It’s not just for Catholics anymore

Zakzak reports:

At Nagata Jinja in Nagatu-ku in Kobe city it was learned on the 4th of this month that a male priest(30) at the Shinto shrine (shrine head: Masakatsu Fujiwara) had installed a hidden video camera in the dressing room used by the shrine’s Miko and recorded them changing clothes. The shrine then fired him. The Nagata office of the Hyogo Prefectural police then filed charges with the Kobe District Prosecutor on suspicion of the minor offense of peeping.

According to the investigation, when on February 14th a worker was cleaning the shrine, they discovered that a video camera had been installed in an unused locker inside the girl’s changing room. Fujiwara shrine manager, along with reporting this to the Nagata police, also asked the 11 male staff about the situation, and one of the lower ranking male shrine priests known as “Gonnegi”
confessed to the crime.
The man made a statement that he had “made recordings on several occasionas.” The girl’s changing room was normally used by two Miko.

The Nagata shrine is said to have been built in the year 201 A.D. by Goshintaku(御神託). It is counted as one of the representative Shinto shrines of Kobe, along with Ikuta(生田) Jinja and Minatogawa(湊川) Jinja.

Note: Miko are so-called “shrine maidens” who assist in rituals, somewhat like an altar boy in Catholicism, but often with more responsibility and a wider range of dutied. They can be aged anywhere from early teens to mid-twenties, and despite the name virginity, or even marital status, is not a consideration in modern times.

Real-life “super troopers” in Southwest Airlines prank

Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines has to be one of the most fun cases I’ve read in a while…

Several supervisors at Southwest Airlines convinced two Albuquerque police officers to stage an arrest of Marcie Fuerschbach, a Southwest Airlines employee, as part of an elaborate prank that included actual handcuffing and apparent arrest. This was a “joke gone bad,” and turned out to be anything but funny, as Fuerschbach allegedly suffered serious psychological injuries as a result of the prank. She sued the officers and the City of Albuquerque under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Fuerschbach also asserted claims for various state torts against the officers, the city, her supervisors, and Southwest Airlines.

The full story after the jump…
Continue reading Real-life “super troopers” in Southwest Airlines prank

Is transparency the best policy?

It isn’t illegal to keep secrets. Sometimes, you really have to. Other times, it will get you in trouble. Case in point: the class action against NetFlix.

In late 2003, a Netflix customer named Manuel Villanueva started a website where he documented problems he had experienced with Netflix, a company that provides DVD rentals by mail. He noted that Netflix had violated its agreement to provide him with “unlimited rentals,” by engaging in a practice known as “throttling.”

As a result of this practice, Villanueva says, he was treated worse than other renters who paid the very same price he did — $17.99 – for what was supposed to be, in theory, the same service. In addition, he says, Netflix’s advertising was misleading: Rentals weren’t really unlimited given that Netflix selectively doled out its DVDs.

Now, to be clear, discriminating among customers is usually legal… as long as it isn’t based on race or some other protected status, or in a sensitive type of business like lodging. That’s how airlines get away with charging a walk-up businessman $1,000 for the same seat that would cost an advance purchaser $200. The thing is, just about everyone who buys airplane tickets knows this is the case. From the same article:

The problem [was] that Netflix did not disclose the throttling to consumers up front – and thus arguably misled them as to the service they were purchasing, breaching its agreement with them, as stated in its Terms and Conditions. For this reason, the plaintiff class had a valid claim.

…The plaintiffs in the lawsuit saw equal treatment as a right, implicit in the company’s promise of “unlimited rentals.” And they are correct about this – if a company does not disclose that there are certain limits to the “unlimited” feature, this seems clearly misleading.

Once a company has disclosed its business practices, customers can choose to say or to shop elsewhere. Many Netflix customers retain their accounts – even after throttling has been publicized. Why? They think the service is still a good deal.

One of the few good experiences I had in my law school Contracts class was a simple negotiation simulation. Client A wanted $10,000; Client B didn’t want to pay more than $5,000. We had to pair up and reach a compromise. Once we had all done our separate negotiations, we compared results… and the people who got the most for their clients turned out to be the ones who were most open about what their clients wanted. (As opposed to my partner, who wanted to offer the other side nothing to start out with.)

