DOCSLIB.ORG

Itunes How Copyright, Contract, and Technology Shape the Business of Digital Media – a Case Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Itunes How Copyright, Contract, and Technology Shape the Business of Digital Media – a Case Study iTunes How Copyright, Contract, and Technology Shape the Business of Digital Media – A Case Study GREEN PAPER V. 1.2 Please send comments to [email protected] Please note that an updated version of this study is available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/media/itunes. This Green Paper provides an initial analysis of Apple’s iTunes Online Music Store. The exploratory case study presented in this document is research in progress. Comments and questions are encouraged. The paper analyzes relevant law to achieve deeper understanding of current shifts in the digital media landscape, but does not provide legal advice. Research Team This Green Paper is a case study developed by the Digital Media Project team at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Gartner|G2 served as our research partner in this venture. Particular thanks to Mike McGuire of Gartner|G2. Digital Media Project Principal Investigator William W. Fisher, III Hale and Dorr Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Harvard Law School Authors Urs Gasser, Derek Bambauer, Jacqueline Harlow, Charles Hoffmann, Renny Hwang, Georg Krog, Stephen Mohr, Ivan Reidel, Derek Slater, C. Lee Wilson, and John Palfrey Communications Director Mary Bridges Draft as of April 10, 2004 2 Contents Contents ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 A. Background................................................................................................................................................ 6 B. Objectives and Scope ............................................................................................................................... 7 C. Overview of the iTunes Music Store ..................................................................................................... 8 1. Pricing..................................................................................................................................................... 9 2. Song Catalog........................................................................................................................................10 3. Ease of Use..........................................................................................................................................10 4. Digital Rights Management System..................................................................................................10 5. Extra Features .....................................................................................................................................11 Part I: Contract-Copyright Interplay.....................................................................................................12 A. Summary: Where Copyright Permits, Contracts May Prohibit........................................................12 1. Copyright..............................................................................................................................................12 2. Contract................................................................................................................................................13 B. Effects of Contract versus Copyright Tension on iTunes................................................................14 C. Copyright versus Contract in the United States.................................................................................15 D. Copyright versus Contract in Europe .................................................................................................18 1. European Union..................................................................................................................................18 a. Copyright Regulation by the European Union ..........................................................................18 b. Contract Regulation by the European Union ............................................................................19 c. Contractual Modification of Copyright Entitlements in the European Union.....................21 d. Example: Copyright-Contract Interaction in Germany............................................................22 2. Summary of Business Impact............................................................................................................23 E. Copyright versus Contract in Asian Countries...................................................................................23 1. Japan .....................................................................................................................................................23 a. Copyright in Japan..........................................................................................................................24 b. Contract in Japan............................................................................................................................25 c. Contractual Modification of Copyright Entitlements in Japan................................................26 d. Business Impact of Contract and Copyright on iTunes in Japan............................................27 2. China.....................................................................................................................................................28 a. Copyright in China .........................................................................................................................28 b. Contract in China...........................................................................................................................29 c. Contractual Modification of Copyright Entitlements in China...............................................30 d. Business Impact of Contract and Copyright on iTunes in China...........................................31 F. