--------------------------------------------
From: IKEDA Nobuo
To: Lawrence Lessig
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 23:33:49 +0900
Subject: Winny
--------------------------------------------
Larry,
You know that the developer of Winny, the problematic P2P software, was
arrested on May 10 in Tokyo. It might be surprising for the world, but
the author must have expected the arrest. His house was investigated
last November, when two users of Winny was arrested.
Winny is notorious for its danger and technical excellence in Japan. It
was difficult to accuse Winny, because it works without central servers
and encrypts the identity of users. It's similar to Gnutella and Freenet
(distributed P2P software) but more efficient and easier to use than
them. Its author was anonymous, but obviously it isn't the work of an
amateur.
And it proved to be the work of a first-rate professional, Isamu Kaneko,
an assistant researcher of Tokyo University. He promised to develop
Winny on the big bulletin board "2 Channel" in April 2002. He has been
referred to as "47" after the number of his first message on the board.
So it's a product of Japan's underground "otaku" (nerd) culture that
created Komike (comic market).
The number of Winny users is estimated as 2 million. Its impact is so
huge that, according to an ISP, more than half of Internet traffic in
Japan is consumed by Winny. After the arrest of Kaneko, the traffic
through the IX in Tokyo dropped more than 20%.
This suggests that P2P will be a "killer application" for broadband. Of
course Winny is used for copyright violation and distribution of illegal
files such as child pornography and spy video. However, the same
logic can be applied to gun makers, as commented on my post to IP
mailing list of Dave Farber:
From: Richard Perlman <perl@lucent.com>
Date: May 10, 2004 4:14:44 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net, ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [IP] P2P software developer busted
Dave:
So, let me understand. In Japan if you develop software that MIGHT be
used to violate copyright laws you can be charged with a crime and be
arrested. Yet, in the USA, if you manufacture guns that MIGHT be used
to kill someone you are essentially immune from criminal prosecution
and, based on recent court cases, even from civil action -- and if the
congress has its way, you will soon be fully immune for any liability
from the uses of your products.
We do indeed live in strange times in which intellectual property seems
to be more sacred than human life.
Richard
Moreover, since the Internet is essentially a P2P network in which a
"host" is connected directly to another host, such charges can be
applied to web servers and FTP servers. The police alleges that Kaneko
has the "clear intention" to violate the law because he confessed that
he had wished to change the current regime of copyright. Thus, in Japan,
any P2P developer can be arrested if he criticizes the copyright.
In the US, the developer of the P2P software and the code breaker of
copy protection were judged as not guilty. So Japan might be becoming
the most aggressive "copyright extremist" in the world. How do you see
this funny situation from the US?
Regards,
---
Ikeda, Nobuo
GLOCOM, International University of Japan
--------------------------------------------
From: Lawrence Lessig
To: IKEDA Nobuo
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 06:24:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Winny
--------------------------------------------
Ikeda-san,
I am aware of the arrest, and I have tried to understand it. After my
brief time in Japan, I understand that ordinarily, when something
seems odd, it is because there is more to understand. But I confess: I
have not yet seen what would make this unfortunate event make sense.
From the beginning of time, new technologies have made criminal
behavior easier. That has rarely before been a sufficient reason to ban
the technology. Highways made bank robberies easier; pagers make
illegal drug traffic easier; public telephones makes kidnapping easier;
VCRs make copyright infringement easier. But, of course, in none of
those cases was the fact that crime was better enabled enough to
justify banning technology.
That doesn't mean that no technology should ever be banned. I would
agree with most Japanese that all nuclear weapons should be banned; I
would agree with at least some Japanese and Americans, that all
handguns should be banned. But these technologies have such a harmful
effect, with practically no balancing benefit, that elimination, rather
than regulation, is the proper response. These, however, are the
exceptions -- not the rule.
I suspect P2P is viewed with such fear in Japan, as in the United
States, because most don't yet see the real and legitimates benefits of
P2P. Most view the technology as a tool of crime only. Most believe
that society would lose little if this technology were simply
eliminated.
Yet as you know, Ikeda-san, that is simple ignorance: P2P technology
will be one of the most efficient technologies for spreading content
on the network. It will be the cornerstone of any future in which
massively large files can be spread upon the network. If allowed to
flourish, it will drive broadband deployment, and digital
technologies, significantly. That in turn will spur growth throughout
the technology sector, and the Japanese economy generally.
No doubt in the short term, P2P technology will threaten legacy
business models. The recording industry, for example, was built upon
the assumption that it could control how its content got distributed.
It therefore produced unprotected CDs. The same with television content
-- it was produced assuming distribution could be controlled. The same
with film.
P2P challenges those assumptions -- but that doesn't mean that these
industries won't, or couldn't, adjust their business models to this new
technology. The recording industry is already deploying digitally
protected content -- content that can be copied, but can't be played
unless the consumer has the proper authorization. The same technologies
are being developed for film. And any commercial loss suffered by free
access to television content is already being accommodated in the
United States by advertising placed within a show, rather than with
commercials that might interrupt a show.
These new technologies may or may not perfectly respond to the harm
that the content industry might now face. In my view, if a fair and
unbiased analysis suggests that they do not, then government should
consider ways to compensate the content industries for the harms caused
by a new technology -- just as governments compensate transition
industries, like coal or, in the United States, steel. That
compensation might be simple subsidies; it might also be alternative
methods for collecting revenues for distributed content, such as
compulsory licenses, or voluntary collective licenses. In either case,
the objective of the government should be to assure the social benefit
from a massively efficient network gets realized, while also assuring
that that benefit is not achieved with an unfair burden to one
particular sector.