So the bottom line is, don’t keep customer policies secret. The policies that you “have to” keep secret are often going to get you in trouble once they become public. And at any rate, a major part of keeping people happy is making sure that they don’t feel like they’re getting screwed behind closed doors. Lesson to NetFlix.

Tell spyware to get off your property

One of the coolest technology law developments I’ve seen lately is based on a really, really old idea.

In the very recent case of Thomas Kerrins v. Intermix Media, Inc., a federal court in Los Angeles just held that trespass was a viable legal theory to address the alleged distribution of spyware and adware programs.

…The plaintiff raised various claims, including the ancient claim of trespass to chattels. Traditionally, trespass to chattels refers to the interference with or taking of another’s personal property. It now is being applied by the courts to address the improper access to and interference with computers, networks and servers.

In this case, the defendant moved to dismiss the trespass claim, arguing that the plaintiff had not alleged sufficient interference with his computer. The court disagreed, as the showing of interference or harm required is not stringent. Because the plaintiff had asserted that the defendant’s spyware and adware damaged his existing software, reduced the efficiency of his computer system, and that the removal of the spyware and adware required the time and expense of a computer specialist, the plaintiff had more than adequately stated his claim.

It totally makes sense, and I hope more courts adopt this doctrine in the future. Now I want a firewall that says TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED.

Ms. Smith Goes To Washington

While I’m on a US news binge, this has to be one of the most parody-worthy legal stories of the last year. Here’s the bland version:

Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith got her U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday, when her lawyer argued she should collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband had promised her.

At one point during the hour-long arguments, the 38-year old blond widow, dressed in black and sitting in the spectator section, became emotional and started crying, a witness and her lawyer said…

The issue before the justices in the long-running legal battle is to review when federal courts can hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings. The justices seemed receptive to arguments by Smith’s lawyer that federal courts have jurisdiction to consider her claims.

In Wonkette’s spicier alternate reality version (warning: link not recommended for young viewers or people with high blood pressure), she goes forward pro se:

On the conservative side, Justice Clarence Thomas — known for his inattentiveness during oral argument — was clearly riveted by Smith’s remarks. Sitting on the edge of his chair, he appeared to be engaged in vigorous note-taking underneath his robe.

But Smith reached out to the Court’s liberals as well. When she argued that she worked hard for every last cent of her late husband’s fortune, asking the justices, “Do you have any idea how hard it is to blow a guy in a wheelchair?”, Justice David Souter nodded sympathetically.

God bless America.

Porn v. Google: MF replays the highlights

Proof that federal judges understand the beauty of internet porn, courtesy of Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., Case No. CV 04-9484 AHM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006):

In the final analysis, P10’s use is to provide “entertainment,” both in magazines and on the internet. For some viewers, P10’s use of the photos creates or allows for an aesthetic experience.

Aesthetic indeed.

Contrary to P10’s contention, photographs of nude women can, like photographs of the American West, vary greatly.

Ride ’em, cowboy!

Both kinds of pictures can be described verbally, yet no matter how susceptible any image is to textual description, words cannot adequately substitute for thumbnails in quickly and accurately conveying the content of indexed full-size images.

Ain’t it the truth. And this has got to be the best footnote ever:

Google argues that P10’s works are not creative because P10 “emphasizes the objects of the photographs (nude women) and [P10] assumes that persons seeking Perfect 10’s photos are searching for the models and for sexual gratification.” Google contends that this “implies a factual nature of the photographs.” The Court rejects this argument. The P10 photographs consistently reflect professional, skillful, and sometimes tasteful artistry. That they are of scantily-clothed or nude women is of no consequence; such images have been popular subjects for artists since before the time of “Venus de Milo.”

I wonder if this judge is still hiring clerks?

(The practical effect of this decision might be to end or at least limit the wonderful thumbnail function on Google Image Search; for more, see this Wired article.)

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: METI Explains Stance on Secondhand Game Consoles

It’s amazing how fast misinformation can spread. Despite our best efforts to the contrary, people seem to be accepting at face value Akihabara News’ mistaken claim that the Japanese government is about to ban its thriving used video game electronics market. Though some consoles will be banned without proper certification (contrary to what Roy indicated, Sega fans might be screwed!), the truth is that no comprehensive ban is forthcoming. We at Mutant Frog Travelogue intend to set things right.

