Recently, Japan enacted a law that made it a criminal offence to create computer viruses. It appears that the police did not take long to make their first arrest under the new law.
An unemployed 38 year old man was arrested for distributing a virus that he was accused of making. Allegedly, he created a virus and distributed it by infecting files on his own computer and then connecting to a P2P file sharing system that is popular in Japan, Share. The file was disguised as pornography in an apparent effort to attack other Share users. A specialized cyber-crime police unit detected this and arrested him in Ogaki, Japan. Initial reports varied but it now appears that he was arrested for making the virus.
As of August, the virus was still going strong. It spread to music and comic book downloads available through Share.
Showing posts with label Japan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Japan. Show all posts
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
An Osaka Hair Salon is Claiming Over $200,000 in Damages From Groupon Japan
An Osaka hair salon that sold coupons through Groupon Japan is claiming that Groupon Japan misled them about the risks involved in using Groupon Japan's services.
The salon sold coupons through Groupon Japan that reduced the price of services including haircuts and hair colouring from 13200 yen to 2900 yen, including Groupon Japan's share (roughly $158 to $35 cdn at the current exchange rate). The salon was overwhelmed by coupon holders and claims that it had to bring in additional stylists to deal with the demand and could not make a profit on sales at the price set by the coupons. According to the salon, Groupon Japan misled them to believe that 20% of the coupon holders would not come to the store within the time limit placed on the coupons.
Groupon Japan denies the salon's claims and points out that the price and number of coupons sold were based on an analysis of the store's capacity and the available staff members. Additionally, Groupon Japan points out that the salon had the right to decide whether the coupons would be sold.
I personally have limited experience with Groupon. The salon would have been happy to sell a coupon to me since the only one I have bought so far is still taped to my fridge and nearing expiry. What have your experiences with Groupon been? Have you tried to use one at a store that was clearly overwhelmed?
I will be watching this one unfold, check back for more.
The salon sold coupons through Groupon Japan that reduced the price of services including haircuts and hair colouring from 13200 yen to 2900 yen, including Groupon Japan's share (roughly $158 to $35 cdn at the current exchange rate). The salon was overwhelmed by coupon holders and claims that it had to bring in additional stylists to deal with the demand and could not make a profit on sales at the price set by the coupons. According to the salon, Groupon Japan misled them to believe that 20% of the coupon holders would not come to the store within the time limit placed on the coupons.
Groupon Japan denies the salon's claims and points out that the price and number of coupons sold were based on an analysis of the store's capacity and the available staff members. Additionally, Groupon Japan points out that the salon had the right to decide whether the coupons would be sold.
I personally have limited experience with Groupon. The salon would have been happy to sell a coupon to me since the only one I have bought so far is still taped to my fridge and nearing expiry. What have your experiences with Groupon been? Have you tried to use one at a store that was clearly overwhelmed?
I will be watching this one unfold, check back for more.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Criminalization of the Creation of Computer Viruses
Japan passed legislation earlier this week to criminalize the creation of computer viruses. Considering the recent major public network hacks that have hit high profile e-commerce sites this is no major suprise. After all, these attacks frequently use computers that are compromised through virus infection.
My first reaction to this news was to think that surely intentionally distributing viruses is illegal, even if creating them is not. Suprisingly, after a brief search I was unable to locate any Canadian decisions where criminal charges were brought against someone who distributed or created a computer virus.
The criminal code does, however, provide some protection against people distributing viruses. Sections 326 and 342.1 (reproduced below) prohibit theft of telecommunications services and unauthorized use of computers. Neither of these sections refer to viruses specifically but note that they do not require the accused to be sitting at a keyboard and mouse. Remotely obtaining a telecommunication service or computer service using a virus is likely sufficient. In addition to sections 326 and 342.1, section 430 prohibits "Mischeif in Relation to Data". Mischeif in relation to data includes some of the effects that a computer virus might have on data.