Japan has long recognized the value from a balanced view of
intellectual property. Had the extremism about intellectual property
that characterizes debates today existed 40 years ago, there would not
have been a VCR industry, or a mini-disc industry. Nor would there be
the consumer rental market for music that now exists in Japan but not
in the US.
Instead, these industries have been built upon a balanced view of IP.
Indeed, in the United States, that balanced view is best articulated in
a Supreme Court case that is named after one of Japan's most
extraordinary companies -- Sony. In that case, Sony v. Universal
Studios, the Supreme Court held that when a technology is capable of a
substantial non-infringing use, then it is not appropriate to ban the
technology, even if there is also a substantial infringing use.
Regulate bad behavior, that case teaches; don't ban technology.
Because of that decision, Sony could deploy a wide range of innovative
technologies in the United States, without fear from copyright owners.
Balance built that company, and the technology sector generally. It
would be tragic indeed if that simple but fundamental lesson were
forgotten now, just at the time when digital technologies have opened
up unprecedented opportunity for citizens to create and spread their
creativity.
-----
Lessig
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
--------------------------------------------
From: IKEDA Nobuo
To: Lawrence Lessig
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 14:10:04 +0900
Subject: Re: Winny
--------------------------------------------
Thank you for thoughtful comments.
I can't understand the event, too. When the police identified Kaneko
last November, they refrained from arresting him. It isn't clear why
they arrested him now, but it wouldn't be an accident. He was arrested
by Kyoto Police, which claims to have deciphered Winny's encryption.
Last March, the investigation documents of Kyoto Police were circulated
with Winny because a police officer's machine was infected with virus.
This incident might have triggered the arrest.
Recently Japanese police is blamed as impotent, because the crime-arrest
ratio declined to less than 20%. It's partly because they can't adapt
themselves to the IT. So I'm afraid this case is used as their "show
case" to demonstrate their ability to cope with high-tech crimes.
Another background might be the "Intellectual Property Strategy" of Japan.
Our government is promoting the "pro-patent" policies with the "Strategic
Council on Intellectual Property".
It's a carbon copy of the American policy in the 80's and 90's. They
believe that it promoted innovation and enabled the dominance of
American companies in the high-tech industries. However, I criticized,
such claim is groundless according to many empirical studies in
economics. Most studies suggest that American pro-patent policies might
have suppressed innovation by increasing litigation costs.
This is a sad habit of a country that has grown rapidly by copying
American systems. When I told this to Stallman, he made a good comment:
From: Richard Stallman
To: IKEDA Nobuo
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 10:36:37 -0400
Subject: Re: More "intellectual property".
> Japanese government is pressed by the business world to make an
> initiative to counter the aggressive IPR policy of the US
The idea that increased restriction of Japanese citizens
would "counter" increased restriction of US citizens
is fundamentally absurd.
And this is related to another silly event: Japanese government is going
to amend the copyright law to allow record companies to ban the import
of CDs. The government and companies claim that this is a policy based
on IP Strategy, but the import doesn't harm musician's rights because
musicians get loyalties from imported CDs. It's an extension of the
legal resale restriction of CDs that is alone in the world.
Record companies insist that they demanded this amendment only to
control the "back-flow" of cheap CDs pressed in Asian countries under
the licenses of Japanese companies. However, the benefit of such
restriction, if any, isn't balanced with its costs. The "back-flow" CDs
accounts only 0.4% of all CDs sold in Japan. They are sold in obscure
discount shops with notes written in foreign languages. Few people
believe such CDs will threaten the business of record companies.
Naturally RIAA posted a public comment to accuse the "discriminatory"
treatment of foreign companies. Thus the amendment creates the general
"record import rights" for all CDs. As a result, for example, Toshiba
EMI can prevent Amazon.co.jp from selling Beatles' CDs pressed in the US,
of which the price is almost half of the ones pressed in Japan. I warned
this danger last year, but nobody cared. Recently, after the bill passed
Sangiin, many musicians and music lovers panicked and are demonstrating
to protest the bill.
I'm sorry it's too late: in Japan, once a bill is decided by the Cabinet,
it can't be stopped. The bill will pass Shugiin (reversal of the usual
procedure) in this month. Record companies in Japan released an
ambiguous statement that they "will not harm the customer's right to
listen to imported CDs". But their counterparts in the UK banned
Amazon.com and CD Wow from importing foreign CDs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3416437.stm
Japan is in a double-bound situation: the US protects its IPR
aggressively and Asian countries are following Japan by copying its
technologies and contents. So it would be psychologically natural for
Japanese bureaucrats to follow the US strategy and protect their lead.
It reflects the political climate of the US you are lamenting.
However, Japan is becoming the role model of Asian countries by its
otaku culture you love. Some argue that Japanese anime, games, and other
cultural exports have created much more "gross national cool" than their
commercial value. If we kill these new "free culture" to protect legacy
business, the loss of "cool" might overwhelm the gain.
I think the bizarre events happening in Japan and US are demanding us to
reconsider the definition of "value" in the network society that is just
beginning.
---
Ikeda, Nobuo
GLOCOM, International University of Japan
[HOME]