Aggregator

林野火災に注意してください！

情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会　電気通信事業部会　電気通信番号委員会（第13回）開催案内

革新的情報通信技術（Beyond 5G（6G））基金事業令和8年度電波有効利用研究開発プログラムの公募

社会的養護に関する調査―里親委託を中心として―　＜勧告に対する改善措置状況（1回目のフォローアップ）の概要＞

子育て支援に関する行政評価・監視―産前・産後の支援を中心として―　＜勧告に対する改善措置状況（2回目のフォローアップ）の概要＞

一般職技術系（情報通信行政）の情報を更新しました

「日本クルド文化協会」が、同協会の事務所周辺でヘイトスピーチを含む街宣などを繰り返し実施した神奈川県在住の男性に対し、街宣の差し止めと損害賠償などを求めた裁判の口頭弁論が21日、さいたま地裁で開かれた。口頭弁論は昨年9月に続き、4回目。社会問題となっているヘイトスピーチの根絶に向けた重要な裁判だ。（藤ヶ谷魁）

We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

There’s a crisis of creativity in mainstream American culture. We have fewer and fewer studios and record labels and fewer and fewer platforms online that serve independent artists and creators.  

At its core, copyright is a monopoly right on creative output and expression. It’s intended to allow people who make things to make a living through those things, to incentivize creativity. To square the circle that is “exclusive control over expression” and “free speech,” we have fair use.

However, we aren’t just seeing artists having a time-limited ability to make money off of their creations. We are also seeing large corporations turn into megacorporations and consolidating huge stores of copyrights under one umbrella. When the monopoly right granted by copyright is compounded by the speed and scale of media company mergers, we end up with a crisis in creativity. 

People have been complaining about the lack of originality in Hollywood for a long time. What is interesting is that the response from the major studios has rarely, especially recently, to invest in original programming. Instead, they have increased their copyright holdings through mergers and acquisitions. In today’s consolidated media world, copyright is doing the opposite of its intended purpose: instead of encouraging creativity, it’s discouraging it. The drive to snap up media franchises (or “intellectual properties”) that can generate sequels, reboots, spinoffs, and series for years to come has crowded out truly original and fresh creativity in many sectors. And since copyright terms last so long, there isn’t even a ticking clock to force these corporations to seek out new original creations. 

In theory, the internet should provide a counterweight to this problem by lowering barriers to entry for independent creators. But as online platforms for creativity likewise shrink in number and grow in scale, they have closed ranks with the major studios.  

It’s a betrayal of the promise of the internet: that it should be a level playing field where you get to decide what you want to do, watch, listen to, read. And our government should be ashamed for letting it happen.  

　　沖縄県民の4人に1人が命を落とした沖縄戦から80年。「二度と沖縄を戦場にしない」と県民が改めて誓ったその年に、あろうことか、就任間もない高市早苗首相の「台湾有事は存立危機事態」という国会答弁や「非核三原則見直し」発言が、一挙に戦争を引き寄せてしまった。　１９７２年の日中共同声明をはじめ、日中間の基本文書で繰り返し確認されてきた過去の戦争への日本の反省と、「台湾問題は中国の内政問題である」という認識を覆した高市発言に対する中国側の反応は、極めて厳しい。　「台湾有事は日本有事..

Festoが提供する複数の製品には、製品の機能に関する技術的な情報の提供が不十分な問題が存在します。

Schneider Electricが提供するUni-Telwayドライバには、不適切な入力確認の脆弱性が存在します。

Schneider Electricが提供する複数の製品には、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

エフサステクノロジーズ株式会社が提供するServerView Agents for Windowsのインストーラーには、DLLを読み込む際の検索パスに問題があり、意図しないDLLを読み込んでしまう脆弱性が存在します。

Ruijie Networks Co., Ltd.が提供するAP180シリーズには、OSコマンドインジェクションの脆弱性が存在します。

複数のマイクロソフト製品には、脆弱性があります。マイクロソフトは、今回修正された一部の脆弱性を悪用する攻撃をすでに確認しているとのことです。この問題は、Microsoft Updateなどを用いて、更新プログラムを適用することで解決します。詳細は、開発者が提供する情報を参照してください。

We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

Imagine every post online came with a bounty of up to $150,000 paid to anyone who finds it violates opaque government rules—all out of the pocket of the platform. Smaller sites could be snuffed out, and big platforms would avoid crippling liability by aggressively blocking, taking down, and penalizing speech that even possibly violates these rules. In turn, users would self-censor, and opportunists would turn accusations into a profitable business.

This dystopia isn’t a fantasy, it’s close to how U.S. copyright’s broken statutory damages regime actually works.

Copyright includes "statutory damages,” which means letting a jury decide how big of a penalty the defendant will have to pay—anywhere from $200 to $150,000 per work—without the jury necessarily seeing any evidence of actual financial losses or illicit profits. In fact, the law gives judges and juries almost no guidelines on how to set damages. This is a huge problem for online speech.

One way or another, everyone builds on the speech of others when expressing themselves online: quoting posts, reposting memes, sharing images from the news. For some users, re-use is central to their online expression: parodists, journalists, researchers, and artists use others’ words, sounds, and images as part of making something new every day. Both these users and the online platforms they rely on risk unpredictable, potentially devastating penalties if a copyright holder objects to some re-use and a court disagrees with the user’s well-intentioned efforts.

On Copyright Week, we like to talk about ways to improve copyright law. One of the most important would be to fix U.S. copyright’s broken statutory damages regime. In other areas of civil law, the courts have limited jury-awarded punitive damages so that they can’t be far higher than the amount of harm caused. Extremely large jury awards for fraud, for example, have been found to offend the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. But somehow, that’s not the case in copyright—some courts have ruled that Congress can set damages that are potentially hundreds of times greater than actual harm.

Massive, unpredictable damages awards for copyright infringement, such as a $222,000 penalty for sharing 24 music tracks online, are the fuel that drives overzealous or downright abusive takedowns of creative material from online platforms. Capricious and error-prone copyright enforcement bots, like YouTube’s Content ID, were created in part to avoid the threat of massive statutory damages against the platform. Those same damages create an ever-present bias in favor of major rightsholders and against innocent users in the platforms’ enforcement decisions. And they stop platforms from addressing the serious problems of careless and downright abusive copyright takedowns.

By turning litigation into a game of financial Russian roulette, statutory damages also discourage artistic and technological experimentation at the boundaries of fair use. None but the largest corporations can risk ruinous damages if a well-intentioned fair use crosses the fuzzy line into infringement.

“But wait”, you might say, “don’t legal protections like fair use and the safe harbors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protect users and platforms?” They do—but the threat of statutory damages makes that protection brittle. Fair use allows for many important re-uses of copyrighted works without permission. But fair use is heavily dependent on circumstances and can sometimes be difficult to predict when copyright is applied to new uses. Even well-intentioned and well-resourced users avoid experimenting at the boundaries of fair use when the cost of a court disagreeing is so high and unpredictable.

Many reforms are possible. Congress could limit statutory damages to a multiple of actual harm. That would bring U.S. copyright in line with other countries, and with other civil laws like patent and antitrust. Congress could also make statutory damages unavailable in cases where the defendant has a good-faith claim of fair use, which would encourage creative experimentation. Fixing fair use would make many of the other problems in copyright law more easily solvable, and create a fairer system for creators and users alike.

電波監理審議会　有効利用評価部会(第55回)会議資料