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................32 Part II: Digital Rights Management .....................................................................................................33 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................33 B. How is DRM Protected by Law?..........................................................................................................33 1. United States........................................................................................................................................34 3 2. European Union..................................................................................................................................35 3. Asia-Pacific.............................................................................................................................................37 a. Japan .................................................................................................................................................37 b. China ................................................................................................................................................38 3. Future Implementers..........................................................................................................................38 B. The Interaction Between iTunes DRM and the DMCA ..................................................................38 1. Preventing Piracy ................................................................................................................................39 2. Reverse Engineering and Interoperability.......................................................................................42 C. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................45 Part III: Digital First Sale Doctrine ......................................................................................................47 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................47 1. “Double Dutch Bus”..........................................................................................................................47 2. The Exclusive Right of Distribution and its Limitation: First Sale Doctrine ............................48 B. Potential Effects of the First Sale Doctrine........................................................................................49 C. Digital First Sale Doctrine? ...................................................................................................................52 1. Digital Works.......................................................................................................................................52 2. Digital Dissemination of Works .......................................................................................................53 3. Further Limitations.............................................................................................................................53 D. International Perspective
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Effects of Digital Music Distribution" (2012)
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Research Papers Graduate School Spring 4-5-2012 The ffecE ts of Digital Music Distribution Rama A. Dechsakda [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp The er search paper was a study of how digital music distribution has affected the music industry by researching different views and aspects. I believe this topic was vital to research because it give us insight on were the music industry is headed in the future. Two main research questions proposed were; “How is digital music distribution affecting the music industry?” and “In what way does the piracy industry affect the digital music industry?” The methodology used for this research was performing case studies, researching prospective and retrospective data, and analyzing sales figures and graphs. Case studies were performed on one independent artist and two major artists whom changed the digital music industry in different ways. Another pair of case studies were performed on an independent label and a major label on how changes of the digital music industry effected their business model and how piracy effected those new business models as well. I analyzed sales figures and graphs of digital music sales and physical sales to show the differences in the formats. I researched prospective data on how consumers adjusted to the digital music advancements and how piracy industry has affected them. Last I concluded all the data found during this research to show that digital music distribution is growing and could possibly be the dominant format for obtaining music, and the battle with piracy will be an ongoing process that will be hard to end anytime soon.
    [Show full text]
  • Napster: Winning the Download Race in Europe
    Resolution 3.5 July/Aug 04 25/6/04 12:10 PM Page 50 business Napster: winning the download race in Europe A lot of ones and zeros have passed under the digital bridge on the information highway since November 2002, when this column reviewed fledgling legal music download services. Apple has proved there’s money to be made with iTunes music store, street-legal is no longer a novelty, major labels are no longer in the game ... but the Napster name remains. NIGEL JOPSON N RESOLUTION V1.5 Pressplay, co-owned by UK. There’s an all-you-can-download 7-day trial for Universal and Sony, received top marks for user UK residents who register at the Napster.co.uk site. Iexperience. Subscription service Pressplay launched While Apple has gone with individual song sales, with distribution partnerships from Microsoft’s MSN Roxio has stuck to the subscription model and service, Yahoo and Roxio. Roxio provided the CD skewed pricing accordingly. ‘We do regard burning technology. In November 2002, Roxio acquired subscription as the way forward for online music,’ the name and assets of the famed Napster service (which Leanne Sharman told me, ‘why pay £9.90 for 10 was in Chapter 11 protective bankruptcy) for US$5m songs when the same sum gives you unlimited access and 100,000 warrants in Roxio shares. Two months to over half a million tracks?’ earlier, Napster’s sale to Bertelsmann had been blocked Subscription services have come in for heavy — amid concerns the deal had not been done in good criticism from many informed commentators — mostly faith — this after Thomas Middlehoff had invested a multi-computer and iPod owning techno journalists like reputed US$60m of Bertelsmann’s money in Napster.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Issue
