The Law to Partially Amend the Copyright Law (hereafter called the Amendments) was passed on June 15, 1999 and promulgated as Law No. 77 of 1999 on June 23.
The portions of the Amendments discussed here, the concluding installment of this multipart commentary, are the establishment of the right of transfer of ownership (i.e. making available), expansion of the right of presentation, and abrogation of Article 14 of the supplementary provisions.

These amendments are based on the "Summary of Deliberations of Copyright Council Subcommittee 1," the study of which was prompted by the adoption of two treaties at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in December 1996; namely, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
These new treaties contain various provisions to deal with the progress in digital and network technologies. As a part of this, in order to deal with interactive communication via the Internet and other networks, a "right of public transmission" and "right of making transmittable" were already stipulated in the 1997 partial revision of the Copyright Law as matters to be dealt with on an urgent basis.
With regard to other required amendments in order to conclude the treaties, it was decided that the Multimedia Subcommittee would make a study of technological measures and rights management information, while Subcommittee 1 would make a study of right of distribution and rights having to do with the display of works. In addition, a study was conducted on transitory measures (supplementary provisions, Article 14) concerning the right of performance, which has been a perennial topic of discussion, and the results of these deliberations were released as a summary of deliberations in December 1998.
Among the revisions, this summary of deliberations was the basis for establishment of the right of transfer of ownership, expansion of the right of presentation, and abolition of Article 14 of the supplementary provisions. With these measures, together with provisions concerning technological measures and rights management information, Japan has met the conditions for ratification of the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

1. Background (see Figure 1)

Noting that the WIPO Copyright Treaty, etc. prescribes for works, etc. in general a "right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership" (right of distribution), this revision newly recognizes, under Japanese copyright law as well, the right of transfer of ownership as a right of authors, performers, and producers of phonograms.
A right of distribution has not heretofore been recognized in Japan for cinematographic works (hereafter defined as including reproduced works in cinematographic works and adapted works in cinematographic works), nor rights concerning the transfer of ownership of works other than movies. This is because reproductions are made for the purpose of ordinary distribution and their distribution can be controlled by contract as a condition when permission to reproduce is granted, and deemed infringement provisions (Article 113 paragraph 1) have been instituted for the distribution of illegal copies to protect the rightholder. However, it was decided to have a general right of distribution in Japan too, for the sake of international harmonization of the copyright protection system in light of the fact that, in addition to the provision of right of distribution in the WIPO Copyright Treaty, etc., Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other developed countries recognize a right of distribution, and because the distribution of works is the most basic form of exploitation of works.
Meanwhile, the making available of works (music CDs, books, etc.) is a widespread, large-volume, everyday economic transaction, and because the distribution of works may be greatly affected by extending the right of transfer of ownership to all acts of making available, provisions have been instituted to deal with the exhaustion of, limitation of, and special exceptions to the right of transfer of ownership, in order to harmonize the protection of rights while ensuring trouble-free distribution by restricting the range in which rights are recognized.
For sake of legal stability, the provisions concerning the right of transfer of ownership do not apply to works in existence when the amendments go into effect (January 1, 2000), and thus the right of transfer of ownership does not apply to copies, etc. of works that are already in distribution channels or in the hands of consumers, or that are being stored in a warehouse following their production.

Figure 1

2. Article 26-2 (Right of transfer of ownership and exhaustion of rights)

Because the WIPO Copyright Treaty ordains a right of distribution for works in general, the supporting right known as the right of transfer of ownership was instituted as a right of the author. This recognizes a new right concerning the transfer of ownership of all copies, etc. of non-cinematographic works, including language, music, and computer program works. Meanwhile, to ensure the smooth distribution of works, the decision was made to provide for the exhaustion of the right of transfer of ownership (the approach that if a work is made available in a tangible form such as that of a copy, the purpose of the right has been achieved for said tangible object, and the right is no longer valid for subsequent transfer of ownership).
The requirement that the right of transfer of ownership becomes exhausted adopts the approach known as the first sale doctrine, which basically holds that once a copy, etc. of a work has legally been made available, thereafter the right does not extend to any subsequent act of making available it to the public. It should be noted that this exhaustion provision is a mandatory provision; that is, the parties to a transfer of ownership are not allowed to stipulate, for example by a special agreement, that the right of transfer of ownership will not become exhausted.

