Blocking access to websites is a dangerous cure for online piracy

[Len]

The Japanese government’s approach to cracking down on online piracy is likely to create more problems than it solves. It should tread more cautiously even though pirating a copyrighted product--the fruit of another person's labors--is a serious crime that must be stamped out.

On April 13, the government decided on an emergency policy response to manga piracy websites that allow users to read copyright content for free.

It announced that Internet service providers are not in violation of the law if they block access to such sites, of which three were singled out. Internet providers were informed that it would be “appropriate” to block access “as a tentative measure.”

The measures, although characterized as “voluntary” efforts by Web access services to deal with the problem, should be seen as an effective call on service providers to take this action.

There are few effective means to clamp down on piracy sites for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are usually based outside Japan.

Piracy websites are said to deprive copyright holders of hundreds of billions of yen.

We fully sympathize with the frustration and indignation manga artists and publishers feel as their rights are violated daily.

In order to block access to specific websites, however, Internet service providers need to track their customers’ online activity. That, in turn, could amount to infringement of "secrecy of communication," which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Thus, the proposed measure is both drastic and dangerous.

In Japan, this approach has been used since 2011 only against child pornography sites as they cause incalculable physical and emotional harm to young children.

The measure was based on the concept of “necessity” under the criminal law that involved two years of discussions among Internet providers, the ministries and agencies concerned and constitutional scholars.

But now the government has suddenly come out with a policy for dealing with piracy sites without going carefully considering the implications.

It claims the latest measure can also be justified with the “necessity” argument. But many legal experts take a dim view of this contention.

This is a grossly irresponsible policy measure because if risks occur like one in which Internet users complain that it is a problem to check their communications without their permission, the government forces service providers, which made "voluntary" efforts, to take the risk.

The industry organization of Internet service providers issued a statement criticizing the government’s policy response on grounds less drastic alternatives are available.

Without the industry's cooperation, the measure is bound to prove ineffective. It will serve only as a bad precedent that could allow the government in the future to widen the scope of websites subject to access denial at will by arguing the “necessity” case.

The government has stated that abuse of the measure must be avoided. But we need to recall that the move to prohibit access to child pornography sites was made on the assumption that the measure would be used restrictively.

Given that the government has casually broken the promise it made at that time, it is hard not to be worried about the implications of the latest policy decision.

The step the government is taking in dealing with online piracy is another sign of the Abe administration’s tendency to place little stock in the history of debate on policy issues, loathe to offer detailed explanations about policy decisions and try to force through its proposals despite concerns.

The government should reconsider the decision and work out a better approach to the problem in order to resolve the distrust and confusion created by the measure.