    ISSUE 750 / 19 OCTOBER 2017 15 TOP 5 MUST-READ ARTICLES record of the week } Post Malone scored Leave A Light On Billboard Hot 100 No. 1 with “sneaky” Tom Walker YouTube scheme. Relentless Records (Fader) out now Tom Walker is enjoying a meteoric rise. His new single Leave } Spotify moves A Light On, released last Friday, is a brilliant emotional piano to formalise pitch led song which builds to a crescendo of skittering drums and process for slots in pitched-up synths. Co-written and produced by Steve Mac 1 as part of the Brit List. Streaming support is big too, with top CONTENTS its Browse section. (Ed Sheeran, Clean Bandit, P!nk, Rita Ora, Liam Payne), we placement on Spotify, Apple and others helping to generate (MusicAlly) love the deliberate sense of space and depth within the mix over 50 million plays across his repertoire so far. Active on which allows Tom’s powerful vocals to resonate with strength. the road, he is currently supporting The Script in the US and P2 Editorial: Paul Scaife, } Universal Music Support for the Glasgow-born, Manchester-raised singer has will embark on an eight date UK headline tour next month RotD at 15 years announces been building all year with TV performances at Glastonbury including a London show at The Garage on 29 November P8 Special feature: ‘accelerator Treehouse on BBC2 and on the Today Show in the US. before hotfooting across Europe with Hurts. With the quality Happy Birthday engagement network’. Recent press includes Sunday Times Culture “Breaking Act”, of this single, Tom’s on the edge of the big time and we’re Record of the Day! (PRNewswire) The Sun (Bizarre), Pigeons & Planes, Clash, Shortlist and certain to see him in the mix for Brits Critics’ Choice for 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 8:12-Cv-01677-AG-RNB Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:9 Case 8:12-Cv-01677-AG-RNB Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:10
    Case 8:12-cv-01677-AG-RNB Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:9 Case 8:12-cv-01677-AG-RNB Document 1 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:10 1 1. DIGITECH IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (“DIGITECH” or 2 “Plaintiff”) is a California limited liability company with a place of business at 500 3 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700, Newport Beach, CA 92660. 4 5 2. On information and belief, LEICA CAMERA AG is a foreign company 6 with a place of business at Solms, Germany and LEICA CAMERA INC. is a 7 8 Delaware corporation with a place of business at Allendale, NJ. Hereinafter, LEICA 9 CAMERA AG and LEICA CAMERA INC. are collectively referred to as “LEICA.” 10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 12 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of 13 the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 14 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 16 4. On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific 17 and/or general personal jurisdiction, pursuant to due process and/or the California 18 19 Long Arm Statute, due at least to its substantial business in California, including 20 related to the infringements alleged herein. Further, on information and belief, 21 Defendant has, within this forum, engaged in at least the selling of the accused 22 23 products listed herein. In addition, Defendant induces infringement of the patent-in- 24 suit by sellers and/or infringing users located in this forum.
    [Show full text]
  • Purchase Order
    MEMORANDUM ON PROPOSED TARIFF LEGISLATION of the 112th Congress Date approved August 9, 2012 I. Background Bill number: H.R. 5434 Sponsor name: Mr. Steve Israel Sponsor state: NY Interested entity: Name Nikon U.S.A., Inc. City Melville State NY Other bills on product (112th Congress only): S. 2410 (Mr. Charles E. Schumer, NY) Nature of bill: Temporary duty suspension Expiration date: December 31, 2014 Current or previous chapter 99 heading: None Retroactive date: None CAS number (if applicable): None Industry analyst: Mihir Torsekar Telephone: 202-205-3350 Tariff Affairs contact: Jan Summers Telephone: 202-205-2605 Note: 1. Access to an electronic copy of this memorandum is available at http://www.usitc.gov/tariff_affairs/congress_reports/. 2. In regard to the country(ies) of origin listed in section III, this report focuses on dutiable imports and does not take into account any tariff preference programs or special rates of duty. Page 1 of 4 II. Suggested article description(s) for enactment (including appropriate HTS subheading(s)): Lenses designed for digital cameras, the foregoing with a focal length measuring approximately 70 mm or more but not over 200 mm and weighing 1,535 g or more but not over 1,545 g (provided for in subheading 9002.11.90). (If enacted, the tariff relief provided for in this bill would be available to any entity that imports the product that is covered by the bill.) Description above compared with bill as introduced: Same Different (see Technical Comments section) III. Other product information, including uses/applications and source(s) of imports The subject products are optical camera lenses optimized for use with digital single lens reflex (DSLR) cameras.
