Winny copyright infringement case

Last updated
Winny copyright infringement case
Court Supreme Court of Japan
DecidedDec. 19, 2011
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Kiyoko Okabe, Kohei Nasu, Mutsuo Tahara, Takehiko Otani, Itsuro Terada
Keywords
Copyright infringement, peer to peer file-sharing, criminal case

Winny copyright infringement criminal case in Japan was a Japanese criminal case in which Isamu Kaneko, the developer of P2P file-sharing program Winny, was indicted for aiding in copyright infringement. This was the first case in which a computer program developer faced a criminal charge for assisting in the copyright infringement of the program's users. In 2006, the Kyoto District Court  [ ja ] found Kaneko guilty and fined him ¥1.5 million. [1] On appeal, the Osaka High Court  [ ja ] in 2009 overturned the lower court's decision, acquitting Kaneko. [2] Finally, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Japan upheld the acquittal, holding that Kaneko did not intentionally induce infringement and was therefore not responsible for the users' unlawful actions. [3]

Contents

Background

In November 2003, two Japanese users of Winny, Yoshihiro Inoue, a 41-year-old self-employed businessman, and an unnamed 19-year-old, were arrested by the Kyoto Prefectural Police. Shortly following the two users' arrests, the Kyoto Police also searched the home of Isamu Kaneko, a 33-year-old assistant professor at the University of Tokyo and the developer of Winny, and confiscated Winny's source code. [4] [5] The two principals were accused of sharing copyrighted materials via Winny, and both were eventually found guilty of violating copyright law. [2] [6]

On May 10, 2004, the High-tech Crime Taskforce of the Kyoto Prefectural Police arrested Kaneko for suspected conspiracy to commit copyright violations. [5] [7] [8] Kaneko was indicted on May 31, 2004, the first indictment for assisting copyright infringement in Japan, and court hearings started in September 2004 at the Kyoto District Court  [ ja ]. [9] [10]

Procedural history

Opinion of the Kyoto District Court

The Kyoto District Court stated that since P2P file-sharing programs are value-neutral and has legitimate, meaningful uses, simply developing the program and making it publicly available does not necessarily qualify as assisting copyright violations. Instead, in the case of supplying such technologies to the public, whether or not such an act consists of a crime of accessory depends on how the technology had actually been used in society, whether the accused was aware of the use, and the accused's intentions in offering the program. [11]

In Kaneko's case, the court stated that Kaneko had made Winny publicly available on his website with full knowledge and acceptance that:

  • a significant portion of files exchanged on the Internet are copyrighted,
  • file-sharing programs including Winny had been widely used to infringe copyright,
  • Winny was well known as a safe program for performing copyright infringement,
  • and Winny was widely used for its many useful and efficient features.

Given the above points and the two users who demonstrably used Winny to infringe, the court stated that Kaneko's act of making Winny publicly available did consist of being an accessory to copyright infringement. The court concluded that Kaneko was guilty and fined him ¥1.5 million. [11]

Opinion of the Osaka High Court

The Osaka High Court  [ ja ] reversed the District Court's decision, finding Kaneko not guilty.

The Osaka High Court reviewed the legal standard set forth in the district court's decision, and concluded the standard was inappropriate. Firstly, the District Court's decision was unclear about which version of Winny applied to the case. Winny had initially been released on May 6, 2002, but had then been improved upon and re-released many times. The charges against Kaneko involved events that had occurred in September 2003, and the District Court was unclear about when in that period Kaneko's publication of Winny became punishable as assisting copyright violations. [11]

Secondly, the District Court was also unclear about how much of Winny's use had actually been unlawful. Testimonies before the court revealed that the results of surveys done on copyright infringement using file-sharing programs were significantly different depending on how or when the surveys were conducted. Furthermore, the District Court gave no standard for the amount of illegal usage that would make a program's publisher punishable as an accessory to copyright violations. [11]

Thirdly, the District Court stated that whether Kaneko's actions consisted of assisting copyright violations depended in part on his intentions when offering the program. The court held that since Winny itself was value-neutral and was offered through the internet, Kaneko's intentions in developing and publishing the program could not have been known. [11]

Holding and reasoning

The Penal Code states that a value-neutral act qualifies as assisting a crime when it has been shown objectively that the principal offender was trying to engage in criminal activities, and the assisting person knew of the principal's actions. On the contrary, if the assistant did not know how the principal would apply their assistance, the act of providing assistance could not be evaluated as being an accessory to the crime. Furthermore, if the assistant only knew there was a possibility that their assistance might be used for crimes, the act of providing assistance also does not qualify as being a criminal accessory. [11]

In Kaneko's case, the Osaka High Court pointed out the following facts of the case:

  • Developing and providing Winny was a value-neutral act because Winny was a value-neutral technology with various applications.
  • Kaneko provided Winny not for specific persons but for many unspecified persons in the general public.
  • It was impossible for Kaneko to know who downloaded Winny, how they used the program, and whether they had intentions of copyright infringement.
  • Kaneko's act of providing Winny was not solely for the sake of crimes, and Winny users acted independently in choosing to share lawful files or infringing ones.

