To investigate the notion of Society 5.0, the image of future society the Japanese government has proposed in recent years, the author try to focus on the existence of "person", as the link between the industrial society (Society 3.0) and the information society (society 4.0), which often lack credibility and efficiency. The core of Society 5.0 is then described as to establish "the governance without personhood" by utilizing ICT as IoT, AI, and robotics, which changes the position of human beings from autonomous and self-decisional subjects to objects to be surveyed. In one way, the author points out, such governance shall be positively evaluated as to increase efficiency of the whole society to save resources, or to establish resilient society in with / after COVID-19 era, in which the social functions can be kept with fewer humane movement and contact. On the other hand, while sometimes we respect such elements as lies, omissions, or disobedience as just and humane actions in our current governance in which we try to coordinate autonomous subjects' action through law as in the case of so called "noble lie" or Greek tragedy Antigone, the author points out that there will be no room for such elements under Society 5.0. Thus, the author concludes, if we would like to keep our humancentric values, they must be included beforehand in the basic design of the governance.

Japan's COVID-19 Contact-Confirming Application (COCOA), launched on June 19, 2020, was expected to play a significant role in infectious disease control by notifying users of contact with a positive person, thereby encouraging them to change their behavior.

In order to ensure privacy, an API developed by Google and Apple was adopted to confirm contact without collecting personal information, using the Bluetooth function of smartphones. The government emphasized the social benefits of having a large number of smartphone users download the application, thus contributing to the prevention of the spread of infection. However, in reality, as of mid-September 2021, only a total of 30 million downloads have been made, and the positive registration rate is only 2.3% of all positive cases.

This paper firstly analyzes the diffusion of COCOA based on data published by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) and the possibility of elucidating the factors behind its spread. Secondly, it highlights a trade-off between privacy and ICT applications' effectiveness by referring to the Chinese contact confirmation app "Health Code" and South Korea's infected person travel route management. Thirdly, it shows that COCOA downloads are not sensitive to the spread of infection and that lack of trust has a significant impact on app adoption and positive registration, based on a questionnaire survey conducted in March 2021.

It is indicated that the app does not provide users with incentives for adoption only by emphasizing social benefits. Namely, the app's perceived benefits are too low to formulate the expected social benefits, which hinders the program's effectiveness. Underutilization of COCOA suggests that for a society to benefit from a social application, technology alone is not enough and a strategy for diffusion is needed.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused unexpected changes in our environment, forcing every person and organization to respond at every level. The urgent problem for the society is to rebuild the social systems so as to respond to rapidly changing environments quickly and flexibly. In this paper, we argue that people need to share the values of the digital society, and explain the digital mechanisms that foster freedom and creativity and are resistant to change, focusing on the role of the architecture and culture of the Internet. Then, we consider how to incorporate the merits of digital towards the digital society. The most important role of digital technology with and after COVID-19 is to provide a foundation for the healthy development of Japanese society.

With the development of ICT technology, telemedicine has emerged to examine patients in remote areas using video phones and other devices. At first, telemedicine was used only in limited situations, but with the spread of ICT devices, it is now being used in all regions. However, by the end of fiscal year 2019, the role of telemedicine in the overall healthcare system was not significant in Japan and other countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which has been in full swing since 2020, has raged around the world and changed society drastically. In the medical field as well, various effects such as reduction or suspension of outpatient services and interruption of clinical trials due to COVID-19 patient care and infection control appeared. Under such circumstances, telemedicine attracted attention from the perspective of infection control, and its use expanded around the world. Even in countries where laws and regulations had been an obstacle to the spread of telemedicine, temporary and exceptional deregulation was implemented, opening the way for its use.

Whether the spread of telemedicine will be sustained in the post-COVID-19 era depends on whether such deregulation will continue. In countries like Japan, where even after deregulation, there are still many restrictions in terms of reimbursement, it will be difficult for telemedicine to become more widespread unless these restrictions are further improved. In order to achieve a new form of medical care that can meet the various needs of patients, policies for the appropriate spread of telemedicine are required.

As telemedicine rapidly expands, issues such as security risks and the digital divide are being pointed out. After COVID-19 era, the digitalization of society is expected to increase, so it is necessary to take measures before these problems become serious.

This paper provides an overview of the spread of telemedicine and changes in the With COVID-19 era, and summarizes the issues for the After COVID-19 era.

The Japanese Copyright Act provides the distribution right, the right of sale and the right of rental. They allow the right holders to control the distribution of copyrighted works. However, since it is necessary to ensure the free distribution of goods and it is sufficient if the author is guaranteed the opportunity to obtain fair compensation upon the first sale, those rights are mandated to be exhausted upon the first sale of the original work or copy of the work (first-sale doctrine, exhaustion of rights). Mainly for historical reasons, the first sale doctrine requires the transfer of tangible objects. So, it is ambiguous if the transfer of intangible contents exhausts the distribution rights. In connection with this issue, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) made two contrasting preliminary rulings (UsedSoft (C-128/11) and Tom Kabinet (C-263/18), and former cas was referred by the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). They led to an increasingly active discussion of “digitale Erschöpfung (digital exhaustion)” and the restriction of user’s rights by digital platform companies in German law. This article aims to consider the possible application of digital exhaustion in Japanese law, using comparative law with EU and German law.