<except a cinematographic work>
Before its revision, the Copyright Law recognized a right of distribution only for cinematographic work (Article 26). This right was especially recognized for cinematographic work in order to control their distribution, including rental as well as transfer of ownership, for various reasons including: <1> producing a movie requires a large capital investment, and it is necessary to control its distribution in order to recoup the investment efficiently; <2> there is a mode of social transaction in the form of the right to ration movie prints for theatrical release; and <3> because it is difficult to suppress the act of showing a movie contrary to the wishes of the copyright holder, it is necessary to suppress the act of distribution, which occurs at a prior stage.
With respect to the right of transfer of ownership that has now been created, it has been decided to provide for exhaustion of this right in consideration of the distribution of works. However, it is provided separately from the right of distribution recognized for cinematographic work because the right of distribution of cinematographic work is interpreted not to become exhausted. Moreover, the right of transfer of ownership differs from the right of distribution in that the right of transfer of ownership allows the author to participate in whether the initial transfer of ownership may be made, whereas the right of distribution presumes a content that allows one to control the distribution, including to whom, where, and when the distribution is to be allowed. In this way, the right of distribution is applied as previously for cinematographic work. Right of lending is also recognized for copy of works other than movies (Article 26-3).

<The Original or copies>
This newly instituted right of transfer of ownership applies to originals and copies of works. This is because the WIPO Copyright Treaty takes "original and copies" as the objects of the right, and because originals and copies have the same meaning when considered from the purport of the right of transfer of ownership, in which the author is deemed to be able to participate in the first transfer of ownership of a tangible object that embodies the work.
The right of lending, on the other hand, applies only to copies of works, not to the original. This is because under copyright law a particular distinction is made between an original and a copy only for works of art, photography, and architecture, and in creating the right of lending, when it was considered whether the right of lending should apply to the original of an artistic work or of a photographic work, it was decided that it should not apply to the original, because <1> the author's interests in the original can be protected by contract at the time of rental, and <2> even if a right of lending were recognized for originals, there would have to be a major adjustment with the right of ownership, which does not sit well with the actual conditions of rights.

<Offer to the public>
As is the case with other supporting rights, the content of the newly created right of transfer of ownership is "to offer to the public" in the form of transfer of ownership of a copy, etc. of a work.

<If the ownership has been transferred to the public by a person who has the right of transfer of ownership or with the authorization of such person>
The first requirement for exhaustion of the right of transfer of ownership is that a legal transfer of ownership to the public be made by the rightholder or a person who has received authorization from the rightholder. It should be noted that whether the right of transfer of ownership becomes exhausted is judged individually for each tangible object, and even if it becomes exhausted for one copy, it does not become exhausted for another copy that has not been legally made available to the public.

<If the ownership has been transferred to the public upon a decision by the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, etc.>
The second requirement for exhaustion of the right of transfer of ownership is that transfer of ownership to the public be made under a so-called compulsory license system. Among compulsory license systems, those that concern transfer of ownership in the form of a tangible object of a work include the use of a work in a case where the copyright owner is unknown, etc. (Article 67 paragraph 1), recording on commercial phonograms (Article 69), and seven-year compulsory license for the right of translation (Law Concerning the Exceptional provisions to the Copyright Law required in consequence of the Enforcement of the Universal Copyright Convention, Article 5). In cases where these means are applied and copies are made available to the public upon the decision or with the permission of the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, subrogatory license can be taken to have been received from an administrative agency rather than the rightholder, so the right of transfer of ownership becomes exhausted by virtue of a legal transfer of ownership, as in the case where the authorization of the rightholder is obtained.

<If the ownership has been transferred to the public by a person who has the right of transfer of ownership or with the authorization of such person>
The third requirement for exhaustion of the right of transfer of ownership is that the transfer of ownership be made by the transfer of ownership rightholder, or a person with the authorization of rightholder, to a small number of specific persons other than the general public, such as to family or friends. Because the right of transfer of ownership has to do with transfer of ownership of copies, etc. to the public, there is, to begin with, no need to obtain the authorization of the rightholder for an transfer of ownership to a small number of specific persons other than the public. But ordinary economic transactions rely on the outward form of the ownership of tangible objects. Therefore, to ensure the stability of transactions subsequent to the first transfer of ownership, it was decided that the right of transfer of ownership would also become exhausted if the transfer of ownership is made to a small number of specific persons merely by "acceptance," rather than "consent." This is because it is considered appropriate to have the right of transfer of ownership become exhausted if the transfer of ownership is performed legally, regardless of whether the first act of transfer of ownership is directed to the public, because the right of transfer of ownership applies not only to copies but to the original as well, so to hold that the right of transfer of ownership is not exhausted by transfer of ownership to a small number of specific persons would be inappropriate because then a state would continue forever in which the right of transfer of ownership could be exercised against the original. Also, interposing "transfer of ownership to persons other than the public" would mean that once the transfer of ownership rightholder granted acceptance, thereafter evasions of the law could be committed in which it would be possible to exercise rights in transfer of ownership to the public.