    [Show full text]
  • EF-530 DG ST NA-Ittl
    J E D F N Es I Dk C K R F17N07701 ELECTRONIC FLASH EF-530 DG ST NA-iTTL 使用説明書 ISTRUZIONI PER L’USO INSTRUCTIONS BRUGSANVISNING BEDIENUNGSANLEITUNG 用戶手冊 MODE D’EMPLOI 사용자 설명서 GEBRUIKSAANWIJZING PУКOВOДCТВO ПO ЭКСПЛУАТАЦИИ INSTRUCCIONES SIGMA CORPORATION 2-4-16 Kuriki, Asao-ku, Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa 215-8530 Japan Phone : 044 - 989 - 7430 Fax : 044 - 989 – 7451 株式会社シグマ 本 社 〒215-8530 神奈川県川崎市麻生区栗木 2 丁目 4 番 16 号 (044) 989-7430 (代) FAX: (044) 989-7451 カスタマーサービス直通 ( ) ( ) 044 989-7436 工 場 〒969-3395 福島県耶麻郡磐梯町大字大谷字日知坂 6594 代 0242(73)2771( ) 札幌営業所 〒007-0865 札幌市東区伏古 5 条 4 丁目 1 番 9 号 伏古ビル 2F 011(786)3710 大阪営業所 〒541-0059 大阪市中央区博労町 1-7-2 堺筋トラストビル 8F 06(6271)1548 福岡営業所 〒812-0013 福岡市博多区博多駅東 1-11-15 博多駅東口ビル 6F 092(475)5635 インターネットホームページアドレス http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp m 《表 1》《chart.1》《Tabelle 1》《Tableau 1》《tabel 1》《Tabla 1》 ft 17mm 24mm 28mm 35mm 50mm 70mm 105mm 1.3-14.3 1.8-20.0 1.9-20.7 2.0-22.1 2.6-28.6 2.9-32.1 3.4-37.9 1.4 4.3-46.9 5.9-65.6 6.2-67.9 6.6-72.5 8.5-93.8 9.5-105.3 11.2-124.3 0.9-10.0 1.3-14.0 1.3-14.5 1.4-15.5 1.8-20.0 2.0-22.5 2.4-26.5 2.0 3.0-32.8 4.3-45.9 4.3-47.6 4.6-50.9 5.9-65.6 6.6-73.8 7.9-86.9 0.7-7.1 0.9-10.0 0.9-10.4 1.0-11.1 1.3-14.3 1.5-16.1 1.7-18.9 2.8 2.3-23.3 3.0-32.8 3.0-34.1 3.3-36.4 4.3-46.9 4.9-52.8 5.6-62.0 0.7-5.0 0.7-7.0 0.7-7.3 0.7-7.8 0.9-10.0 1.0-11.3 1.2-13.3 4.0 2.3-16.4 2.3-23.0 2.3-24.0 2.3-25.6 3.0-32.8 3.3-37.1 3.9-43.6 0.7-3.6 0.7-5.0 0.7-5.2 0.7-5.5 0.7-7.1 0.7-8.0 0.9-9.5 5.6 2.3-11.8 2.3-16.4 2.3-17.1 2.3-18.0 2.3-23.3 2.3-26.2 3.0-31.2 0.7-2.5 0.7-3.5 0.7-3.6 0.7-3.9 0.7-5.0 0.7-5.6 0.7-6.6 8.0
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    Case 8:12-cv-01695-ODW-MRW Document 32 Filed 08/28/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:323 1 John J. Edmonds (SBN 274200) [email protected] 2 COLLINS EDMONDS POGORZELSKI SCHLATHER & TOWER, PLLC 3 1851 East First Street Suite 900 Santa Ana, CA 92705 4 Telephone: 951-708-1237 Facsimile: 951-824-7901 5 Attorney for Plaintiff 6 DIGITAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 DIGITECH IMAGE CASE NO. 8:12-cv-1324-ODW- TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, MRWx 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF APPEAL 14 ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., 15 Defendant. Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II 16 DIGITECH IMAGE CASE NO. 8:12-cv-1668-ODW- TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, MRWx 17 Plaintiff, 18 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF APPEAL 19 BUY.COM, INC., Defendant. Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II 20 DIGITECH IMAGE CASE NO. 8:12-cv-1671- 21 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DW(MRWx) Plaintiff, 22 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF APPEAL 23 B AND H FOTO AND ELECTRONICS CORP., 24 Defendant. Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II 25 DIGITECH IMAGE CASE NO. 8:12-CV-1673-ODW 26 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, (MRWx) Plaintiff, 27 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF APPEAL 28 SAKAR INTERNATIONAL, INC. Case 8:12-cv-01695-ODW-MRW Document 32 Filed 08/28/13 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:324 1 d/b/a VIVITAR, 2 Defendant. Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II 3 DIGITECH IMAGE CASE NO. 8:12-CV-1675-ODW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, (MRW) 4 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF APPEAL 5 v.
