Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
violate any copyright laws. The Tokyo District Court concluded that the central
servers in the MYUTA system are owned and managed by the provider, and that the
provider is guilty of copyright infringement unless it obtained consent from the
copyright holder [6].
3.6
TV Break (Formerly, “Pandora TV”)
TV Break was a service that allowed its customers to post and share videos on its
website. The service allowed a user to upload video recorded on his or her own
computer, and the user stored it on the provider's servers and then other users
downloaded the video to their own computer. The Intellectual Property High Court
concluded that the service of TV Break was the principal committing infringement of
the “reproduction right” and “right of public transmission” by storing videos from
users on the provider's servers and distributing them to other users [7].
3.7
Maneki TV
Maneki TV was a service that enabled its customers who lived abroad to view
Japanese television programs. The service used a device called a “Base Station” that
converted television broadcasts into digital data and transmitted them to a customer's
personal viewing device through an individual customer's remote control. The
Tokyo District Court and Intellectual Property High Court concluded that the service
of Maneki TV did not principally commit the infringement of the “right to make his
performance transmittable” and “right of public transmission” by transmitting
television programs to a customer's personal viewing device through an individual
customer's remote control [18].
3.8
Rokuraku-II
Rokuraku-II was a service that enabled its customers who lived abroad to view
Japanese television programs. The service used two devices called “Parent Device
Rokuraku” that converted television broadcasts into digital data and transmitted them
to a customer's personal viewing device through an individual customer's remote
control, and “Child Device Rokuraku” that was set in each customer's home. The
Tokyo District Court approved the plaintiffs' allegation, and the Intellectual Property
High Court concluded that the service of Rokuraku-II was the principal committing
infringement of the “reproduction right” by transmitting television programs to a
customer's personal viewing device through an individual customer's remote control
[5]. However, the Supreme Court judged the defendant was a direct infringer of the
reproduction rights [10]. This court case seems similar to the recent court case of
Maneki TV, but the outcomes are different [11].
Search WWH ::
Custom Search