<If the ownership has been transferred to the public by a person who has the right of transfer of ownership or with the authorization of such person>
The fourth requirement for exhaustion of the right of transfer of ownership is that the transfer of ownership be made to the public legally outside the country. There is active distribution of works across international borders, and in consideration of the safety of international trade it is necessary to ensure the smooth distribution of works. This revision therefore adopts the approach known as "international exhaustion," by which if an transfer of ownership is legally made in a foreign country, then the right of transfer of ownership does not extend to subsequent transfer of ownership to the public made within the country, and it was decided that the right of transfer of ownership would be exhausted if a work first made available in a foreign country is imported into Japan and is further made available to the public within Japan.
"Legal transfer of ownership in a foreign country" means specifically:

<1>	cases in which, in a foreign country that recognizes rights equivalent to the right of transfer of ownership (meaning a right that includes a content like that of the right of transfer of ownership in Japan; many countries prescribe this as a right of distribution), an transfer of ownership is made that is similar to the case of the exhaustion of the right of transfer of ownership within Japan (cases in which an transfer of ownership is made that corresponds to Article 26-2 items 1 through 3);
<2>	cases in which, in a foreign country that recognizes rights equivalent to the right of transfer of ownership, a transfer of ownership is made without harming said rights, by rights limitation provisions, etc.; and
<3>	cases in which an transfer of ownership is made in a foreign country that does not recognize rights equivalent to the right of transfer of ownership (corresponding to "without harming rights equivalent to the right of transfer of ownership"), and in which the right of transfer of ownership becomes exhausted regardless of whether the transfer of ownership is made to "the public" or to "a small number of specific persons."

3. Article 47-3 (Limitations to right of transfer of ownership)

From the standpoint of harmonizing the protection of rights with the securing of smooth distribution, besides instituting provisions covering exhaustion of the right of transfer of ownership, it was decided to limit the right of transfer of ownership.
At present, copies can be made without requiring the authorization of the rightholder if the requirements of the provisions listed in Article 47-3 (Article 31 item 1, Article 32, . . . , Article 47) are satisfied. For copies made under the application of these rights limitations, however, a further transfer of ownership to the public is envisioned, and for cases in which this could be freely carried out heretofore (for example, the service of providing library copies under Article 31 item 1), it is required that this can still be freely carried out even after creation of the right of transfer of ownership. It was therefore decided to limit, in Article 47-3, the right of transfer of ownership in such cases. The right of transfer of ownership is limited under Article 47-3, and because the exhaustion requirements of Article 26-2 paragraph 2 do not apply to copies made available to the public, the right of transfer of ownership is treated as not exhausted, but because the provisions of Article 47-3 limit the right of transfer of ownership not only for primary transfer of ownership of the copy (transfer of ownership by the producer of the copy) but also for the secondary and subsequent transfer of ownerships, the effect is essentially the same as exhaustion.
Among the rights limitations, Article 46 states "permissible to exploit," so even after creation of the right of transfer of ownership, reproduction and transfer of ownership both remain basically unrestricted. But the provisions were arranged as they were because if the right of reproduction in items 1 through 4 were not limited, it would be necessary to leave the right of transfer of ownership unlimited as well (however, in cases falling under item 3, no change was made because an transfer of ownership to the public in such a case is inconceivable).

<Provisions limiting the right of reproduction>
Among the rights limitations by which the right of reproduction is presently restricted, those that could be of relevance to transfer of ownership to the public are listed. Article 42-2 is a new rights limitation in connection with enactment of the Law Concerning Access to Information held by Administrative Organs, but because it is not yet in force, the adjustment of the date on which is goes into force is made in Article 6 of the Amendment supplementary provisions.