So why not prohibit creating computer viruses outright? My first guess is that the constitution prevents it. Creating computer viruses does not in itself cause any harm and criminal offences that are not tied directly to harm are unlikely to stand up under the section seven of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The harm caused by viruses comes from their distribution. There are useful reasons to create viruses such as security research. If only criminals understand how to locate, probe and exploit security failures in software there is no hope that these threats can be eliminated.
What is the situation in your jurisdiction? Is it illegal to create viruses or only to unlawfully access computer and telecommunications services or damage data?
My first reaction to this news was to think that surely intentionally distributing viruses is illegal, even if creating them is not. Suprisingly, after a brief search I was unable to locate any Canadian decisions where criminal charges were brought against someone who distributed or created a computer virus.
The criminal code does, however, provide some protection against people distributing viruses. Sections 326 and 342.1 (reproduced below) prohibit theft of telecommunications services and unauthorized use of computers. Neither of these sections refer to viruses specifically but note that they do not require the accused to be sitting at a keyboard and mouse. Remotely obtaining a telecommunication service or computer service using a virus is likely sufficient. In addition to sections 326 and 342.1, section 430 prohibits "Mischeif in Relation to Data". Mischeif in relation to data includes some of the effects that a computer virus might have on data.
So why not prohibit creating computer viruses outright? My first guess is that the constitution prevents it. Creating computer viruses does not in itself cause any harm and criminal offences that are not tied directly to harm are unlikely to stand up under the section seven of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The harm caused by viruses comes from their distribution. There are useful reasons to create viruses such as security research. If only criminals understand how to locate, probe and exploit security failures in software there is no hope that these threats can be eliminated.
What is the situation in your jurisdiction? Is it illegal to create viruses or only to unlawfully access computer and telecommunications services or damage data?
Friday, 13 May 2011
Fair play? Does Posting a Video of a Game Being Played Breach the Publisher's Copyright?
For some, playing video games apparently requires too much effort. Rather than interact with their interactive media, they prefer to put their feet up (and controllers down) and enjoy a video of someone else playing a game. A popular user-generated video distribution site in Japan, Nico Nico Douga, has a selection of these "Play Videos".
ITMedia (http://bit.ly/lxs3kQ via Slashdot Japan: http://bit.ly/eK2yWVis, both in Japanese) is reporting that a game company, Alie, released a statement claiming that distribution of videos showing their games being played infringes their copyright and that they would fight further distribution. Apparently, a recent Japanese Playstation 3 game includes a warning that distributing play videos is copyright infringement.
Reactions to play videos have been mixed. Some publishers feel that showing gameplay is a lot like telling someone the end of a good book. This is particularly true of Alie's games which are basically interactive novels. Other game companies have accepted play videos as free marketing and even encourage their users to make them.
I am not here to talk about opinion though, I am much more interested in the law. Does making and distributing play videos sound like fair use to you? Is it transformational use? Is there an economic impact and if there is, how would we gauge it?
The views expressed in this blog may not be consistent with those of McCarthy Tetrault LLP or its clients. The information provided here is for educational purposes only. Every legal issue is unique, please contact an expert if you think you might need legal advice.
ITMedia (http://bit.ly/lxs3kQ via Slashdot Japan: http://bit.ly/eK2yWVis, both in Japanese) is reporting that a game company, Alie, released a statement claiming that distribution of videos showing their games being played infringes their copyright and that they would fight further distribution. Apparently, a recent Japanese Playstation 3 game includes a warning that distributing play videos is copyright infringement.
Reactions to play videos have been mixed. Some publishers feel that showing gameplay is a lot like telling someone the end of a good book. This is particularly true of Alie's games which are basically interactive novels. Other game companies have accepted play videos as free marketing and even encourage their users to make them.
I am not here to talk about opinion though, I am much more interested in the law. Does making and distributing play videos sound like fair use to you? Is it transformational use? Is there an economic impact and if there is, how would we gauge it?
The views expressed in this blog may not be consistent with those of McCarthy Tetrault LLP or its clients. The information provided here is for educational purposes only. Every legal issue is unique, please contact an expert if you think you might need legal advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)