Please feel free to also add any comments you may have on this sensitive issue. And keep in mind, when responding, that you, one day, may create your own artwork or literature or film, and may wish to send it all over the world.

Your e-mail address @ Sending and Receiving Copyrighted Work Over Computer Networks 1. The present copyright law in Japan states that when someone other than the creator, sends an artist's work to the public via computer network,they must get the creator's permission (or that of whoever holds the copyright). But the law is vague about whether that permission is needed if the work is being made available to a limited audience. Do you think it's necessary for you to get the creator's permission (or that of the copyright holder) even if you're sending the work to a small audience? (Choose one) (1) It is necessary to get permission. (2) In principle it is necessary to get permission to send the work out, but not for private use. (3) It shouldn't be necessary to get permission at all. If you choose "2" in question #a, please choose from the list below which you consider to be private use, i.e., use you're entitled to without the creator's permission. To send the work to another computer To send it to my family. To send it to a few friends. To send it to more than ten friends. To send it to a mailing list which includes some people I don't know. To send it to colleagues for business purposes. .If you have indicated in the question above that you believe that you do have to obtain an artist's permission to send their work public (even to limited audience), how do you feel about sending over digital communication networks.How do you feel about sending it over a computer network, such as the Internet? Would this reduce one of the biggest advantages of networks -- the free flow of information ? Some people insist that -- for this reason, an artist's permission needn't be required. They argue that instead, the system should be set up for a royalty based system -- that the artist just collect royalties for work put up on the internet. Please indicate how you feel about this. It's important to respect a creator's opinion. We should get their permission to access their work. It's important to maintain the free flow of information over computer networks, therefore creators should limit their claim to royalties. Copyright itself has two functions. It protects the rights of the creator of an original work (i.e., artists). And it protects the rights of those who invest in a creative work (i.e., music corporations, film producers, etc.) In the business world, the latter protection is the one often emphasized. In considering the right to send work over a computer network, which rights should get preference? The artists. The investors. It should be decided by whatever contracts the two parties have made. If an artist makes his/her own work public via the Internet, do you think that you should be able to copy, modify, or send that work out without the artist's permission? Please choose any of of the items below that you feel you can do without the artist's permission. Copy part of an original work for my private use. Quote from an original work using the creator's name. Include original work into another piece and make it public via the Internet. Compile a compact disc using a part of someone else's original work and distribute it via retailers. Compile a compact disc entirely composed of someone else's original work and distribute it via retailers. The present copyright law was designed with existing mass media and distribution networks in mind. As it works now, whoever distributes an artist's work (publishing company, tv station) has to get the artist's permission in a signed contract and pay a fee. But copyright law is silent regarding those who purchase and enjoy the work. They just have to pay the price to enjoy it. In contrast, now users of the Internet can easily access artists' work without making any payment so some people argue that users get an artist's permission to aceess their work. Do you agree (Choose one.) I fully agree. In principle I agree, but it's not practical to say that I have to pay everytime I access something original via the Internet. A more efficient method should be designed. In principle, I disagree but some law should be in place to protect artists when it's clear that their copyright is being severely violated. When, essentially, they're being ripped off. I fully disagree. Copy of Original Work Under present copyright law in Japan, people can copy an artist's original work without permission only for your private use. Considering that now digital technology enables us to endlessly copy original work should that rule be amended? (1) No need to amend present copyright law. (2) No digital copies, including those for private use, should be allowed without creator's permission. (3) No digital copies, including those for private use, should require the creator's permission. If you chose (1) in question a, please indicate from the list below which you consider to describe "private use." (Multiple choice is acceptable) To copy the original work in order to keep a back up file of it. To copy the original work to use it on my own computer. To copy the original work to give it to a member of my family. To copy the original work to give it to a few friends. To copy the original work to give it to more than ten friends. To copy the original work to give it to colleagues for busines purposes. To copy the original work to give it to students to use in school. Modification of an Original Work There are predictions that in the future, advancements in digital technology will enable anyone to modify an artist's original work and thus create a "new" work. If you did this, to what extent do you think you should get the artist's permission? Choose any from the list below of circumstances you feel in which the modification can be done without the permission of the artist. (multiple choice) To enjoy it by myself. To enjoy it with my family. To give it to a few friends. To give it to more than ten friends. To give it to anyone for free. To sell it. Present coyright law in Japan gives the artist the right to prohibit anyone from modifying his/her work, if the modification violates the artist's intention. Some people claim that this hampers the popularization of use of the Internet. How do you feel? (Choose one) The law, as it stands, should be respected. The law should be applied only when the modified work is made public. The law should be applied only when the modified work is done for commercial purposes. Others Recently corporations have begun collecting the vast storehouse of artistic masterpieces from the ages and setting up enterprises converting this analog art into a digitalized format. Since the act of digitizing analog art is just a form of reproduction anyone who does is not protected by present copyright law. But the digitizing requires an incredible financial investment and if digitalized art is made available on a network that everyone has free access too, then the party that invested in this proccess could be subject to very large losses. Therefore, some insist that it is necessary to give these investors the right of approval for the distribution and usage of their digitalized artworks. Please indicate below how you feel about this. The act or process of digitizing great art has nothing to do with the produciton or creation of it, so it is not necessary to legally protect theose who do it. Those who invest in the digitizing of artwork do not have to be given the right of sole approval over its distribution over a network. Rather, a system needs to be set up so that they are financially compensated for their investment. Since those who invest in digitizing art also make the material available on the network, they should be given the right to legally approve distribution and usage of the material. Thank you very much. Please feel free to offer any comments or suggestions on this subject and add anything you feel wasn't covered by this questionnaire.