The court stated that if Kaneko's act of providing value-neutral software over the internet were evaluated as criminal assistance, this would make all software developers liable for the acts of all of their programs' users, even though they can't know who those users are and how they intended to use the programs. Furthermore, the program providers could be liable indefinitely, for as long as the programs existed and were being used for illegal purposes. Therefore, the court urged caution in pursuing criminal liability against software developers. [11]

In Kaneko's case, the court held that even if a provider of value-neutral software programs knew and accepted the possibility that some people among the program's many users would use it for illegal purposes, it was insufficient to punish the provider as an accessory to the users' infringements. The provider was only punishable when they, while offering their program, simultaneously advocated using their program for primarily illegal purposes. Under this standard, the court held that Kaneko was not guilty. [11]

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Japan

The Supreme Court of Japan voted 4–1 to uphold the acquittal, with Justice Otani dissenting. Justice Okabe upheld the Osaka High Court  [ ja ]'s opinion, while the other majority judges upheld the acquittal but denied the Osaka High Court's legal interpretation. [11]

The Osaka High Court held that a person who provided value-neutral software to the public through the internet is only liable for criminal assistance if they simultaneously encouraged using the software solely or primarily for illegal purposes. The Supreme Court rejected this narrow interpretation for criminal assistance. The Supreme Court held that in these cases, other factors should be considered such as the character of the program, the probability of the program being used for illegal acts, and how the program had actually been used. [11]

Holding and reasoning

Looking at the facts of Kaneko's case, the court agreed that Winny was a value-neutral program, capable of legal and illegal usage, and that each user independently decided on whether to use Winny for infringement or other purposes. The court also stated that it was not unusual or unreasonable for Kaneko, in the course of developing this program, to offer it to the public in order to receive user feedback during development. In order not to excessively chill the development of such programs, the court held that merely providing the program with knowledge of a general possibility that someone would use it for copyright infringement does not consist of criminal assistance, even if users subsequently did use the program to infringe. [11]

Instead, the court established two situations in which a provider of value-neutral software programs could be complicit in the infringing conduct of the programs' users. First, if the provider released the program with knowledge and acceptance that specific acts of copyright infringement would be done using the program, and then such acts of copyright infringement were actually done in reality. Second, if the provider released the program with knowledge and acceptance of the high probability that more than just a few users would use the program for copyright infringement, and then the program was actually used for copyright infringement in reality. [11]

Applying the above standard to this case, the court held that Kaneko did not have knowledge of specific acts of copyright infringement that would be done by users of Winny. The court further stated that while there objectively was a high probability that many users of Winny would use the program to infringe, it was difficult to say that Kaneko knew and accepted this high probably when he released Winny. Thus, the court found Kaneko not guilty. [11]

Justice Otani’s dissent

Justice Otani, on the contrary, concluded that Kaneko was guilty. Otani did not object to the majority's legal standard, but stated that Kaneko knew and accepted the high probability that more than a few people would use Winny for copyright infringement. Otani conceded that Kaneko did not intend for his program to be primarily used for infringement, nor did he encourage users to use Winny unlawfully. However, Otani pointed out that Kaneko had continued to provide Winny without restraining the illegal usage; thus, Kaneko must have had knowledge of the high probability of copyright infringement. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Warez</span> Movies, software or music distributed in violation of copyright

Warez is a common computing and broader cultural term referring to pirated software that is distributed via the Internet. Warez is used most commonly as a noun, a plural form of ware, and is intended to be pronounced like the word wares. The circumvention of copy protection (cracking) is an essential step in generating warez, and based on this common mechanism, the software-focused definition has been extended to include other copyright-protected materials, including movies and games. The global array of warez groups has been referred to as "The Scene", deriving from its earlier description as "the warez scene". Distribution and trade of copyrighted works without payment of fees or royalties generally violates national and international copyright laws and agreements. The term warez covers supported as well as unsupported (abandonware) items, and legal prohibitions governing creation and distribution of warez cover both profit-driven and "enthusiast" generators and distributors of such items.

