My blog post also added some comments of my own: including naming the name of a leading child abducting attorney in Japan who has had his license suspended several times for misrepresentations he made in court: lies and distortions manufactured to “win” cases and enhance his reputation and income.
He is also the attorney responsible for the abduction of my son.
I don’t know whether his being named there in conjunction with the copyrighted material, which was “objectionable” in some way (for telling unpleasant truths about Japanese breaching of international standards, and gross abuses and violations of children’s rights) had something to do with the attention that was brought to it. But it might have. I suspect strongly that it did, given his history of unscrupulous conduct and disrespect for truth.
Perhaps I may be made to know more about this aspect in the near future. I hope so.
It’s also interesting that it was one of the most visited pages in the 7-year history of this (my) site, having hundreds of hits in just a few days.
Having just received word of the DMCA takedown notice, I am currently seeking to find out how I can legally make “fair use” of whatever necessary portion (or permissible wording) of the content of the Yahoo News article I referenced here, in order that the topic it is about remains discussed here. *I have no desire to, nor interest in infringing anyone’s rights to copyright*; instead I am only interested in keeping the subject matter that was reported on in circulation and available for my community to know of and learn about. I presume that since the material in question was published on the Internet (and then, notably, withdrawn by Yahoo! Japan) that the main point of the story, if not the exact words of the Yahoo article of course, can be legally circulated and discussed.
The story was and is a report on a contemporary, urgent court case. The news story included a series of interviews with one or more participants in the case, and with persons who are affiliated with them, and with people who are, like myself, concerned about the high incidence of child abduction and infringement of children’s and parents’ rights in Japan. It was published, publicly, in the press. I simply reproduced it on this website. But it appears that the originators of the take-down notice did not want it reproduced or known publicly. More than likely they determined that their economic and ideological interests were presented unfavorably by the story.
Therefore I will seek to learn what is possible to do to maintain my website here without interference from “copyright” claims, and without infringement on the rights of others.
The bummer actually is that the story was unusually revealing of the outrageous things that “family courts” in Japan do, and that it corroborated that claim of outrageousness with journalist-conducted interviews with several people, including some in government. So the piece as written has value.
Plus, it was in Japanese (making it more important to keep in circulation). The sum total of what I did here was to post it with a machine-assisted English translation (in which I did my best to fix some erroneous grammar, but not much more), with some comments of mine.
In other words, without the original story as it appeared in Japanese, there’s not much I can do. It’s very hard to get anything into print IN JAPANESE about Japan’s child abduction sub-industry.
For anyone interested, if you click onto and scroll down this page, it describes the high incidence of take down requests coming directly from governments, increasing in the last years.
Notably, certain right wing governments appear to be among those with the highest rate of such requests. It may be that they do this directly, via the state, rather than do it more discretely by hiring a private company to issue the requests for them. More research in this area may reveal a bit of neo-liberal trickery there.
Notably the piece states this:
We receive a steadily increasing number of takedown demands from governments around the world, with a 61% increase this reporting period compared to last’s.” (This is in reference to six months of 2017).