The only source that Akihabara News cited in the post is this Japanese government Q&A regarding the provisional measures to the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law, which regulates the safety of old electronics, electric appliances, etc. by instituting an inspection system.

On the top of the Q&A page it states in big letters (paraphrased since the Japanese is kind of awkward): The items that were given a 5-year grace period in 2001 when the law came into effect will come under regulation starting in April 2006.

Below that is a table outlining what kind of labelling will be required of which types of electric/electronic goods. The items that will come under regulation this April are listed as follows: “Electric refrigerators, electric laundry machines, television receivers, electric musical instruments, audio equipment, gaming devices, etc.”

GAMING DEVICES?! My guess is that Mr. Akihabara News must have panicked at this point and typed up his post immediately to warn people.

But if you glance down at Question 4, you’ll find this (provisional translation):

Q4. Will the sale of all secondhand electronics no longer be permitted?

A4. It is not the case that one will no longer be able to sell all secondhand electronics.

The Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law does not designate all electronics. If an electronics product is not designated in the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law, then it is not subject to the regulations of the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law.

For the electronics products that are designated in the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law, it is possible to sell them the same as ever if the new labels are included.

(snip)

Even if an item is on the list, such as electronic musical instruments, audio equipment, gaming devices, etc., the console/body will not be subject to the regulations if it receives its power supply via a removable AC adapter (AC adapters are subject to the regulations with a 7 year grace period (ending on March 31, 2008).

End of story, right? Well, I hate to tell you this, but the scenario is apparently not as rosy as the government would have you believe.
Continue reading Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: METI Explains Stance on Secondhand Game Consoles

2nd hand electronics sales will NOT soon be illegal in Japan

Update HERE- finally some good news!

Akihabara News, Engadget, and probably a number of other blogs have posted a completely misinformed and alarmist claim that Japanese law will soon make it illegal to sell used electronics. First the alarmist claim, and then the explanation of why it is about 80-90% incorrect.

The second hand marker flourishes over here, and most people take good care of their equipment, so used goods are usually in a very good condition and are sold easily to be replaced by new goods. It’s easy to strike a good deal when buying these second hand goods. But that’s exactly the big problem for manufacturers, because this grey market is not generating them any profit, and they would like to get rid of this phenomenon.
[…]
So from April 1st 2006, ALL electronic products sold in Japan before 2001 will be prohibited from the 2nd hand market! This means that for example a PC like the Vaio U1 (PCG-U1) will be soon not vailable on the Japanese market anymore, since it was sold in April 2002… and you still have about a month to get a Vaio C1! It also seems that a 5 yeas old product (made after 2001) will Face the same problem in the futur.

Gosh, terrifying isn’t it? Reading it I practically wet my pants and burst into tears simultaneously at the prospect of never again being able to pass up the chance of buying a 20 year old vintage game console. (Note: I just play them on emulators anyway.)

But notice something very important: Engadget is merely repeating what Akihabara News said, and Akihabara News doesn’t quote any source at all. So why don’t we try actually looking at a real news source, and see what they say. As it so happans, the English langauge Asahi website has a very thorough article on this topic.

There are a couple of major points that contradict what the Akihabara News post said.

Well, exports are exempt. Some retailers are hoping to find overseas buyers, or set up branch offices abroad. Leases are exempt, too, meaning retailers can simply lease their products for fixed terms.

[One company] plans to lease its used products, an action not restricted under the law.

The firm will charge customers in advance for a fixed time period, and the customer will be able to return the item at any time. When the lease expires, the firm will simply give the appliance away–another action exempt from the PSE rule.

So foreign sales will not be restricted at all. This is no surprise, considering how common sales of used Japanese vehicles are overseas. For example, in the Philippines all of the buses seem to be bought used from Japan. The very first bus I rode as I stepped out of the airport had a plate mounted above the windshield saying that it had been a Kyoto city bus that was refurbished by the Keihan Bus Company in around 1980. Second, companies can use what seems to amount to fake leases to get around the sales restrictions.

But there is more to it. Domestic non-lease sales are not being flat-out banned anyway, they are simply requiring an inspection. So what is the inspection?

