In this paper, I take up the problem of the home delivery crisis against the background of the increase in online shopping and consider the factors that brought it about and the measures that could be applied to solve it. Especially, I focus on charging for redelivery and examine its feasibility based on the results gained from a nationwide survey. The results are as follows. Charging for redelivery causes many respondents to modify their behavior. Specifically, they are ready to receive their parcel at the first delivery. Therefore, a reduction in redelivery visits can be expected. If charging for redelivery is introduced, many respondents are willing to pay the charge. Concerning price setting for redelivery, the mode, the median and the means of charging to be paid by respondents are useful references. When the price of delivering a parcel is within 10,000 yen, the charge for redelivery is several hundred yen. Charging for redelivery is possible and is expected to contribute to solve the problem of the home delivery crisis.

The present study explores issues regarding the expansion of Japanese broadcast-related content business in the Chinese video streaming market, based on data gathered from a series of interviews with practitioners at Japanese broadcasters and Chinese platformers. Japanese broadcasters have viewed China as a promising but tough market for many years due to its institutional barriers along with low profitability, but have recently sought a way to utilize rapidly developing Chinese video streaming services in their growth strategy. This study is focused on the opportunities and risks in the Chinese video streaming market perceived by Japanese broadcasters as well as the value of Japanese broadcast content for Chinese platformers. It is argued that Japanese broadcasters are fully aware of risks specific to the Chinese market and have an issue with how they can take part in original content production by the Chinese video streaming platformers in response to the demand for stories and projects from the platformers.

Recently, sanctioning illegal downloading has gathered greater social interest than before. In the process of revising Japan’s copyright law, lobbyists have proposed that as illegal downloading and shoplifting have the common characteristic of violating a victim’s property rights, illegal downloading should be sanctioned in the same way as shoplifting. Building on this rhetoric, this study aimed to examine how university students without specific knowledge of sentencing assumed about the sentence length of the two crimes. Data collected from 282 university students were analyzed with Bayesian statistics. The results revealed that the sentences assumed by the participants for shoplifting were approximately six months longer than those for illegal downloading, suggesting that despite arguments that illegal downloading and shoplifting be punished equally as similar crimes against property, such a view is not widely accepted in the public consciousness. The reasons for the discrepancies was discussed from the perspective of differences among protected objects.

While it is fair to interpret that “the right of all persons to be secure in their homes, papers and effects against entries, searches and seizures” under Article 35 of the Constitution of Japan (hereinafter “the rights”) protects substantive interests such as privacy, this interpretation raises a question as to whether warrant requirements should be applied to various kinds of exercise of public power. However, the rights and the warrant requirements are not targeted at exactly the same acts. The warrant requirements are targeted at searches that may severely restrict fundamental rights, not at “quasi-searches” in which the extent of the restriction is relatively low. On the contrary, the rights themselves apply not only to searches but also quasisearches because privacy can be invaded by the latter. In addition, while the warrant requirements are important elements to allow searches, there are other procedures that are supposed to be stipulated by law to justify searches, particularly in case of non-criminal procedures in which administrative purposes for searches are narrowly identified. Therefore, the range of protection of the rights and that of warrant requirements are not always in tandem. In the process of quasi-searches, warrant requirements are not applied, although the rights are still protected. In searches, legal procedures other than warrant procedures are likely to be applied in view of ensuring “public welfare” under Article 13 of the Constitution.