    [Show full text]
  • Interoperability Between Antitrust and Intellectual Property
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN ANTITRUST AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THOMAS O. BARNETT Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Presentation to the George Mason University School of Law Symposium Managing Antitrust Issues in a Global Marketplace Washington, DC September 13, 2006 Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me today. I also extend a special thanks to our foreign guests for taking the time to come to today’s event. Their presence does more to illustrate the importance of this conference’s topic, antitrust issues in the global marketplace, than anything I might say this afternoon. My remarks today focus on intellectual property in the global antitrust arena and certain difficulties with applying the concept of “dominance” to the market power that successful companies sometimes gain by creating new technologies and IP rights. In particular, regulatory second-guessing of private firms’ solutions to technological problems, which I perceive to be on the increase, threatens to harm the very consumers it claims to help. To address this topic, I will start with some first principles on innovation and consumer welfare and then expand on the issues in the context of a specific example. Next, I will offer some general principles to guide the antitrust analysis of dominance and single-firm conduct. Finally, I will address what I consider to be a related topic: process integrity and the importance of carefully designing, and complying with, legal orders. I. Intellectual Property and Dynamic
    [Show full text]
  • Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal a Publication of the Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Section of the New York State Bar Association
    NYSBA SUMMER 2005 | VOLUME 16 |NO. 2 Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal A publication of the Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Section of the New York State Bar Association Remarks From the Chair/Editor’s Note Remarks From the Chair In continuing with the theme of excellence among It is with a sad heart that EASL members, I am extremely pleased that Elisabeth I write to say that one of our Wolfe, Chair of our Pro Bono Committee, received one longtime Executive Commit- of the NYSBA President’s Pro Bono Service Awards. We tee members, James Henry are so proud of all of Elisabeth’s accomplishments, Ellis, who most recently Co- which help to make available pro bono opportunities for Chaired with Jason Baruch our members and their pro bono clients, and for raising our Theater and Performing EASL’s pro bono activities and programs to a nationally Arts Committee, passed recognized level. The President’s Pro Bono Service away on May 26th, at the age Awards were created more than ten years ago to honor of seventy-two. When I law firms, law students and attorneys from each judicial spoke with his daughter and district who have provided outstanding pro bono serv- asked if there was a specific ice to low income people. Elissa D. Hecker organization to which dona- In addition, our new Committee on Alternate Dis- tions could be made in Jim’s pute Resolution has launched itself with programs name, she mentioned the Parsons Dance Foundation. already held and many more underway. In addition, its Jim will be missed.
