Technological advances and new steps in copyright protection

The Law to Partially Amend the Copyright Law was passed in the 145th session of the National Diet on June 15, 1999 and was promulgated as Law No.77 of 1999 on June 23.

These amendments, which are based on the "Summary of Deliberations of The Copyright Council Subcommittee 1" and the "Report of the Copyright Council Multimedia Subcommittee Working Group (on Technological Measures and Right Management)," which were made public in December of 1998, seek to modify the copyright system mainly in line with the matters incorporated in the new treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which form the new international framework for protecting copyright in the face of advances in digital and network technology. With these amendments, Japan has met the conditions for ratification of the WIPO Copyright Treaty.
The matters that have been amended may be summerized by the following five points.

Recent technological progress has brought about major changes in the ways in which works, (hereafter defined as including meaning works, performances, phonograms, broadcasts, and wire diffusions,) are used in society. For example, digital technology has made high-performance audio and video recorders and personal computers widely available and has made it possible for the general user to make high-quality reproductions and modifications of works, etc. Meanwhile, network technology has facilitated the dissemination of works to the public over the Internet, etc. and has expanded the routes by which works can be traded and distributed.
Such technological progress has expanded the opportunities for the exploitation of works, but at the same time has led to growing concern that works can be reproduced in high-quality and transmitted to the public without consent. In particular, there has been rapid growth in acts of infringement in forms that are difficult to detect, like unauthorized transmission via computer networks.
Technological measures and rights management information are technologies that have been developed to deal with this situation. The use of these technologies makes it possible for copyright owners (hereafter defined as including authors, copyright owners, and neighboring rights owners) to effectively prevent the illegal exploitation of works (technological measures), to easily detect illegal exploitation or to carry out rights clearance (rights management information), and then to participate in the individual exploitation of works in a more detailed and active way, and effectively secure copyright. But appearance of means preventing the operation of these technology, such as devices on the market to circumvent technological measures, has posed the danger that copyright will no longer be effectively secured.
The aim of these amendments is to effectively secure copyright and thereby ensure the trouble-free distribution and use of works by regulating acts related concerning circumvention of technological measures and alteration, etc. rights management information.
Measures to protect rights through technology to protect such rights rather than through rights relationships themselves have never previously been seen in the copyright protection legislation of Japan, so these amendments are characterized as a new step in the protection of copyright in Japan.

Means of dealing with technology for effectively securing copyright have long been studied.
The Conference of Those Involved in Studying and Researching the Copyright Problems of Computer Programs, which was set up in July 1993, considered regulation of the manufacture, etc. of devices to circumvent copy protection on program works, and in February 1995 the Copyright Council Multimedia Subcommittee Working Group issued an interim report clarifying unresolved points concerning regulation of devices to circumvent technological measures and means about rights management information, and presenting examples of what might be done.
Thereafter, the Multimedia Subcommittee adjourned its deliberations in order to examine international trends, because the enactment of new treaties was imminent in WIPO at that time. Then, in October 1996, with the trends having become generally clear, the deliberations of the subcommittee were resumed, and in February 1997 it released an interim report on its deliberations. Meanwhile, WIPO adopted the new WIPO treaties, namely, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, which prescribe obligations concerning technological measures and rights management information.
The interim report identified dealing with devices to circumvent copy protection as a topic for urgent study, and in response to this, the Multimedia Subcommittee set up a working group (on technological measures and rights management) in May 1997 to study what legal protection there should be with regard to technological measures and rights management information.
The working group first turned its attention to technological measures, releasing an interim summary in February 1998 and seeking submissions from a wide range of interested parties. Thereafter, the working group, while also considering rights management information, proceeded with its consideration of technological measures based on the views expressed in response to its interim summary, issuing the results of its deliberations in December 1998 in the form of the "Report of the Copyright Council Multimedia Subcommittee Working Group (on Technological Measures and Rights Management)."
With regard to technological measures and rights management information, the United States is similarly taking action by revision of its copyright law under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which came into existence in October 1998, while in Europe studies are continuing toward the adoption of an EU directive.

