山口県宇部市の長生炭鉱「ピーヤ」・坑口周辺一帯を「平和公園」として整備することを求める全国署名が、9月21日から始まる。（小栗俊也）

CERT/CCから本件に関するアドバイザリが公表されました。

CERT/CCから本件に関するアドバイザリが公表されました。

Siemensから各製品向けのアドバイザリが公表されました。

 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed internet users and programmers a big win today, by rejecting an attempt to stretch a narrow provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) into a new source of copyright liability.  

The case involves Section 1202 of the DMCA, which prohibits intentionally removing copyright management information (CMI) like an author’s name or a copyright notice, from a copyrighted work. Open AI and Microsoft used code from Github as part of the training data for their LLMs, along with billions of other works. A group of anonymous Github contributors sued, alleging the new code coming out of these LLMs was similar to theirs—but with the CMI stripped out.  

The Ninth Circuit correctly agreed with what we said in our brief: removing copyright information from a copyrighted work is fundamentally different from creating a new work that didn't have CMI in the first place. Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was intended to serve as a backstop for traditional copyrights in the digital age—not to create a new, more expansive right to inhibit otherwise non-infringing uses. 

As we also explained, accepting the Does’ theory would have created a brand-new source of liability for otherwise perfectly lawful activities, undermining creativity and innovation far beyond the specific context of AI development. Copyright holders would be able to file costly lawsuits against all kinds of legitimate users, such as artists making remixes based on older works, teachers adapting works for a classroom presentation, engineers reverse engineering code to understand it better, and search engines that help us all navigate the web. The risks would have fallen especially hard on independent software developers and other small creators. Large companies can afford to litigate these claims in federal court for years, if necessary. But an independent programmer facing massive statutory damages may simply have to settle, even when their underlying use is completely lawful. That’s why EFF fights to make sure courts don’t expand copyright beyond what Congress authorized.  

Copyright law still protects programmers when their work is unlawfully copied. They can still bring copyright infringement claims if someone uses a model to reproduce their code. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ contract claims against the AI companies are still in play. The specific holding here was narrow but important: that the absence of copyright information from a new work does not mean, by itself, that someone illegally removed it.  

That’s the correct result. New technologies will keep raising hard questions about copyright. Courts should answer those questions by applying the rights that Congress actually authorized, not by inventing new rights that could harm expression and lawful use for everyone.  

Additional Reading:  

• 9th Circuit Opinion in Doe v. GitHub 
• EFF’s Amicus Brief in Doe v. GitHub 

林総務大臣臨時閣議後記者会見の概要

東日本大震災による被災地方公共団体における職員採用情報

税務システム標準仕様書【第6.0版】の修正について（第1報）

第34次地方制度調査会第9回専門小委員会

第770回　入札監理小委員会（会議資料）

弾道ミサイルを想定した住民避難訓練の実施

「統計データ・グラフフェア」の開催

健康保険及び厚生年金保険の育児休業による保険料免除の見直しについて　−行政改善推進会議の意見を踏まえたあっせん−

政治資金規正法に基づく政治団体の届出事項の異動の届出

政治資金規正法に基づく政治団体の届出

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　ITU部会 衛星・科学業務委員会（第50回）配布資料

話は変わる。コロナが大きな問題となった2020年春、新潟・上越や山形・置賜、千葉・三里塚・神奈川・川崎の百姓衆と語らって「コメと野菜でつながる百姓と市民の会」というささやかなグループを立ち上げた。　コロナ禍で広がる貧困で、十分に食べられない人が増えている、と聞いたからだ。上越のコメ農家から「田植えの季節がきたが、今年は気持ちがわきたたない。このコメを食べられない人がいることがひっかかって」という電話が入ったことがきっかけだった。（大野和興）

Courts have for two decades found that linking and embedding someone else’s web content, be it a photo, music, or an article, doesn’t violate copyright law–the entity that controls the server that hosts a copyrighted work, not the user or website that merely directs others to it, is directly liable if the content turns out to be infringing.

News publisher Emmerich Newspapers sought to convince the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to chart a new and dangerous course, arguing that an aggregator website that published links to its copyrighted articles was in effect “displaying” them and can be directly liable for infringement. EFF, along with several other public interest organizations and trade associations, filed a brief urging the court to follow multiple other circuits and reject that theory.

Fortunately, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did just that. While it rejected the server test–the rule courts have used to determine copyright liability rests with whoever serves up the content–the court came to the same practical conclusion by focusing on who is responsible for transmitting content. 

Applying that test, the court found that pointing or directing a user’s browser to request and receive the copyright owner’s own copy residing on its computers does not involve transmitting or communicating the content. “Although we take different routes to get there, both the server test and the test we announce end up in a similar place: a website cannot transmit a work that it does not have,” the court said. 

We told the court that accepting Emmerich's theory would make the common act of embedding links a legally fraught activity, one that many websites might be unwilling to risk, which would seriously damage the internet as a tool for creating and disseminating ideas and knowledge,

We applaud the court’s decision–even though it applied a different test, it correctly concluded that a user linking pictures, video, or articles isn’t in charge of transmitting that content to the world. The user doesn’t control what’s located on the other end of the link—that’s up to the person who controls the server.

Emmerich also claimed linking violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), arguing its URLs were copyright management information (CMI) and when the aggregator displayed Emmerich’s articles under its own URL, it tampered with Emmerich’s CMI, which violates the DMCA. 

Under that logic, unsuspecting internet users could face ruinous legal risk for doing something as simple as using a link shortener, particularly given potential statutory penalties of up to $25,000 per violation.  

In our brief, we told the court that URLs don’t necessarily equate to a copyrighted work or provide sufficient information about the nature of the underlying content, making it highly unlikely that anyone would expect a URL to contain CMI. Quoting EFF’s brief, the court concluded that URLs are first and foremost a locational reference tool and while it may be possible for a URL to contain CMI, the bar to that conclusion is high.

Overall, this was a good and sensible decision that will protect ordinary online expression, communication, and access to knowledge. Hopefully this issue is laid to rest at last.

Related Cases: Emmerich Newspapers v. Particle Media