<excluding copies of cinematographic wowks>
This creation of a right of transfer of ownership does not affect the handling of cinematographic works to which the right of distribution applies. Thus, even in the rights limitations that concern the transfer of ownership of copies, copies of cinematographic works produced under provisions where the right of reproduction is thought be limited for movie works as if the right of distribution were not limited (Article 31 item 1, Article 35, Article 36 paragraph 1, Article 42) are exempted from the rights limitations concerning transfer of ownership.

<transfer of ownership for another purposes>
Among the provisions limiting the right of reproduction, in the case of provisions whose purposes are restricted, even in the pre-revision Copyright Law, distribution, etc. for another purpose could constitute an infringement of the right of reproduction (Article 49 item 1), but after creation of the right of transfer of ownership it is necessary to declare such cases to be also an infringement of the right of transfer of ownership. Thus, in the proviso, the right of transfer of ownership is not limited if copies are made available for another purpose. Almost all such cases are thought to simultaneously constitute an infringement of the right of reproduction under Article 49 item 1.

4. Article 85 (Deletion of copy distribution provisions after termination of the right of publication)

The right of publication means "the right to reproduce, the original text of the work in a writing or a printing by means of typography or other mechanical or chemical processes for the purpose of distribution" (Article 80 paragraph 1). This latest creation of a right of transfer of ownership does not alter the content of the right of publication. As previously, the reproduction rightholder sets it within the scope of his/her right of publication. This is because the significance of the right of publication is that after the right of publication is established, it is recognized that one has a right to directly prohibit publication by other publishing companies; this significance is achieved even if the right of publication does not include a right of transfer of ownership; and if the right of publication were recognized to include a right of transfer of ownership, the publication rightholder could demand an injunction even against a subsequent purchaser of an illegal copy, and there would be an expansion of rights in relation to third persons who are not publishing companies.
Therefore, following creation of the right of transfer of ownership, a publication rightholder must, simultaneously with the establishment of his/her right of publication, obtain from the copyright holder the authorization for transfer of ownership of copies of the work to the public.
Article 85 is a provision that gives limited recognition to the case in which, after termination of the right of publication, one may distribute copies, etc. made while the right of publication remained in effect. Following creation of the right of transfer of ownership, however, the provisions of Article 85 are unnecessary if an transfer of ownership the authorization contract is concluded with the transfer of ownership rightholder concerning transfer of ownerships once they have been made to the public, on the grounds that whether transfer of ownership is allowed is decided by the content of the contract, regardless of whether the right of publication still remains in effect. It was therefore decided in this revision to delete Article 85.
Transitional measures have been provided in the supplementary provisions of the Amendments, by which one can handle as previously transfer of ownerships set before the Amendments go into effect and carried out by a person who has a right of publication that is in existence at the time the Amendments go into effect, as well as the distribution, after termination of the right of publication set before the Amendments go into effect, of copies made while the right of publication was still in effect.

5. Article 113-2 (Special exceptions in relation to a bona fide third party)

The third measure instituted from the standpoint of harmonizing the protection of rights with the securing of trouble-free distribution is the creation of special exceptions for the right of transfer of ownership involving a bona fide third party. By application of the exhaustion of rights (Article 26-2 paragraph 2) and the transfer of ownership right limitation provisions (Article 47-3), it is thought that there will not be many circumstances in which the right of transfer of ownership for works, etc. distributed in the market presents a problem, but if the first transfer of ownership is not made legally, the right of transfer of ownership will apply to copies, etc. of that work. In such cases, it would not be appropriate, from the viewpoint of ensuring the safety of transactions, to extend the right of transfer of ownership to acts performed by a person who is bona fide and without negligence in making transactions while relying on the external form of ownership of the copy, etc. Article 113-2 therefore prescribes special exceptions for the right of transfer of ownership involving a person who does not know that the right of transfer of ownership has become exhausted, and whose ignorance is not negligent, so that a third person who acquires a work does not incur an unfair disadvantage.

<If the first transfer of ownership is not made legally>
A case in which the first transfer of ownership is not made legally is, for example, a case in which, if the reproduction rightholder and the transfer of ownership rightholder are different persons, an transfer of ownership is made to the public without obtaining the authorization for transfer of ownership from the transfer of ownership rightholder, or a case in which, if the reproduction rightholder and the transfer of ownership rightholder are the same, the authorization is obtained only for reproduction, and a copy made without obtaining the authorization for transfer of ownership is made available to the public. In these cases, the exhaustion requirement of the items of Article 26-2 paragraph 2 is not satisfied, and the right of transfer of ownership is not exhausted.