1. Overview (see Figure 1)

"Technological measures" refers to means for technologically preventing unauthorized exploitation of works. Those measures widely used at present include the Copy Generation Management System (CGMS), which is used for movie DVDs, etc.; the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS), a system that allows only one generation to be copied in digital format, which is used for audio CDs and DATs, etc.; and the false synch pulse system (the so-called macrovision system), which is used for movie videotapes, etc. Because these are all means for preventing unauthorized reproduction, they are sometimes referred to as "copy protection."
All of these technological measures prevent unauthorized reproduction by attaching a signal to the work to which the machine reacts. However it is possible to make unauthorized reproductions by removing or altering this signal, such as by using circumvention device. To effectively secure copyright, this latest amendment to the law regulates the transfer of ownership to the public of devices to circumvent technological measures etc., and declares reproductions become possible by circumventing technological measures to be excluded from the rights limitations of reproduction for private use and to be subject to copyright.

Figure 1 Regulation concerning circumvention of technological measures

2. Article 2 (definitions)

"Technological measures" have been defined as something that meets the following three conditions.

<1>	It must be a measure to prevent or deter such acts as constitute infringements on copyright by an electro-magnetic means.
<2>	It must not be something that is used not at the will of the copyright owners.
<3>	It must adopt a system of recording or transmitting such signals as having specific effects on machines together with works.

In defining technological measures, on the one hand there is the fear that future development of technology might be hindered if a specific technology is prescribed, but on the other hand there is the fear that without clear regulation, confusion could result. Thus, in this revision it was decided to prescribe according to means that are in use now and in the future too.

<Electro-magnetic means>
A measure using an electro-magnetic means refers to a measures whereby the means of attaching the signal to the work or the means by which the machine reacts is electro-magnetic. For example, in the case of SCMS, the means for attaching the signal to the work is a magnetic method (for DATs, etc.) or an optical method (for CDs, etc.), which is a type of "other means not perceivable by human perception", and the means by which the machine reacts to the signal is an electronic method (the reaction occurs by an electronic circuit).

<Such acts as constitute infringements on copyright>
This revision, whose intent is to effectively secure copyright (hereafter defined as including moral rights, copyrights, and neighboring rights), prescribes technological measures related to acts that are covered by copyright. Measures falling into this classification are measures related to the reproduction such as CGMS (copy protection) and measures related to making transmittable that may appear to in the future.
On the other hand, measures that restrict the viewing or listening of a work such as by scrambling (encrypting) a broadcast (so-called access control), do not qualify as technological measures because simple viewing or listening is not an act covered by copyright. Dealing with circumvention of such measures is thought to involve consideration of the necessity for finding simple viewing and listening to be covered by copyrights and international trends.
Technological measures to prevent the individual use of pirated editions used for game software are not classified as technological measures too, because the act of individually using a pirated edition is not an act that is covered by copyright.

<Measures to prevent or deter>
"Prevent" refers to stop such acts as constitute infringement on copyright. SCMS, which stops audio recording, are classified as a prevention-type measures. "Deter" refers to deterring such acts as constitute infringements on copyright by causing considerable obstruction to the results of such acts, although the act itself is not stopped. For example, the false synch pulse system, which causes a recorded picture to be disarranged and so unbearable to watch, is classified as a deterrence-type measures. Measures that merely warn the user not to make an illegal reproduction are not classified as each measure.

<At the will of the owner of copyright>
In these amendments, measures "used not at the will of the owner of copyright" are not included in technological measures. This is because it is thought, for example, that a technological measures that is used by a distributor who is not a copyright owner, on his or her own for his or her own profit without regard to the intent of the copyright owner, could not be considered a measures to effectively secure copyright.
As to what types of cases constitute those in which the measures are used "at the will of the owner of copyright", although the interpretation of individual cases under the Copyright Law is determined in the juridical, basically, such cases include:

(1)	cases in which the copyright owner himself or herself uses technological measures on his or her own,
(2)	cases in which technological measures are used under a contract between the copyright owner and the producer of the reproduction,
(3)	cases in which technological measures are used under clear instructions of the copyright owner to the producer of the reproduction, and
(4)	cases in which, for example as with SCMS, a certain trade clearly makes a decision as an entire trade domestically or internationally concerning the use of a specified technological measures, and as a result of publicly declaring this, the use of said technological measures gains the understanding of machine manufacturers and other involved parties and becomes widespread. Thus even when the copyright owner gives consent for reproduction, the technological measures are used for said reproductions without an explicit expression of intent concerning the use of the technological measures every time consent for reproduction is granted, because consent is based on the assumption that "said technological measures will, of course, be used".

In the absence of special circumstances, cases other than these are thought not to qualify as cases in which technological measures are used at the will of the owner of copyright.
Also, in a case in which the copyright owner uses technological measures at his or her will, it is thought to be desirable to show in a clear way, such as by inserting a contract clause or so stating on the product package, that the copyright owner is using a technological measures.

