of the authors of the said law was recently embroiled in "plagiarism" accusations (which, when scrutinized, holds quite accurate). Plus, the law was very vague and could put is in jail for 12 years on counts of "online libel" just for "liking and sharing" an online post that is deemed "libelous". It covers a wide array of issues concerning online though, including file-sharing and torrents.

It's gonna be a sad, sad world tomorrow for us in the Philippines. The die has been cast.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 2, 2012)

I sure hope this will never happen in Australia, cause this is just plain stupid and I'm sure abuse of this law will mean a lot of people will be imprisoned because they downloaded a game.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 2, 2012)

I do believe government has the right to crack down on piracy but prison seems a bit much. In the US at least our prisons are already far beyond capacity because of some very silly and poorly implemented policies (the "war on drugs" thing makes even minor drug offenses fetch a prison sentence). The last thing we need are prisons filled with neckbeards for downloading some skeevy internet pornography.


----------



## RupeeClock (Oct 2, 2012)

The thing about creating laws like this is that you create criminals.
A war on illegal downloads could be like a war on drugs, where you're putting people in jail for shit that really doesn't have THAT much of an impact.

I mean what happens when you put these people away? They can no longer financially support a god damn thing that's what.
In your effort to stop them from illegally download one thing, who knows how many other things you've stopped them from buying. Not even things like digital goods mind you but food, clothes and services.

Their intentions are clear but it'll have unintended ramifications is what I'm saying.


----------



## war2thegrave (Oct 2, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> An isp might lose some of their customers if they were known to turn in their customers for such offences. I know I would probably be looking for a new isp if that ever happened here. I know for fact that here in USA an isp needs to keep logs of what you do on internet for 3 months (last I checked a few years ago).



Oh really? 
The ISP doesn't really have to do anything, but it's not like they are going to tell the government that they can't have any of the information that they ask for.
The ISP's have already shown their willingness to comply with government demands by allowing them to install snooping hardware in the ISP's own servers.
You think that the ISP's are afraid of losing customers? I doubt it?
Where are they going to go? It's not like there are an abundance of choices.
It's practically a monopoly.

Internet freedom is a myth propagated by hippies.


----------



## klim28 (Oct 2, 2012)

We have Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in the Philippines.

http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/


----------



## Bladexdsl (Oct 2, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> I sure hope this will never happen in Australia, cause this is just plain stupid and I'm sure abuse of this law will mean a lot of people will be imprisoned because they downloaded a game.


I'll just use a proxy


----------



## GeekyGuy (Oct 2, 2012)

What surprises me is the surprise being expressed by some of you. I think we should expect to see this type of legislation proliferate worldwide at an accelerated rate. If UN-member governments can routinely break the laws of the UDHR with no recourse, intellectual property (and how it's governed) becomes kind of a non-issue.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 2, 2012)

Oh well, let's see how long this takes up when half the nation( 99% of whom will be the young working force) is supposed to go to jail


----------



## Qtis (Oct 2, 2012)

2 things:


- Interpretation of this will go boink.. How do you differ the source as legitimate? Bittorrent is illegal? Well then you can count out Spotify from the list of legal apps, since it's close to a bittorrent client (everyone uploads and downloads the stuff while listening..). How about YouTube? The world's most used video streaming site was considered illegal before it was acquired by Google (and took note of the DMCA).

- Give everyone a legal way of doing something and you could get customers/less pirated software/media/whatever. Personally I don't see the need to download a single album as long as Spotify/similar services are operational. Same could be said for Netflix (haven't tested this, but will do so once it lands in the Cold North).

This'll just lead to people getting VPNs for everything. Just like every foreigner/quite a few Chinese in China. Bah.. The wasted tax payers' money and time for implementing something like this.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2012)

Bladexdsl said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > I sure hope this will never happen in Australia, cause this is just plain stupid and I'm sure abuse of this law will mean a lot of people will be imprisoned because they downloaded a game.
> ...



Proxies aren't that secure, VPNs provide better anonymity. There is no way they can stop the millions upon millions of people that use VPNs and proxies.


----------



## Rydian (Oct 2, 2012)

GeekyGuy said:


> What surprises me is the surprise being expressed by some of you. I think we should expect to see this type of legislation proliferate worldwide at an accelerated rate. If UN-member governments can routinely break the laws of the UDHR with no recourse, intellectual property (and how it's governed) becomes kind of a non-issue.


The surprise is at how such heavy punishments could be doled out for acts that don't directly hurt anybody.  If I go out and download Rihanna's new album, the amount it would cost me normally to buy it is not magically deducted from anybody's bank account, nor do any copies for sale magically vanish from shelves.

