Date of
Judgment: January
18, 2011
Issuing
Authority: Supreme
Court
Level of
the Issuing Authority: Final Instance
Type of
Procedure: Judicial (Civin( �b>
Subject
Matter:
Copyright and Related Rights (Neighboring Rights)
Main
text of the judgment (decision):
1.The
judgment in prior instance is quashed.
2.The case is remanded to the
Intellectual Property High Court.
Reasons:
Concerning the reasons for petition for acceptance
of final appeal argued by the appeal counsels for Appellant X1, UMEDA Yasuhiro,
et al., and the reasons for petition for acceptance of final appeal argued by
the appeal counsels for Appellant X2, MATSUDA Masayuki, et al., the appeal
counsels for Appellant X3, OKAZAKI Hiroshi, et al., the appeal counsels for
Appellant X4, MAEDA Tetsuo, et al., the appeal counsels for Appellant X5, ITO
Makoto, et al., and the appeal counsels for Appellant X6, OZAKI Yukimasa, et
al. (except for the reasons excluded)
1. In this case, the appellants of final appeal, who are broadcasting
organizations, sue the appellee of final appeal, who provides a service, called
"Maneki TV," using a device which functions to automatically transmit
broadcast programs upon request by users (hereinafter referred to as the
"Service"), alleging that the Service infringes the appellants' right
to make transmittable (Article 99-2 of the Copyright Act) with regard to the
broadcasts that they provide, and their right of public transmission (Article
23, paragraph (1) of said Act) with regard to the broadcast programs that they
have produced; based on this allegation, the appellants seek injunction against
the appellee's making their broadcasts transmittable and performing public
transmission of their broadcast programs, while also seeking payment of
damages.
2. The outline of the facts determined by the court of prior instance is as
follows.
(1) The appellants (except for Appellant X4) are broadcasting organizations,
and as indicated in the list of broadcasts attached to the judgment in prior
instance, they respectively have the right to make transmittable with regard to
the broadcasts listed in said list (the broadcasts indicated in said list shall
hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Broadcasts"). P was a
broadcasting organization, and as indicated in said list, it had the right to
make transmittable with regard to the broadcasts listed in said list.
The appellants (except for Appellant X4) and P, as indicated in the list of
broadcast programs attached hereto, respectively produced the broadcast
programs indicated in said list (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Programs").
Appellant X4 is a broadcasting organization, and on October 1, 2008, it
succeeded to rights and obligations in relation to all of P's businesses,
except for the group management business, as a result of a company split.
(2) The Service uses a product sold by Q, called Location Free (hereinafter
referred to as "Location Free"). As its core component, Location Free
has a device which incorporates a television tuner for terrestrial analog
broadcasting and functions to convert the received broadcasts into digital data
and automatically transmit such data upon the request of a user (this device
shall hereinafter be referred to as the "base station").
A user of Location Free, through one-on-one correspondence via the Internet
between a base station and a terminal (e.g. dedicated monitor) at hand, can
view the broadcasts that are converted into digital data at the base station
and then transmitted to the terminal at hand, by means of such terminal. The
specific process of this system is as follows. (i) A user operates a terminal
at hand and commands the transmission of a specific broadcast. (ii) The command
is transmitted to the corresponding base station via the Internet. (iii) The
base station, into which terrestrial analog broadcasts received by the
television antenna are continuously input, automatically converts the requested
broadcast into digital data upon receiving said command of transmission. (iv)
Then, the digital data is automatically transmitted to the user's terminal at
hand via the Internet. (v) The user operates the terminal at hand and views the
broadcast thus received.
(3) When providing the Service, the appellee receives 31,500 yen as a
membership fee and 5,040 yen as a monthly service fee from each user. In its
place of business, the appellee installs base stations owned by users, which
users have sent to the appellee in order to receive the Service, and connects
the base stations to the television antenna via a distributor, etc., while
connecting the base stations to the Internet.
Users of the Service (hereinafter simply referred to as "users") can
view the broadcasts aired in the areas where the base stations are installed,
by operating the terminals at hand that form pairs with the corresponding base
stations.
3. The appellants argue that the appellee has made the Broadcasts available for
viewing by users, by inputting the Broadcasts into the base stations or
connecting the base stations, into which the Broadcasts are input, to the
Internet, and such conduct of the appellee constitutes an action of making the
Broadcasts transmittable and infringes the appellants' right to make
transmittable.
The appellants also argue that the appellee's transmitting the Programs to the
terminals of users, who are the public, constitutes an action of performing
public transmission of the Programs and infringes the appellants' right of
public transmission.
4. The court of prior instance dismissed all of the appellants' claims, ruling
as follows.