<Systems of recording or transmitting such signals as having specific effects on machines together with works>
Besides audio and video recorder, machines that falls under the category of "machines used for the exploitation of works" includes, for example, a personal computer in cases in which reproductions are made via personal computer. The reason why "acts which would constitute an infringements on moral rights if done without the consent of the author" are included in "exploitation" is that in acts related to moral rights are acts that are not necessarily included in the range of "exploitation" as it is used in the Copyright Law, such as a simple modification.
"Recording in a memory or transmitting" a signal "together with" the work refers to the condition in which recording or transmission of the signal and recording or transmission of the work is unified.

3. Article 30 (reproduction for personal use)

Act of knowingly carrying out reproduction, become possible by circumvention of technological measures, even if such reproduction is for the purpose of private use, are excluded from the rights limitations and are subject to copyright.

The rights limitations provisions are provided from the viewpoint of promoting the fair use of works. According to the provisions, there are various specific intents, including public benefit and coordination with other rights, but with regard to Article 30 (reproduction for private use), the justification for the provisions is taken to be that such use is an insignificant matter that does not improperly harm the interests of the copyright owner.
However, the making of a reproduction by circumventing technological measures is an act that overturns the premise under which the work was provided, namely, that its reproduction is restricted by the technological measures, and such reproduction, which is not envisioned in Article 30, is thought to possibly unfairly harm the interests of the copyright owner.
This revision therefore treats reproduction that has been become possible by circumvention of technological measures, even if it is reproduction for private use, in the same way as the case of reproduction carried out using an automatic copier for public use: it is excluded from the rights limitations of Article 30 and is subject to copyright.
Thus, the act of making reproductions for private use that are become possible by circumventing technical measures is subject to such civil remedies as petition for injunction. However, because such acts by individuals cannot be viewed as illegal to the extent that they would entail criminal penalties, it has been decided that they will be treated in the same way as reproduction carried out using an automatic copier for public use: the proviso in Article 119 item 1 applies, and the actor is not subject to criminal penalties.
Under Article 102, this article applies mutatis mutandis to performances, phonograms, broadcasts, and wire diffusions.

<Circumvention>
"Circumvention" of technological measures refers to enable to do acts prevented by technological measures (the prevention-type case) or to stop causing obstruction to the results of acts deterred by technological measures (the deterrence-type case) by removing or altering the signal that is used for the technological measures. For example, it would constitute circumvention to remove the signal of the false synch pulse system, or to alter the SCMS signal from "copy-enabled for one generation" to "copy-free" (making it possible to make second- and subsequent-generation copies). The act of using so-called non-reaction machine, which does not react to the signal used for the technological measures, does not constitute"circumvention."
By the way, when an audio CD is dubbed to an analog cassette tape, it is impossible to also dub the SCMS signal that is recorded on the audio CD, and as a result the signal is removed. Signal removal and alteration also sometimes occurs if data are compressed and transmitted. To make even such removal and alteration by such technological condition an object of regulation might hamper the smooth distribution and use of works, so it was decided to exclude from "removal or alteration" that is subject to regulation any "removal or alteration as is conditional upon technology involved in the conversion of the recording or transmission systems."

<Reproduction become possible by circumvention>
What is excluded from the rights limitations of Article 30 is reproduction that has become possible by the circumvention of technological measures (the prevention-type case) or reproduction that has ceased to cause obstruction, by such circumvention, to the results of acts deter (the deterrence-type case). In the case of a work to which a "copy-enabled for one generation" SCMS signal has been attached, second-generation and subsequent copying qualifies as reproduction that has become possible by the circumvention of technological measures.

<Made by a person who knows>
It is considered to be not necessarily clear from outward form whether a given work is one in which a signal used for technological measures has been removed or altered. Thus, cases can occur in which, if a work whose signal has been removed or altered is distributed while changing hands many times, a work is reproduced for private use without noticing that it is a reproduction become possible by circumvention of technological measures. Based on the concept that it would be improper to pursue the actor, even in such cases, as being liable as an infringer of rights, in amending the law it was decided that exclusion from the rights limitations of Article 30 would apply only if reproduction for private use is carried out while knowing that it constitutes reproduction become possible by circumvention of technological measures.