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

Winny is a Japanese peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing program developed by Isamu Kaneko, a research assistant at the University of Tokyo in 2002. Like Freenet, a user must add an encrypted node list in order to connect to other nodes on the network. Users choose three cluster words which symbolize their interests, and then Winny connects to other nodes which share these cluster words, downloading and storing encrypted data from cache of these neighbors in a distributed data store. If users want a particular file, they set up triggers (keywords), and Winny will download files marked by these triggers. The encryption was meant to provide anonymity, but Winny also included bulletin boards where users would announce uploads, and the IP address of posters could be discovered through these boards. While Freenet was implemented in Java, Winny was implemented as a Windows C++ application.

Ripping is extracting all or parts of digital content from a container. Originally, it meant to rip music out of Commodore 64 games. Later, the term was used to mean to extract WAV or MP3 format files from digital audio CDs, but got applied as well to extract the contents of any media, including DVD and Blu-ray discs, and video game sprites.

Share is the name for a closed-source P2P application being developed in Japan by ファイル倉庫, a pseudonym translating as 'file warehouse.' Share was developed to be the successor to Winny. Like Winny, Share functions using a distributed data store referred to as a cache with each computer acting as a node in the network. Netagent published a survey in June 2018 suggesting that Share was the third most popular p2p network in Japan after Winny and Perfect Dark (P2P) with approximately 10,000 nodes connecting each day over Golden Week, down from 30,000 in 2015.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

A file-hosting service, also known as cloud-storage service, online file-storage provider, or cyberlocker, is an internet hosting service specifically designed to host user files. These services allow users to upload files that can be accessed over the internet after providing a username and password or other authentication. Typically, file hosting services allow HTTP access, and in some cases, FTP access. Other related services include content-displaying hosting services, virtual storage, and remote backup solutions.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case that tested the extent of software copyright. The lower court had held that copyright does not extend to the user interface of a computer program, such as the text and layout of menus. Due to the recusal of one justice, the Supreme Court decided the case with an eight-member bench split evenly, leaving the lower court's decision affirmed but setting no national precedent.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, is a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 U.S. law. It has two major portions, Section 102, which implements the requirements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and Section 103, which arguably provides additional protection against the circumvention of copy prevention systems and prohibits the removal of copyright management information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright infringement</span> Illegal usage of copyrighted works

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hotfile</span> File hosting website

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million.

Torrent poisoning is intentionally sharing corrupt data or data with misleading file names using the BitTorrent protocol. This practice of uploading fake torrents is sometimes carried out by anti-infringement organisations as an attempt to prevent the peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing of copyrighted content, and to gather the IP addresses of downloaders.

Metallica, et al. v. Napster, Inc. was a 2000 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case that focused on copyright infringement, racketeering, and unlawful use of digital audio interface devices. Metallica vs. Napster, Inc. was the first case that involved an artist suing a peer-to-peer file sharing ("P2P") software company.

File sharing in Japan is notable for both its size and sophistication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Popcorn Time</span> BitTorrent client and media player software

Popcorn Time is a multi-platform, free software BitTorrent client that includes an integrated media player. The application provides a piracy-based alternative to subscription-based video streaming services such as Netflix. Popcorn Time uses sequential downloading to stream video listed by several torrent websites, and third-party trackers can also be added manually. The legality of the software depends on the jurisdiction.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

References

  1. ↑ "Winny creator guilty in copyright violations", The Japan Times ONLINE, Dec. 14, 2006
  2. 1 2 "Winny developer acquitted", The Japan Times ONLINE, Oct. 9, 2009
  3. ↑ "Winny creator's acquittal upheld", The Japan Times ONLINE, Dec. 21, 2011
  4. ↑ John Leyden "‘Anonymous’ P2P users busted in Japan", The Register, Dec. 3, 2003
  5. 1 2 John Leyden"Japanese P2P founder arrested", The Register, May 10, 2004
  6. ↑ "Winny file-sharer gets suspended term", The Japan Times ONLINE, Dec. 1, 2004
  7. ↑ Associated Press"Copyright Arrest in Japan", WIRED, May 10, 2004
  8. ↑ "Top software developer arrested for 'Winny' file sharing", ABC News, May 10, 2004
  9. ↑ "Prosecutors indict creator of Winny", The Japan Times ONLINE, Jun. 1, 2004
  10. ↑ "Winny creator denies abetting piracy", The Japan Times ONLINE, Sept. 2, 2004
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 "Opinion of the Court" (in Japanese)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.