By law, a retailer can become a “manufacturer,” authorized to conduct safety inspections and affix PSE labels, simply by registering with the ministry.

Registered “manufacturers” may attach PSE labels after confirming three very simple things: the product looks fine, works properly when turned on, and does not leak electricity at 1,000 volts.

So any retailer of any size will be able to perform the inspections themselves. This is starting to sound less like ban on second hand sales designed to encourage the consumption of new goods than it is a fairly reasonable attempt at consumer protection.

But there’s something else. Notice the final part of the test, seeing how the device operates at 1000 volts. This law seems not to be aimed at electronics per-se, so much as electrical appliances. I think there’s a strong chance that it doesn’t apply at all to computers (including game systems) due to the nature of the safety tests. Notice they check if it functions safely at 1000 volts, well the electronics of a computer generally run on 12 volts, and any more than that will fry it, so the test clearly can’t apply!

No, instead what they would be testing are devices that include such things as heating coils or motors, that draw large amounts of power and can be a serious fire risk. In the case of a computer or game system, the power supply would certainly require testing, but I think that the primary device will suffer no restrictions whatsoever.

In short, it will be rather more troublesome for retailers to sell used electronics, and there may be less small stores doing so. On the other hand, larger stores with the economy of scale to set up a small certification department will be able to carry on with their business, and used electrical applicances will now come with a certification that they work and don’t catch on fire when you plug them in, which will probably make it easier for consumers to return defective merchandise. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see someone set up a new business, designed simply to test and certify used electronics for the hundreds or thousands of smaller stores that don’t have the ability to do it themselves.

What we will NOT see is the dismal scenario that Akihabara News incorrectly imagined when they first heard about this law.

UPDATE: This site includes very precise details about what the law regulates, in both Japanese and English. It would seem that I was completely correct. Computers are NOT on the list of regulated items, but power cords and transformers/power adapters ARE. In a very interesting turn, it specifies that television recievers are to be regulated, but says nothing about the CRT tube itself (including computer monitors). This is a rather strange turn, since a tv reciever is just another radio reciever-a very low power device, whereas the actual CRT is a very high power device that can deliver a fatal charge or start a fire if tampered with incorrectly.

Business plan no. 304: a corporate penal colony

One of the fun things about Japanese law is that it’s really, really difficult to fire people who aren’t on a fixed-term contract. You can’t lay people off for economic reasons in Japan unless there’s simply no way for the company to survive. And you can’t lay people off for poor performance unless they break their rules of employment, which generally requires some sort of intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence.

So Japanese companies don’t fire people; instead, they demote them to undesirable jobs. If the assistant manager in Tokyo isn’t working hard enough, he might get sent to Ehime. If he still doesn’t earn his salary, he might be gradually moved toward the basement, much like Milton in Office Space, until finally he gets the idea to quit.

But maybe some people don’t mind being in Ehime. And therein lies the problem… what do you do when you can’t fire a really crap worker?

Solution: Send them to your “branch office” at the Iwo Jima Commercial Park, a development managed by Mutant Frog Capital Partners®. We’ll fly your “special” employees to a tiny self-contained office and dormitory at our compound on Iwo Jima, a sulfur-filled volcanic island in the middle of nowhere that’s still covered in unexploded ordnance from 1945. With no connections to the outside world, they’ll only have time to do your work! And if they decide to quit, we’ll fly them home and you’ll never see them again!

Ah, if I only had the money, I would show the world what a real redhead can do.

“What the hell” in Japanese law, part 2

(Part 1, in case you missed it, was about companies.)

Anyway, there’s a provision in the Japanese Civil Code related to a certain class of contract (委任 “mandates,” in case you care). The article simply says:

This type of contract may be terminated at any time.

Looking this up in the unannotated English version, I was surprised at how simple it seemed to be. Hooray for civil law!

A little while later, I looked up the same article in the annotated Japanese version of the Code, a big honkin’ book which links each article of the code to relevant court cases that further define its meaning. Here’s what I found:

This type of contract may be terminated at any time.

– – –
NOTES: (1) When the terminating party has entered the contract for profit, this Article does not apply. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Judicature, [some date in the 1910s I didn’t bother to write down]

My response was something like the 50’s TV Dad below:

Note to self: Save this picture; you’re going to want to use it in a PowerPoint someday.