4. Article 120-2 (penal provisions)

It has been decided that a criminal penalty (imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not more than 1 million yen) as a crime indictable without a complaint will be imposed on:

<1>	any person who transfers the ownership of or lends to the public,
<2>	any person who manufactures, imports, or possesses for transfer of ownership or lending to the public, and
<3>	any person who offers for the use by the public
a circumvention device or a copy of a circumvention program; and
<4>	any person who transmits publicly or makes transmittable a circumvention program.
The same has also been applied to:
<5>	any person who, as a business, circumvents technological measures in response to a request from the public.

A single circumvention device or program that makes it possible to commit unlimited acts of infringement, and effectiveness of copyright would be severely damaged if such devices or programs became widely available in society. Therefore, in this amendment of the law it has been provided that those who transfer the ownership of a circumvention device or program to the public, etc. are subject to criminal penalty. Regulation of a circumvention device and program is thus intended to prevent a situation in which it is widely feared that copyright will be infringed by transfer of ownership of circumvention devices or programs to the public, etc. that circumvents technological measures used for works, that are widely distributed to the public.

<A device or program having a principal function for the circumvention of technological measures>
What is subject to regulation of transfer of ownership to the public, etc. are devices and programs whose principal function is to circumvent technological measures (devices include such a set of parts of a device as can be easily assembled"; for instance, kits for such devices). The phrase "having a principal function for circumvention of technological measures "refers to the fact that it has only limited practically significant function other than the circumvention of technological measures. Therefore, devices such as common personal computer equipment, which can be used for the circumvention of technological measures depending on the usage, but have other significant functions as well (general-purpose devices), are not subject to regulation. This is because of the consideration that to regulate general-purpose devices might lead to a situation in which the future development of the information society would be hampered.
Moreover, so-called non-reaction machine, which does not react to the signal used for technological measures, is not subject to regulation because its non-reaction does not constitute circumvention of technological measures. The reason for this is that the regulation of non-reaction machine would essentially impose an obligation to design machine to react to the signals used for specified technological measures, which was considered inappropriate.
On the other hand, in the case of machine that combines a circumvention device with another device (for example, a copy protection canceler with a clock) or machine having a built-in circumvention device, (for example, a video deck with a built-in copy protection canceler), the part of the circumvention device that is combined or built in is still subject to regulation as a circumvention device. It does not escape being characterized as a circumvention device by being combined with another device or built in to other machine.
In Japan, regulations against the circumvention of technological measures were carefully introduced to avoid any loophole in them. Both devices and programs having a principal function for circumvention of technological protection measures fall within the scope of the regulations. With other aspects of Japanese legislation, the amended Law provides very thorough and stringent regulatory frameworks against the circumvention, same as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of the US and the draft EU directive concerning this issue.

<Transfer of ownership of a circumvention device to the public, etc.>
For circumvention devices, the acts of <1> transerring of ownership or lending to the public, <2> manufacturing, importing, or possessing for transfer of ownership or lending to the public, and <3> offering for the use by the public (for example, the act of installing a circumvention device in a store and allowing customers to use it) are subject to regulation. As described above, the regulated acts are acts with respect to the "public". Thus it is interpreted that regulation applies to, for example, manufacture for the purpose of allowing transfer of ownership or lending to the public by a third person, and simple production-to-order too. Manufacture for one's own use and small-quantity production upon receipt of a special order is not subject to regulation.
With regard to a circumvention program, in addition to acts similar to a circumvention device for a copy, <4> transmitting publicly or making transmittable, which is the act of making such program widely available to society as an intangible object, is subject to regulation.

<Circumvention in response to a request from the public as a business>
The act of circumventing in response to a request from the public (for example, the act of obtaining movie software from a customer, circumventing technological measures, then returning it), if it is successively repeated, is considered to have the same effect as transfer of ownership of a circumvention device to the public, which makes possible unlimited acts of infringement with a single device. Therefore, in this revision of the law, <5> the act of circumventing technological measures in response to a request from the public as a business was also made subject to regulation.