(1) "To make transmittable" assumes the use of an automatic public
transmission server (Article 2, paragraph (1), item (ix)-5 of the Copyright
Act). An "automatic public transmission server" must be a device
which performs transmission, by wireless communications or wired
telecommunications, that can be received directly by the public (unspecified or
a large number of persons). Each base station only functions to perform transmission
to a single apparatus designated in advance, and in this respect, it cannot be
regarded as an automatic public transmission server. Consequently, the
appellee's inputting the Broadcasts into the base stations and thereby making
the Broadcasts available for viewing by users does not constitute an action of
making the Broadcasts transmittable, and therefore such conduct does not
infringe the appellants' right to make transmittable.
(2) As explained above, each base station is not an automatic public transmission
server. Consequently, the appellee's transmitting the Programs to the users'
terminals does not constitute an action of performing automatic public
transmission, and therefore such conduct does not infringe the appellants'
right of public transmission.
5. However, we cannot affirm the rulings of the court of prior instance, on the
following grounds.
(1) Concerning infringement of the right to make transmittable
A. "To make transmittable" refers to an action of making automatic
public transmission possible by any of the methods set forth in Article 2,
paragraph (1), item (ix)-5, (a) or (b) of the Copyright Act, such as by
inputting information into an automatic public transmission server that is
connected with a telecommunications line provided for use by the public. An
"automatic public transmission server" refers to a device which, when
connected with a telecommunications line provided for use by the public,
functions to perform automatic public transmission of information which is either
recorded on part of the recording medium thereof as is used for automatic
public transmission, or is input into such automatic public transmission server
(Article 2, paragraph (1), item (ix)-5 of the Copyright Act).
"Automatic public transmission" is one of the forms of public
transmission (item (ix)-4 of said paragraph). As viewed from the position of
the party who performs transmission, "public transmission" refers to
transmission intended for direct reception by the public (item (vii)-2 of said
paragraph). The Copyright Act included an action of making transmittable in the
scope of actions subject to regulation. This was because the form of public
transmission to be performed automatically upon request of the public
(subsequently defined as "automatic public transmission") was already
subject to regulation, and under such circumstances, regulation should be
enforced against a preparatory action to be carried out before performing
automatic public transmission. In light of such legislative purpose and objective,
a device which, when connected with a telecommunications line provided for use
by the public, functions to automatically transmit, upon request by the public,
the information that is input into said device, should be regarded as an
automatic public transmission server even if the device only functions to
perform transmission to a single apparatus designated in advance, as far as the
transmission performed by said device can be said to constitute automatic
public transmission.
B. Considering that automatic public transmission assumes the use of a device
which functions to automatically transmit, upon request by the receiver, the
information that is input into said device, it is appropriate to construe that
the party who performs automatic public transmission is the person who creates
a condition in which such device can automatically transmit information upon
request by the receiver. Where such device is connected with a
telecommunications line provided for use by the public and information is
continuously input into said device, it is appropriate to consider the person
who inputs information into said device to be the party who performs
transmission.
C. In this case, each base station, when connected to the Internet, functions
to automatically convert the input information into digital data and transmit
such data upon request by the receiver. In terms of the Service, the base
stations are connected to the Internet, and information is continuously input
into the base stations. The appellee connects the base stations to the
television antenna under its management via the distributor, etc. so that the
Broadcasts received by the television antenna are continuously input into the
base stations, and while making such arrangements, the appellee installs the
base stations in its place of business and manages them. In view of this, even
where the users are the owners of the base stations, it is the appellee that
inputs the Broadcasts into the base stations, and therefore it is appropriate
to consider the appellee to be the party who performs transmission using the
base stations. Any person, irrespective of matters such as his/her relationship
with the appellee, is able to use the Service by entering into a contract with
the appellee for the use of the Service. In this respect, when viewed from the
position of the appellee or the party who performs transmission, users of the
Service are unspecified persons, that is, the public, and accordingly, the
transmission performed using the base stations constitutes automatic public transmission,
and therefore the base stations fall within the category of automatic public
transmission server. Consequently, the appellee's inputting the Broadcasts into
the base stations, which are connected to the Internet and are categorized as
automatic public transmission server, constitutes an action of making the
Broadcasts transmittable.
(2) Concerning infringement of the right of public transmission
It is obvious that in terms of the Service, it is the appellee that performs
transmission from the television antenna to the base stations, and in addition,
as explained in (1)C above, it is also the appellee that performs transmission
from the base stations to the users' terminals. Consequently, the appellee's
transmitting the Programs from the television antenna to the users' terminals
constitutes an action of performing public transmission of the Programs.
6. The court of prior instance determined that the base stations were not
categorized as automatic public transmission server, only on the grounds that
each base station was to only function to perform transmission to a single
apparatus designated in advance, and rejected the appellants' claims against
the infringement of their right to make transmittable or right of public
transmission committed by the appellee. According to our reasoning shown above,
such determination of the court of prior instance contains violation of laws
and regulations that apparently affects the judgment, and the appeal counsels'
arguments are well-grounded. The judgment in prior instance should inevitably
be quashed, and for further examination, we remand the case to the court of
prior instance.
Therefore, the judgment has been rendered in the form of the main text by the
unanimous consent of the Justices.
(This translation is
provisional and subject to revision.)