June 15, 2012
JASRAC
Japanese Society for Rights of Authors,
Composers and Publishers (JASRAC)
Decision of the Fair Trade Commission
The Fair Trade Commission rendered on June 12, 2012 a decision to rescind the cease-and-desist order against JASRAC (hereinafter referred to as “cease-and-desist order”). As a transcript of the written decision was delivered on the same day, the decision is already in effect (Antimonopoly Act, Article 70-2 paragraph (3)) and the cease-and-desist order has been rescinded.
JASRAC believes that claims and evidence from the hearing investigators and JASRAC were examined thoroughly, resulting in an appropriate decision by the Chairman and Commissioners.
More than four years have passed since the on-site inspection of JASRAC in April 2008, and JASRAC expresses deep gratitude to its members, users, and other parties involved for their unchanged understanding and cooperation to JASRAC’s business operations.
JASRAC has strived to improve the efficiency and appropriateness of its business operations on the premise of legal compliance. Learning from this experience, JASRAC will endeavor further to address what society demands of a copyright management organization - protecting copyrights and ensuring the smooth use of copyrighted works. JASRAC believes that balancing “protection” and “utilization” on a high level matches the purpose of the Antimonopoly Act, which is “to promote the democratic and wholesome development of the national economy.”
- The views of JASRAC on the comprehensive collection of royalties for musical works in the field of broadcasting, which was the issue in the cease-and-desist order, are as follows:
The comprehensive collection of royalties for musical works in the field of broadcasting is extremely rational as a method to efficiently balance appropriate copyright protection and the smooth use of a large number of copyrighted works. As it is apparent from the fact that the same collection method is widely adopted in various foreign countries, it does not have an unnatural characteristic deviating from the scope of normal competition methods* viewed as problematic activities which exclude or control the business activities of other entrepreneurs in private monopolization (violation of Antimonopoly Act, Article 3).
| |
* Basis of decision given by the Supreme Court with regard to whether activities exclude or control the business activities of other entrepreneurs as defined in Article 2 (5) of the Antimonopoly Law (Supreme Court decision of December 17, 2010 on the appeal hearing of NTT East case). |
However, the fact that this was not necessarily understood led to the cease-and-desist order, and a great amount of effort was expended before a resolution was reached. JASRAC will take this as a lesson, and with a view to gain wider public acceptance on the comprehensive collection of royalties in the field of broadcasting, will promote the utilization of full-volume electronic usage reports in cooperation with related parties. Upon evaluating its progress, JASRAC will further consider the way blanket collection of royalties in the field of broadcasting should be in the future.
Note (The relationship between the June 12 decision and the draft decision of February 2)
Prior to this decision, a draft decision was created by the hearing examiners who presided over the hearings for this case. The draft decision, delivered on February 2, 2012, stated that the cease-and-desist order shall be rescinded as the royalty collection method of JASRAC in the field of broadcasting does not constitute private monopolization (violation of Antimonopoly Act, Article 3). The June 12 decision acknowledges the draft decision as appropriate*, and the Fair Trade Commission has indicated that factual findings, determination and application of laws and ordinances are the same as those in the draft decision.
For details on the June 12 decision, please refer to the Appendix(PDF:25KB).
| |
* The Fair Trade Commission is comprised of a commission with one chairman and four commissioners, and a general secretariat which is placed under the commission. Hearing examiners preside over the hearings, while investigators investigate cases violating the Antimonopoly Act and prove allegations of those violations upon hearings. Both belong to the general secretariat. The hearing examiner is to create a preliminary decision (draft decision) without delay upon completion of hearings, which is then submitted to the commission and is also delivered to the investigator and the respondent. After the period of two weeks provided for any objections against the preliminary decision, the commission shall examine the preliminary decision and the record of the case. If it acknowledges the preliminary decision as appropriate, it shall render a decision with the same content as the preliminary decision (Rules on Hearing by the Fair Trade Commission, Article 73 and Article 78 subsection 1). |
|