<Sentencing, etc.>
A person who transfers the ownership of a circumvention device to the public, etc. is subject to imprisonment of not more than one year or a fine of not more than 1 million yen. The sentence is more lenient than that for the crime of infringement (imprisonment of not more than three years or a fine of not more than 3 million yen) in consideration of the fact that although the transfer of ownership of a circumvention device to the public, etc. is an act that significantly damages the effectiveness of copyright, it is not an act of infringement in itself but constitutes what might be called a preparatory act. Also, the transfer of ownership of a circumvention device to the public, etc. is an act that causes the widespread fear that copyright will be violated. Therefore the thinking behind making it a crime indictable without a complaint is that it would not be proper to entrust to the judgment of a specified rightholder whether to pursue criminal liability as in the crime of infringing rights.
This amendment of the law institutes no new civil remedies such as the right to petition for an injunction against the transfer of ownership of a circumvention device to the public, etc. The thinking behind this is that, whereas in the Copyright Law, the right to petition for an injunction is thought to be applicable in cases where there is a clear danger of the infringement of a specified copyright, in the case of the transfer of ownership of a circumvention device to the public, etc. it is not clear generally at the time of its transfer of ownership to the public, etc. what copyright the device or the program is being used to infringe.

1. Overview (see Figure 2)

Rights management information refers to information concerning copyright that is attached to a work and that is used for managing copyright.
By making use of rights management information through a computer network, a copyright holder can easily detect illegal exploitation and can carry out automatic rights clearance. If, however, a alteration, etc. of the rights management information is made, the effectiveness of copyrights is damaged, because, for example, it becomes difficult to detect illegal exploitation, and erroneous rights clearance is automatically executed. This latest amendment to the law seeks to secure the effectiveness of copyright by regulating the alteration, etc. of rights management information.

Figure 2 Regulation of alteration, etc. of rights management information

2. Article 2 (definitions)

"Rights management information" has been defined as something that meets the following three conditions.

<1>	It must be information concerning copyright which falls within any of the following: (a) information which specifies the work or the copyright holder, or other matters specified by Cabinet order, (b) information relating to manners and conditions of the exploitation in case where the exploitation of the work is authorized, or (c) information which enables to specify matters mentioned in (a) or (b) above by in comparison with other information;
<2>	It must be recorded or transmitted by an electro-magnetic means together with the work; and
<3>	It must be used for management of copyright by computer.

For rights management information, as for technological measures, detailed definition provisions have been set forth to strike a balance between generality and clarity.

<Information concerning copyright>
Rights management information is information concerning copyright (hereafter defined as including moral rights, copyrights, and neighboring rights including the right to remuneration), and more specifically, it must be information that falls under any of provisions (a) to (c) listed in Article 2 paragraph 1 item 21.
Falling under (a) is information of the name of the work, the name of the copyright holder, etc. It was decided to include "matters specified by Cabinet order" so as to be able to speedily cope with the various management of copyright that may appear in the future. At the present time, there are no matters that are planned to be specifically prescribed by Cabinet order.
Falling under (b) is information provided by the copyright holder when authorization for exploitation is granted, such as the form and number of times the work may be exploited and the royalty to be paid by the user in compensation for the authorization for exploitation. Therefore, this definition does not include information about the selling price of an audio CD or the fee for enjoy broadcast, because this is not information about compensation for authorization for exploitation. That is, information about the method and conditions of use that are set in a contract between a simple distributor who is not a copyright holder and a general user is interpreted not to fall under (b).
Falling under (c) is information such as code numbers by which one can look up the name of a work, etc. using a separately provided database or the like. The means of attaching a code number to a work as rights management information has advantages over the means of attaching the name of the work directly to that work in that, for example, it makes it possible to handle the updating of data flexibly. Thus in practice this means is widely used.
It was decided to cover information concerning neighboring rights including the right to remuneration (the right to remuneration for lending and the right to secondary use fees for broadcast) in consideration of the fact that planned information used for the management of the right to remuneration (the proper distribution of remuneration, etc.) already appears, as well as the fact that in the statement of agreement issued in conjunction with adoption of the new WIPO treaties, both the right of authorization and the right to remuneration would be covered concerning rights management information.

<Recorded or transmitted by electro-magnetic means together with the work>
With regard to "electro-magnetic means" and "recorded in a memory or transmitted together with the work", see the section on technological measures. An example of this is an "electronic watermark" watermarked in image data recorded by an magnetic means. On the other hand, this does not include bar code information that is printed on books for example.

<Management of copyright>
The intent of this amendment of the law is to ensure the effectiveness of copyright by regulating acts of hampering the management of copyright that have become possible through advances in technology. It was therefore decided information not used for the computerized management of copyright, even though it may be information concerning copyright, is not included in rights management information. Thus, information such as the credits in movie videos that are not independently used for the computerized management of copyrights does not qualify as rights management information. Information that is attached to works to be used for managing copyright in the future, constitutes rights management information from the time that it is actually used for management.
"Knowing how works are exploited" and "conducting business relating to the authorization to exploit works" which are listed in the text of the statute as examples of the management of copyright are provisions that envision the above-mentioned detection of illegal exploitation and automatic rights clearance respectively.