    [Show full text]
  • Communiqué De Presse
    Communiqué de presse « L-Mount Alliance » : coopération stratégique entre Leica Camera, Panasonic et Sigma Cologne, le 25 septembre 2018 . Un jour avant le lancement officiel de la photokina 2018, Leica Camera AG, Panasonic et Sigma ont annoncé leur partenariat stratégique dans le cadre de la conférence de presse de l’entreprise. La « L-Mount Alliance » (alliance de la monture L), une coopération de type inédit, s'avérera très bénéfique, notamment pour les clients des trois sociétés. Elle permet à Panasonic et à Sigma de mettre la technologie de la monture L développée par Leica au service de leurs propres développements et de proposer également leurs appareils photo et leurs optiques avec cette monture. Les trois partenaires ayant mis leurs efforts en commun, cette alliance va largement contribuer à l’importance de cette technologie dans le monde de la photographie. Étant donné leurs nombreux composants interchangeables, les appareils photo s’utilisent de manière extrêmement flexible et peuvent être configurés selon les exigences de chacun. C'est la baïonnette qui constitue l’interface la plus importante puisque l’objectif joue un rôle déterminant sur le rendu des détails et donc sur la qualité d’image. Le partenariat stratégique entre Leica, Panasonic et Sigma va désormais permettre aux clients d’avoir recours à un plus large choix d'appareils photo et d’objectifs sans devoir opter pour un fabricant particulier comme c’était le cas jusqu’à présent. Dr Andreas Kaufmann, Président du conseil de surveillance et actionnaire principal de Leica Camera AG, déclare : « Pour les photographes, il est fondamental d'avoir un vaste choix pour leur système préféré.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Cartels Or Legitimate Joint Ventures? What the Musicnet and Pressplay Litigation Means for the Entertainment Industry's New Distribution Models
    Copyright Cartels or Legitimate Joint Ventures? What the MusicNet and Pressplay Litigation Means for the Entertainment Industry's New Distribution Models Rachel Landy* Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment illustrates the inherent tension between copyright holders seeking to enforce their exclusive rights and antitrustdoctrine. In Starr, competing record labels pooled their copyrights into digital distributionjoint ventures, MusicNet and Pressplay. Such collaboration toes a thin line between cartel-like conduct andjoint venture legitimacy. Competitors in the entertainment industry have often collaborated to protect their copyrights. While some of these joint ventures have survived antitrust scrutiny, others have not. The result is often guided by the choice of antitruststandard of review: per se or rule of reason. The current MusicNet/Pressplay litigation demonstrates how the fundamental tenets of competition law become muddied when intellectualproperty owners attempt to use their monopolies to control new online distribution models. After examining how the choice of antitrust standard will impact the MusicNet/Pressplay litigation, this Comment considers how current digitaljoint ventures between content owners, Vevo, Hulu and Ultraviolet, would be analyzed under antitrust doctrine. Despite the record labels' apparent anti-competitive conduct in MusicNet/Pressplay, the conflicting statutory policies of copyright and antitrustlaw, and lack ofjudicial scrutiny in this area suggests the rule of reason would be more appropriate. * J.D., UCLA School of Law. 2012; B. Mus.. New York University. 2007. All errors and views are my own. Many thanks to Cecily Mak, Griff Morris, Kevin Montler, Ken Hertz and Seth Lichtenstein for your support and mentoring. 372 UCLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 19:2 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Facilitation of Information Transfer on Chemicals in Products
    Facilitation of Information Transfer on Chemicals in Products The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) developed ‘chemSHERPA’ [kémʃéərpə] as a new information transfer scheme for chemicals in products throughout their supply chains. METI hopes that the dissemination of chemSHERPA may contribute to reduce the workload of both providers and recipients of the information. From the beginning of the development of chemSHERPA, METI has been in communication with international bodies such as the IEC and the IPC, etc., with the aim of developing chemSHERPA into not only a Japanese standard but also an International standard. To make it a de-facto standard, METI has introduced this scheme to international organizations and governments of other countries for their active use. The Joint Article Management Promotion Consortium (JAMP) is a governing body for chemSHERPA from April 2016 and see a shift to chemSHERPA. We believe many companies are preparing towards implementing chemSHERPA. Based on the efforts mentioned above, the following companies and company groups have agreed with the dissemination of chemSHERPA, and METI will continue to work with JAMP and companies to spread the use of chemSHERPA to internal as well as external supply chains as needed.(Please contact us if any company or company group has interest in putting its name below.) It should be noted, the use of the provision of data entry support tools is free of charge in principle with the aim of promoting wider use of chemSHERPA. [Contact information] Chemical Management Policy Division Manufacturing Industries Bureau Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry [email protected] 03-3501-0080 (direct) 03-3501-1511 (ex.
    [Show full text]