<When the ownership of a copy, etc. of a work has been transferred >
The point in time for deciding whether one is bona fide and without negligence is "when the ownership has been transferred" of the copy, etc. The justification for this is that <1> unlike an illegal copy, it is difficult to determine from external form whether an transfer of ownership is illegal, and in many cases one is thought to be bona fide and non-negligently at the time the ownership has been transferred to the one, so it is considered necessary to respect the current order of transactions as much as possible and to give consideration to the smooth distribution of works; and <2> in other intellectual property legislation as well, in the Act Concerning a Semiconductor Integrated Circuit (Law No. 43 of 1985), the time for judging whether one is bona fide and without negligence is the "time when one receives delivery." In the Copyright Law as well, there is an example in which the time when one judges bad faith in a case in which an illegal copies of a program work is used in the conduct of business on a computer is "the time when one acquires authority to use the copies" in such a way as not to hamper the smooth distribution of programs (Article 113 paragraph 2).
Thus, if at the time one receives an illegally assigned object, one who is bona fide and non-negligently, then a subsequent transfer of ownership to the public does not constitute an infringement of the right of transfer of ownership, even if carried out in bad faith.

<considered not to constitute an infringement on the right of transfer of ownership>
A transfer of ownership to the public made by a person who is bona fide and is not negligent concerning the fact that the right of transfer of ownership has not been exhausted at the time when receiving transfer of ownership of a work is considered not to be an act of infringement of the right of transfer of ownership. It must be noted that this purports not to be an infringement of the right of transfer of ownership, and because the right of transfer of ownership has not been exhausted, if any person in the process of distribution of copies, etc. of a work is negligent about the illegal transfer of ownership, or in bad faith, the right of transfer of ownership can be exercised with respect to that person.

6. Article 95-2, Article 97-2 (Right of transfer of ownership of performers and producers of phonograms, and the exhaustion of rights)

Because the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty recognizes a right of distribution for performers and producers of phonograms as well as for authors, it was decided in this revision to newly recognize a right of transfer of ownership for performers and producers of phonograms. The range of rights and which rights are recognized (exhaustion of rights, limitation of rights, special exceptions for persons who is bona fide, etc.) are handled in the same way as in the case of an author (however, because there is no compulsory license system for neighboring rights, cases are not included in which an transfer of ownership is made upon a decision by the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs in the requirements for exhaustion of the right of transfer of ownership of a performer or producers of phonograms).
It has also been decided not to apply the right of transfer of ownership to so-called audiovisual performances, such as performances in which a video recording is made of a cinematographic work (Article 95-2 paragraph 2), as is the case with the right of making transmittable (Article 92-2).

1. Overview (see Figure 2)

Until now, the right of presentation has been recognized only for cinematographic works. This is thought to be because it has mainly been cinematographic works, etc. that have heretofore been exploited in the form of presentation. With the recent progress in image display technology and advances made in multimedia applications, however, there has been a fusion of all types of works, including photography, art, language, and music as well as movies themselves, and all of these types of works have come to be used in the form of presentation on a screen. To properly deal with these changes, it has therefore become necessary to strike a balance in the level of protection between cinematographic works and other works. The WIPO Copyright Treaty provides for a right of communication to the public for works in general (a right recognized for all communications of works to the public by wire and wireless means), making it necessary to recognize rights concerning the parts not dealt with by communication publicly, etc. (such as cases in which, after transmission to a certain specified point, presentation to the public is carried out at that location). Prompted by these needs, this latest revision of the Copyright Law expands the right of presentation, recognizing it for all works (in this connection, the text of the law is moved from Article 26 to Article 22-2).
With regard to limitations on the right of presentation, rights limitations concerning the present right of presentation are applied, and the right of presentation is limited in cases of nonprofit or gratis presentation (Article 38 paragraph 1) and in the case of quotations (Article 32).

Figure 2

2. Article 2 paragraph 1 item 17 (Definition of presentation)

Along with this expansion of the right of presentation, the definition of the right of presentation has been systematized. This is because the right of presentation has been expanded to cover all works, and the modes of presentation are more diverse, going beyond the mode of playing back and showing a fixed object such as a cinematographic work, to include in the concept of presentation such cases as recording a work of art, etc. with a television camera and displaying it on a screen, which creates the necessity to draw a clear distinction between acts to which the right of presentation applies and acts to which the right to communicate publicly applies (Article 23 paragraph 2). Thus, in the definition, provisions for presentation, "works that are publicly transmitted" are excluded from the works to which presentation applies, Article 2 paragraph 7 is revised, and everything is classified as "presented" provided the work is projected on a projection screen, etc., regardless of whether telecommunication installations is used.