"Well if you're downloading it that means you're NOT buying it." - Yes, and if I go over to a friend's house to watch his copy of a movie, then I'm not buying it either.  Should I be jailed for that since I got to watch somebody else's copy?


----------



## GeekyGuy (Oct 2, 2012)

Rydian said:


> The surprise is at how such heavy punishments could be doled out for acts that don't directly hurt anybody.  If I go out and download Rihanna's new album, the amount it would cost me normally to buy it is not magically deducted from anybody's bank account, nor do any copies for sale magically vanish from shelves.
> 
> "Well if you're downloading it that means you're NOT buying it." - Yes, and if I go over to a friend's house to watch his copy of a movie, then I'm not buying it either.  Should I be jailed for that since I got to watch somebody else's copy?



Disgust I could understand, but surprise? Really? The only thing that surprises me is that it's taken them this long to push this type of legislation through and that we in the U.S. don't already have such harsh laws. But like I said, I fully expect we will and very soon, and it will likely happen under the noses of most Americans.


----------



## Rydian (Oct 2, 2012)

Touche.


----------



## boktor666 (Oct 2, 2012)

wow, that's sort of harsh. Wonder how long it's going to last.. Can't be forever right? It didn't last here, so why should it there.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 2, 2012)

I understand and accept that they want to stop file sharers/downloaders of copyrighted stuff. It makes sense. But the punishment is what fucks this whole thing up.


----------



## Sheimi (Oct 2, 2012)

The one question is. What if you're listening to a vgm (video game music) on youtube in Japan. For example: I am listening to Super Mario Bros NES - Underground theme. Now, would they go after you for listening to that on YouTube even though I can go turn on my 3DS and let the underground theme play.


----------



## jargus (Oct 2, 2012)

Kinda makes this seem a little dated then:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UXI1ToueMk


----------



## jonesman99 (Oct 2, 2012)

I thought ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA being dropped were supposed to be deterrents. Aren't they the exact same thing, just with a different fancy name slapped on it?


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Oct 2, 2012)

Next Stop: America. If they can legally rule that you can now be legally detained without a trial. Then they can sure as hell do this.


----------



## Santee (Oct 2, 2012)

Was hoping for reasonable penalties, maybe like ten to twenty times the original price.


----------



## lokomelo (Oct 2, 2012)

jargus said:


> Kinda makes this seem a little dated then:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



They say on that videos that you can get 10 years of hard labor. 90% or more of the world work hard every day, this is no punishment...


----------



## Gahars (Oct 2, 2012)

Santee said:


> Was hoping for reasonable penalties, maybe like ten to twenty times the original price.



This is what we call a reasonable penalty now?


----------



## Santee (Oct 2, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Santee said:
> 
> 
> > Was hoping for reasonable penalties, maybe like ten to twenty times the original price.
> ...


Reasonable when compared to 2 years in prison or $26,000, I would hope so.


----------



## Splych (Oct 3, 2012)

Soo... This applies to people in Japan correct? If I watch streamed anime that originates from Japan and is not localized in North America, how will that work out?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 3, 2012)

Being a Japanese law that applies presumably in Japan only (I doubt this will be one of those laws that tries to apply to Japanese citizens beyond Japanese borders) it will probably turn in a jurisdictional nightmare long before it gets anywhere (not to mention damages and it being a civil offence means extradition is probably impossible- can't say I have read any Japan-Canada extradition treaties but basic civil offences tend not to be included in them).

"not localized in North America" means very little though- aspects of patents and trademarks aside (as well as the local only IP types like design rights and registered designs in the UK) most IP treaties are reciprocal meaning a Japanese company could still sue you (publishing a work in Japan probably sees it copyrighted in Canada as well and vice versa and so on and so forth). Part of localisation usually means signing the various rights over to another company (either for a cut or a large sum or both) but it will be worded so as to allow the buying company to take their cut from the original work. This signing rights over also means the new company has a vested interest and probably access to local lawyers (trying to find a lawyer in Japan skilled in Canadian IP law..... not going to happen easily) where before it would take serious resources to do anything- the whole "not localized" thing is not even a loophole just a "nobody will bother to investigate and sue us" type of move.

I will have to watch how this plays out though.


----------



## loco365 (Oct 3, 2012)

Well, there goes porn, anime, good JRPGs, and the list could go on.

For now, anyways.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 3, 2012)

Splych said:


> Soo... This applies to people in Japan correct? If I watch streamed anime that originates from Japan and is not localized in North America, how will that work out?



A) Considering it's a Japanese law, passed in Japan by Japan's government... yes.

B) As far as I know, this is related to downloading only (unless they construe streaming to fit under that banner). It would probably depend where you're streaming the material from; it could be an anime hosted on a site from a different nation. Beyond all that, I don't think Japan would go through the hassles of extradition over a matter like this.


----------