Contracts for the transmission of information by telecommunications have been discussed in some textbooks on civil and commercial law, but mainly in descriptive analysis, because they have been governed by special laws and covenants. However, it is necessary to add normative analysis to civil law from several points of view. One of them is the existence of mandatory laws. In addition, it is necessary to consider the dispositive provisions that govern such contracts as a baseline for considering the regulation of standardized clauses in the Civil Code and Article 10 of the Consumer Contract Act. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine these normative considerations, especially in terms of the content of the standard for setting liability for default, through analogy with current regulations, the use of principles, and teleological interpretation. Specifically, I will deal with (1) the question of whether such contracts are consistent with typical contracts, and (2) the question of the distinction between contract for value and gratuitous contract in relation to such contracts. With regard to (1), we will consider whether it is better to classify it as a contract for work under the Civil Code, or to classify it as a deposit, taking into account the "custody" of data, or to classify it as a quasi-mandate which is a general provision for service contracts. In addition, I will analyze the reasons why the provisions of transportation in the Commercial Code stipulate special provisions of the Civil Code, and from this analysis I will examine the scope of the provisions of the Commercial Code through a teleological interpretation Then, as for (2), I will first summarize what the distinction between contracts for value and gratuitous contracts means for the civil law. Then, in light of how the subjective and objective criteria for classifying contracts for value and gratuitous contracts are considered in civil law, I will summarize what points may hinder the recognition of contracts-for-value in the telecommunication contracts. Then, we will examine whether it is possible to set the same standard of liability as in a contract-for-value even if the contract is classified as a gratuitous one.

In this paper, we proposed and discussed the dividual-based social system as a way of existence of people in an advanced information society. Instead of considering the individual as a single existence that is indivisible, we propose the dividual as a partial existence of a person arising from inter-personal relationships, and consider that the dividual constitutes the society. First, we introduce the origins of the concept of dividual from difference perspectives, i.e., anthropology, the writer Hirano Keiichiro, psychology and sociology, and the philosopher Deleuze respectively. From these discussions, we define a dividual as an entity that is specifically tied to a platform/institution. By defining the dividual in this way, it is expected to increase the vitality of society, create opportunities for new happiness for people, and develop the society along with digital technology. However, there are many challenges in realizing the society based on dividual. We adopt Lessig's four methods for regulation to clarify the challenges. In the society composed of dividuals, the stability of the architecture and the relationship between internal rules and the laws of the real world are issues to be addressed. In the real world, which is based on the premise of dividuals, the social recognition of dividuals and the legal positioning of dividuals become issues. By overcoming these issues and building the dividual-based social system, people will be able to play their roles fully in the advanced information society represented by Society 5.0.

Various attempts to revive deceased through artificial intelligence (AI) and human robotics (Android) technology do not seem to stop.

From Emmy, a 1980s’ program that used to automatically compose Bache-style numbers, to mock Rembrandt, Osamu Tezuka and Beetles AI, and Soseki Natsume and Hibari Misora, who were “resurged” as android or AI having 3D image.

The resurrection of the deceased has the potential to change our lives and our views of life and death, transcending mere business opportunities, such as changing the form of Buddhist altars and relics, or the "virtual survival" of stars and charismatic leaders of every sort of organization.

Legally, this "revival of the late person" requires examination and clearance of portrait rights, publicity rights, copyrights and other rights depending on the type of resurrection.

According to the current laws and prevailing understanding, it seems possible to interpret that certain degree of resurrection can be done without the need to clear related rights, but in reality, most cases are proceeding with at least the consent of surviving families.

However, there are many cases in which people feel ethical and emotional discomfort with the revival of the deceased, such as AI Hibari Misora (regardless of whether or not the family approves), which has led to criticisms such as "profanity."

It is perhaps a crucial inquiry that goes beyond the "uncanny valley" problem that is commonly found in android (or has the same causes at the root) to the conduct itself of "reviving deaths."

Under what rules should the revival of the late person be conducted?

Although it is rarely addressed in discussions about global AI and robotics development, it seems to be a suitable time to begin the discussion.

This paper examines digital platform (DPF) regulation from the perspective of transparency by comparing EU law (General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), P2B Regulation, Digital Services Act (DSA)) with Japanese law (Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI), Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Digital Platforms (TFDPA)) and identifying three issues.

The first issue is the absence of basic principles and general rules on transparency in APPI. GDPR states that consent is only valid if it meets strict requirements by the principle of transparency. Given that consent is used as a representative of the justification in APPI, I believe that there should be clearer rules on the validity of consent than in the GDPR and needs to establish basic principles and general rules regarding transparency.

The second issue is the transparency of the automatic algorithmic processing used in DPF. EU law requires disclosure of the main parameters that influence the decision and the reasons for their relative importance concerning the automatic algorithmic processing, while APPI does not have such a disclosure obligation itself, and TFDPA requires disclosure of the main parameters but does not require disclosure of the reasons. They need to strengthen the disclosure of key parameters and the reasons for them. In addition, to determine whether the disclosed parameters are important, requiring DPF providers to disclose their algorithms to the administrative organ should be considered in the future, considering the balance with trade secrets.

The third issue is the transparency report. While the DSA covers all DPF providers regardless of size, TFDPA stipulates that the DPF is to be covered by the cabinet order, which is expected to help maintain a balance between ensuring transparency and promoting competition. On the other hand, the DSA sets the reporting requirements according to the size of the DPF, while TFDPA sets them uniformly. If TFDPA expands the scope of regulation, it is desirable to set the reporting requirements according to the guidelines on TFDPA.

The modern information economy is driven by online platforms such as GAFA and BATH. How governments get involved in such online platforms has long been a big challenge. In December 2020, the European Union announced the "Digital Markets Act" (draft), which models the dominant operators regulations in the telecommunications sector.

This paper first summarizes the background to the digital markets act. And I will take up the contents of the proposal of the act. What is a "gatekeeper" equivalent to dominant operators? How to regulate them? What kind of enforcement tools are provided for that regulations?

In June 2021, six months after European Union's digital markets act proposal, five bills for online platform regulations were published in the United States, which based on discussions by the House Judiciary Committee. This article aims to clarify new regulatory approaches in the field of online platforms from law proposals in EU and USA.