<Other than that transmitted publicly>
With respect to communication to the public using apparatus for receiving a publicly transmitted work, because the right of public communication (Article 23 paragraph 2) has already been recognized, it has been decided to exclude it from the works that are covered under the definition of "presentation." Thus, what is covered under the newly expanded right of presentation is the act of replaying and presenting works other than those that are publicly transmitted. And because it has been held heretofore that playing back a recording of a performance of a work is included in "presentation" (Article 2 paragraph 7), what is covered under the newly expanded right of presentation is limited to still-picture works of language, art, and photography, etc.

<Projection screens or material forms>
Projection screens or other material forms means, for example, screens, personal computer displays, large displays such as the side of a building, and television receivers, etc. Thus, the act of projecting a work on such items is covered by the right of presentation, and the right may be exercised in the absence of any rights limitations.

3. Article 22-2 (Right of presentation)

The right of presentation applies to cases in which presentation (to the public) is carried out for the purpose of making a work seen or heard directly by the public; it does not apply to cases that are not especially for the purpose of having the public see or hear the presentation. In connection with the expansion of the scope of this right from cinematographic works to works in general, this revision newly prescribes this right as Article 22-2, making it independent from Article 26.

1. Overview (see Figure 3)

Under the current Copyright Law, the right of performance (Article 22) is a right that applies not only to the live performance of music works but also to the playback performance of sound recordings (phonograms) (Article 2 paragraph 7). But under the old Copyright Law prior to 1970, one was free to use sound recordings in playback performance for entertainment or broadcasting. Therefore, when the current Copyright Law was enacted, immediately covering all commercial uses, including the use of background music, in the right of performance concerning the playback performance of phonograms, it was thought that this would have a great social impact. Thus, as a temporary transitional measure, it was provided, in Article 14 of the supplementary provisions, that, as previously, the right of performance would not apply to the playback of performances of music works recorded in the past, except when constituting broadcasting or other public transmission or as provided for by Cabinet order in the business of using music for a profit-making purpose (music tearooms, dance halls, discos, etc.).
Although the problems of Article 14 of the supplementary provisions are not directly related to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, the transitional measures were abolished in this revision, along with four revised items concerning the new WIPO treaties. The reasons for abolition include:

Article 14 of the supplementary provisions has been a long-pending matter between those involved in music, ever since the enactment of the current law in 1970, and during the 65 years since the era of the old Copyright Law there had been free use of sound recordings. This situation was reconsidered with this revision, reinforcing protection of the right of performance reinforcing.

Figure 3

2. Supplementary provisions, Article 14 (abolition of transitional measures concerning the right of performance)

<Other than those given by public transmission>
Broadcasts and other public transmissions had long fallen outside the purview of Article 14 of the supplementary provisions, and the right to communicate publicly (Article 23 paragraph 2) was recognized even for communications of publicly transmitted matter by means of a receiving apparatus, and even now the exercise of rights is allowed. But to strike a balance with playback performance under Article 14 of the supplementary provisions, there have been circumstances that moderate the exercise of rights concerning the reception and public communication of cable broadcasts, etc.
By the abolition of Article 14 of the supplementary provisions in this revision, it was decided to simultaneously begin the exercise of rights by copyright holder organizations concerning public communication as well. But the actual exercise of these rights will not begin earlier than April 2002. Among the reasons for the delay are the following: the Agency for Cultural Affairs calls for thorough consultation with user organizations when proposals are worked out for a schedule of use fees by agency organizations for music works, and it is thought that such consultation will take considerable time; once the schedule of use fees is approved by the Commissioner of the Agency for Cultural Affairs, a certain amount of time will be needed for users to be made thoroughly aware of it; and under the present economic circumstances, there will be strong demands from user organizations to delay the start of actual administration for as long as possible.
Also, in order not to place an excessive burden on user organizations, in broad outline the policy is to collect fees "at the main spigot" from cable broadcasters and tape rental operators, and to follow the advice of the Agency for Cultural Affairs to set the fees to a reasonable amount (for example, in the case of the right of public communication, no greater than 1% of the business income of cable broadcasters).