Explore

Show in map
Court Decision

Tokyo High Court Decision, File Rogue case, March 31, 2005, upholding Tokyo District Court

(1) With respect to a copyright infringement case involving Channel 2 where a user uploaded a small part of a copyrighted work onto the bulletin board, the Tokyo District Court held that Channel 2 only had a duty to remove works suspected of copyright infringement if it transmitted the infringing content or otherwise it was “obvious” the content infringed a third party’s copyright. The Tokyo District Court stated that Channel 2 was only an intermediary for transmitting third party information and that the sender of the email that contained the copyrighted work was the party that committed the unlawful act. (2) However, the appellant court (Tokyo High Court) reversed the Tokyo District Court decision and ruled that it was obvious that the uploaded contents are simply a copy of copyrighted work, and therefore Channel 2...
Legislation

Act No. 137 of 2001 on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers

Article 3 sets forth a safe harbor for telecommunications service providers in the following circumstances: (i) When any right of others is infringed by information distribution via specified telecommunications, the specified telecommunications service provider who uses specified telecommunications facilities for said specified telecommunications (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as a "relevant service provider") shall not be liable for any loss incurred from such infringement, unless where it is technically possible to take measures for preventing such information from being transmitted to unspecified persons and such event of infringement falls under any of the following items. However, where said relevant service provider is the sender of said information infringing rights, this shall not apply. (ii) In...
Court Decision

NiftyServe Modern Thought Forum Case

Tokyo High Court Decision (reversing Tokyo District Court, May 27, 1997)
(1) The issue of whether a party which merely administers or maintains a website or other online forums in which users or attendees committed illegal activities may be held liable for the illegal activities, was first discussed in Japan in the NiftyServe case. In this case, a user of an online Broadcasting Board Service brought a lawsuit against another user who posted a libelous statement on the Broadcasting Board System. The user also sued the administrator of the Broadcasting Board Service and the service provider company of the System, NiftyServe. (2) The District Court found that the user’s posting of a libelous statement constitutes a tort and the user is liable to damages caused by such a statement. The District Court also stated that the administrator was also liable for damages because it did not take...

General Resources - Japan

Daniel Sang, Comparative Analysis of National Approaches of the Liability of the Internet Intermediaries, VII. Japan (WIPO Study)