3. Article 113 (acts deemed to be infringements)

It was decided that the following acts will be deemed to be acts that infringe copyright and are subject to regulation.

<1>	The intentional addition of false information as rights management information
<2>	The intentional removal or alteration of rights management information
<3>	Any of the following acts performed by a person who knows that any act of <1> or <2> above has been done concerning such works: (a) the distribution of copies of works, (b) the importation or possession for distribution of copies of works, or (c) the public transmission or making transmittable of works.

Alteration, etc. of rights management information is taken to be an act that creates fear of infringement of copyright concerning the work to which alteration, etc. have been made. It was therefore decided to deem these to be acts of infringement of copyright and subject to regulation.
If one follows such a regulatory intent, it is interpreted that acts subject to regulation are those that threaten infringement on copyright. For example, the alteration,etc. of rights management information performed with the agreement of the copyright holder is interpreted as not being an object of demand for injunction or penal provisions.
One frequent means of implementing rights management information is to attach a code number to a work by means of an electronic watermark. But, if information such as the author's name is attached directly to the work then alteration, etc. of said rights management information could constitute a infringement on moral rights, such as the right of determining the indication of the author's name. And an act such as alteration, etc. of the rights management information recorded together with the work that is done for the purpose of causing erroneous automatic rights clearance could constitute, for example, the crime under the criminal code of illicit creation of an electro-magnetic record.
Paragraph 4 is a technical "read X as Y" provision to deal with the fact that the related provisions stipulate that "neighboring rights" do not include "the right to remuneration". The provisions of this paragraph do not affect the interpretation of other considered infringement provisions, etc.

<Addition of false information>
False information refers, for example, to information that identifies as the author a person who is not the author, or information that shows conditions not approved by the copyright holder as conditions of exploitation.
Addition of false information as rights management information, although not an act explicitly stated in the new WIPO treaties as subject to regulation, is thought to be an act that damages the effectiveness of copyright in ways similar to the alteration of rights management information, such as by causing erroneous rights clearance, and therefore it has been decided that intentional addition will be subject to regulation.

<Removal and alteration >
What is subject to regulation is removal or alteration that is done intentionally. This intentionality requirement is in acknowledgment of the fact that rights management information is often attached to a work by an electronic watermark or other means that is not normally recognizable, and that it would be improper to regulate cases in which the user of a work who is not aware of the existence of the rights management information inadvertently removes or alters it. Also, this amendment of the law does not impose an obligation to make distributors or general users aware of the existence of rights management information.
With rights management information as with technological measures, removal or alteration is excluded from regulation in "the case where such act is conditional upon technology involved in conversion of recording or transmission systems" (including cases in which a work is recorded or transmitted with compression, restoration, shrinkage, enlargement, or excerpting and in which technological condition are recognized). Furthermore it is anticipated that a larger quantity of information will be used for rights management information than for the signal used for technological measures, exclusion from regulation has also been decided upon for other cases where it is deemed unavoidable in the light of the purpose and the manner of exploiting works.

<Distribution, etc. of works concerning which removal, etc. of rights management information has been done>
The distribution or other act with respect to a work concerning which removal, etc. of rights management information has been done has been made subject to regulation in the same way as removal, etc., because this is an act that spreads fear of violations of copyright which has been caused by the removal, etc. What is subject to regulation is the act of engaging in distribution, etc. while knowing that removal, etc. has been done.

4. Articles 119, 120-2, and 123 (penal provisions)

It has been decided that a person who performs alteration, etc. of rights management information for a profit-making purpose will be subject to criminal penalty of a crime indictable upon a complaint (imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not more than 1 million yen).

With regard to the criminal penalty for alteration, etc. of rights management information, in view of the fact that it is a preparatory act that may lead to a violation of copyright, it was decided that sentencing, more lenient than that for the crime of infringement, will be imposed on a person who commits the act of alteration, etc. for a profit-making purpose, which is considered particularly pernicious.
Unlike the transfer of ownership of a device for circumventing technological measures to the public, etc., the alteration, etc. of rights management information is treated, like the crime of infringing rights as a crime indictable upon a complaint, because it is an act that causes fear of infringement for the specified work concerning which the alteration, etc. is made.