Computer programs defined in Article 2(1)(xbis) of the Japanese Copyright Law includes programs in source code as well as in object code.

Both the right of distribution (including the right of lending) provided for in Article 26 of the Japanese Copyright Law and the right of lending provided for in Article 26bis prescribe that the acts of distribution or lending covered are those done by "copies" of the work. However, as the concept of "copies" in the Japanese Copyright Law includes all fixations of a work, the original of the work is also included in the concept of "copies".

Performers' right to make sound or visual recordings stipulated in Article 91 of the Japanese Copyright Law is an exclusive right with respect to sound and visual recordings and obviously includes the possibility of preventing the reproduction of unauthorized fixation of performances, which is required by Article 14.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article 91 fulfils the obligation of the TRIPS Agreement.

Performers' right to make sound or visual recordings stipulated in Article 91 of the Japanese Copyright Law is an exclusive right with respect to sound and visual recordings and obviously includes the possibility of preventing the reproduction of unauthorized fixation of performances, which is required by Article 14.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article 91 fulfils the obligation of the TRIPS Agreement.

Based on Article 92(1) of the Japanese Copyright Law, performers have the exclusive right of transmission to the public by any means including wire or wireless transmission, simultaneous or on demand, analog or digital, of their live performance when such transmission is undertaken without their authorization. As to the communication to the public other than the transmission to the public, performers themselves can exercise "the possibility of preventing" it by contract.

One simple example of such a case is "live performance" in front of the public.

Article 100 of the Japanese Copyright Law grants to broadcasting organizations the exclusive right to communicate to the public their television programmes by means of the device to enlarge the image. As to the communication to the public through normal television with payment, there has been no such practical case in Japan, and so the Japanese Copyright Law provides for such exclusive right only in the case of communication with a special instrument for enlarging images.

Article 100 of the Japanese Copyright Law grants to broadcasting organizations the exclusive right to communicate to the public their television programmes by means of the device to enlarge the image. Paragraph 6 of Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement stipulates that any Member may, in relation to the rights of broadcasting organizations conferred under paragraph 3 of the same Article, provide for limitations permitted by the Rome Convention. As Article 13(d) of the Rome Convention stipulates that the domestic law of the state where protection of the right is claimed may determine the conditions under which it may be exercised, the Japanese Copyright Law excludes the communication to the public of television broadcasts by means of a television for home use.

The Japanese Copyright Law provides for "the right of lending" with respect to commercial phonograms. If an original of a phonogram is used for commercial purposes, it will be regarded as "a commercial phonogram", and therefore, the original of a phonogram used for such purposes falls within the scope of "the right of lending".

The Government of Japan considers it desirable to provide a high level of protection for intellectual property rights and believes 50 year retroactive protection of the rights of performers and producers of phonograms (sound recordings) is appropriate. Therefore, a draft amendment to the Copyright Law is under preparation for submission to the Diet with a view to extending the period of retroactive protection for such rights to 50 years.

Berne "communication" rolls together the aspect of telecommunication, e.g., broadcasting, with the aspect of performance in public. In the Canadian Copyright Act "telecommunication" is used etymologically in the sense of a communication from afar as opposed to a performance in front of the public, i.e. a live audience. The definition of "telecommunication" in Section 2 is so broad as to be technologically neutral. This feature ensures that the Copyright Act's communication right is already well adapted to the exigencies of the digital environment.

The Copyright Act gives authors the exclusive right to perform the work in public and the exclusive right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication. These two aspects fully satisfy Berne requirements with respect to providing the author with the exclusive right to communicate his work to the public.

Berne Convention, Article 11(1)(i), requires authors of dramatic, dramatico-musical and musical works to enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the public performance of their works, including such public performance by any means or process. Section 3(1) of the Copyright Act gives the copyright owner the sole right to perform the work, or any substantial part thereof in public. This is the basis of the right of public performance under the Canadian Copyright Act. The right to communicate the work to the public by telecommunication is provided in Section (3)(1)(f). The act of communicating a work to the public by telecommunication does not constitute the act of performing the work in public, nor does it constitute an authorization to do the act of performing the work in public.

No. Canada complies with TRIPS, Article 14(3), via copyright not broadcasters' rights. The Copyright Act does not give broadcasters a right in their broadcasting signals. However, as a copyright owner, the broadcaster may own the copyright in his "broadcast day" as an original compilation of the works making up all or part of the broadcast programming.

Under the Copyright Act, the simultaneous retransmission of local signals is not an infringement of copyright in the works carried in the original broadcast. Like many other countries, Canada does not provide copyright protection for the simultaneous retransmission of local signals which, by definition, are already available to the public via the primary transmission. Therefore, under the Canadian Copyright Act, copyright owners do not have any rights arising from the retransmission of local broadcast signals. The simultaneous retransmission of the entirety of local broadcast signals carrying copyright works does not conflict with the author's normal exploitation of his work and does not unreasonably prejudice his legitimate interests. Under the Canadian Copyright Act, the simultaneous retransmission of distant broadcast signals is not an infringement of the copyright in the works carried in the original broadcast if the retransmitter has paid the applicable royalties and complied with any terms and conditions fixed under the authority of the Copyright Act.

Although the Canadian Copyright Act lacks a general adaptation right, the statute gives the author the exclusive right to convert a dramatic work into a novel or another non-dramatic work and to adapt a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work by cinematograph. Canada complies with Article 12 of the Berne Convention via these rights and by the reproduction right which has been given a very extensive scope by Canadian courts. Accordingly, the Canadian legal system handles by way of the reproduction right much of what some other countries handle by way of a general adaptation right. With respect to adaptation, it is also pertinent that the Canadian Copyright Act specifically gives the author moral rights to the integrity of his work.

Under Section 3 of the Canadian Copyright Act, the right to publish a work together with the right to publicly present a work by cinematography together fulfil the obligations of TRIPS, Article 9(1), and Berne Convention, Article 14.

In this respect, any relevant right of the author would have been licensed or assigned to the maker of the cinematographic work. Canada does not interpret the Berne Convention in a fashion that requires authors to be given a distribution right on the same footing as, e.g., the rights of public performance and communication to the public. Our reading is that any relevant distribution right is limited to a right of first distribution which implicitly passes to the maker of the cinematographic work by reason of the author's consent to adaptation.

The Canadian Copyright Act does not confer the ownership of copyright on all of the individuals (e.g., screen writers, cinematographers, etc.) who bring contributions to the making of the cinematographic work. With respect to the cinematographic work, moral and economic rights belong to the film's author. With respect to any underlying copyright work included in the cinematographic work, moral and economic rights remain with the author of the underlying work, subject to the normal rules with respect to licensing and assignment. Although the Copyright Act is fully equipped in this regard, it should be recalled that the moral rights in the Berne Convention have not been carried over into TRIPS.

Although the point is clear from case law, the Copyright Act nowhere explicitly provides that the protection accorded to compilations of data or other material does not extend to the data or material itself. With respect to compilations of data or other material, Canada's laws are fully consistent with TRIPS requirements.