鉱業等に係る土地利用の調整手続等に関する法律の施行等に関する規則の一部を改正する規則案及び公害紛争の処理手続等に関する規則の一部を改正する規則案についての意見募集の結果並びに改正規則の公布

総務省
23 hours 16 minutes ago
鉱業等に係る土地利用の調整手続等に関する法律の施行等に関する規則の一部を改正する規則案及び公害紛争の処理手続等に関する規則の一部を改正する規則案についての意見募集の結果並びに改正規則の公布
総務省

【馬毛島基地建設】着工３年　費用青天井 完成遠く　米軍訓練滑走路・施設を先行　視察団、防衛省が阻む＝丹原 美穂（沖西ネット事務局・ＪＣＪ東海）

日本ジャーナリストクラブ（JCJ）
1 day 2 hours ago
　　　　　　　　　　　　　視察団は上陸地点の港で抗議の声を　馬毛島（鹿児島県西之表市）で進む米空母艦載機の離着陸訓練（ＦＣＬＰ）移転に伴う自衛隊基地建設工事は、１月12日が着工から３年。工事差し止めを求め、国と係争中の地元漁師原田純男さんと弁護士、支援者ら12人の視察団が10日、島唯一の上陸場所、葉山港近くにある漁業者の入会地と国有地境界確定のための測量をしに島に上陸したが、防衛省は国有地を通らなければ入会地に立ち入れないにもかかわらず視察団の国有地内通行を拒否。原告の入会地..
ＪＣＪ

【馬毛島基地建設】着工３年　費用青天井 完成遠く　米軍訓練滑走路・施設を先行　視察団、防衛省が阻む＝丹原 美穂（沖西ネット事務局・ＪＣＪ東海）

日本ジャーナリストクラブ（JCJ）
1 day 2 hours ago
　　　　　　　　　　　　　視察団は上陸地点の港で抗議の声を　馬毛島（鹿児島県西之表市）で進む米空母艦載機の離着陸訓練（ＦＣＬＰ）移転に伴う自衛隊基地建設工事は、１月12日が着工から３年。工事差し止めを求め、国と係争中の地元漁師原田純男さんと弁護士、支援者ら12人の視察団が10日、島唯一の上陸場所、葉山港近くにある漁業者の入会地と国有地境界確定のための測量をしに島に上陸したが、防衛省は国有地を通らなければ入会地に立ち入れないにもかかわらず視察団の国有地内通行を拒否。原告の入会地..
ＪＣＪ

Supreme Court Agrees With EFF: ISPs Don't Have To Be Copyright Enforcers

EFF update
1 day 2 hours ago

If your ISP can be liable for huge amounts of money for not terminating your access to the internet because of accusations that you—or someone in your household or college network—has committed copyright infringement, that is dangerous. We live in a world where high speed internet access is a necessity for participation in everyday life. That’s why liability for ISPs for their customers’ actions should not be expanded.

Last fall, EFF filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an expansive theory of secondary copyright liability that threatened to impose massive damages on internet service providers and other technology companies simply for offering widely used services. Yesterday, the Court agreed.

In Cox v. Sony, the Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against internet provider Cox Communications. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas explained that contributory liability is limited to two situations: when a defendant actively induces infringement, or when it provides a product or service that it knows is tailored for infringement.

This framework closely tracks the approach EFF urged in our amicus brief. As we explained, courts should look to patent law for guidance in defining the boundaries of secondary copyright liability. Patent law recognizes liability where a defendant actively induces infringement, or distributes a product knowing that it lacks substantial non-infringing uses. The Court’s opinion adopts that same basic structure.

EFF also emphasized the broader public interest at stake in preserving these limits. Expansive theories of secondary liability do not just affect large internet providers. They can chill innovation, threaten smaller technology companies, and undermine the development of general-purpose tools that millions of people rely on for lawful speech, creativity, education, and access to information. When liability turns on generalized knowledge that some users may infringe, service providers face pressure to over-police user activity or withdraw useful services altogether.

The Court also made clear that mere knowledge that some customers use a service to infringe is not enough. Copyright holders must show that the provider intended its service to be used for infringement. That intent can be established only through active inducement or by showing that the service is specifically designed for unlawful uses—not simply because the service provider failed to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement.

Applying this standard, the Court held that Cox could not be liable. There was no evidence that Cox encouraged or promoted infringement. The record instead showed that Cox implemented warning systems, suspended service, and in some cases terminated accounts in an effort to discourage unlawful activity.

Nor was Cox’s internet access service tailored to infringement. The Court emphasized that general-purpose internet connectivity is capable of substantial lawful uses. Treating the provision of such services as contributory infringement would improperly expand secondary liability beyond the limits recognized in prior Supreme Court decisions.

The Court also rejected the Fourth Circuit’s broader rule that supplying a service with knowledge it may be used to infringe is itself sufficient for liability. That theory conflicts with decades of precedent warning against imposing copyright liability based solely on knowledge or a failure to take additional preventive steps.

EFF is pleased with yesterday’s opinion. We will continue to advocate for the public’s ability to build, use, and innovate with new technologies.

Link to our amicus brief: 
https://www.eff.org/document/us-s-ct-cox-v-sony-eff-et-al-amicus-brief

Link to the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf

Related Cases: Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment
Betty Gedlu