I tried calling JASRAC and the Fair Trade Commission concerning the on-site inspection to JASRAC

At the other day GIGAZINE,The Fair Trade Commission inspected JASRAC (Japanese Music Association of Japan) on the suspicion of violating the antitrust lawAlthough I told you,According to Mainichi Shinbun's report, The Fair Trade Commission pointed out that "Comprehensive agreement" between JASRAC and the broadcasting station, which caused the on-site inspection this time, was "a competitive disincentive factor" in the report published five years ago Despite being doing, JASRAC ignored it and said that it continued the monopoly state.

So today I asked JASRAC and the Fair Trade Commission on the phone.

Details are as below.
First of all, the outline of "Study Group on Digital Content and Competition Policy" published by the Fair Trade Commission in March 2003 is as follows.

(PDF file)"Study Group on Digital Content and Competition Policy" Report (Outline)

In this report, the following points have been pointed out as a factor that hinders competition due to new entrants, which may pose a problem under the Antimonopoly Act.

1. When a business operator, such as a copyright holder, establishes a management consignment contract with a right holder, all the rights under the copyright law which the right holder currently has or will hold in the future are subject to the management consignment contract To be conditional on
2. If an existing copyright management company is in an exclusive position in a certain field, only the management fee is reduced for fields competing with new entrants, and both the monopolistic field and competing field themselves Preferential treatment for those entrusting to
3. The condition that the existing copyright management entrepreneur can not contract with the owner who entrusted a part or all of the management to the newly entered management business person for a certain period afterwards

And this time to JASRAC, "According to the Mainichi Newspaper's report, despite having pointed out problems 5 years ago, it was judged that there was no movement to improve one way, which is extremely malignant, It seems that it led to the on-site inspection of, but why did you ignore the warning? "

The answers from JASRAC are as follows.

We knew the contents of the "Study Group on Digital Content and Competition Policy" published by the Fair Trade Commission in March 2003, but we can confirm the fact that we have received direct indications or warnings from the Fair Trade Commission Is not ... I am investigating whether or not such a fact was present at present.

Regarding the reason for receiving the investigation, as already reported, there is a suspicion that a comprehensive contract with a broadcaster excludes new entry, and the investigation is still continuing,As already announced, We cooperate fully.

In addition, when I confirmed this matter by telephone to the Fair Trade Commission, as to the reason why the on-site inspection was conducted this time,I can not answer because it is an individual case"That's right.

in Interview, Posted by darkhorse_log