Yet, because "online services" and "network access" are such broad terms, and because Napster functions both as a peer-to-peer client and as a server, it could very well meet the definition of a "service provider.
I actually can't understand the Upside article in those links; the article uses Napster to mean both the software and the company and doesn't clarify the two very well. For instance, the big paragraph I don't understand:
Jacob Levy needs a weblog... here's a smattering of Napster & Gnutella links he posted in a DG message.
BTW Japan, kiss this site goodbye.
Certainly a judge will inject a certain amount of rationality into any real ruling, that is their purpose. Each judge will be different and you will never be certain whether you could be shut down.
And that is not a silly exaggeration; any solid limit set by the law will be instantly abused. If you say "A person is liable for a depth of three", then someone hosting the illegal page (probably not in Japan) puts up an illegal page, and creates a gateway series of pages that eventually will link to the illegal content.
A page with a link to an illegal page itself become illegal. Thus, it will be illegal to link to a page that links to a page that becomes illegal. Thus it is illegal to LTAP that LTAP that LTAP that is illegal. And so on and so forth.
I doubt I need to share my opinion on this ruling. BTW, the logic given above, assuming it is an accurate representation of the court's reasoning, does beyond a shadow of a doubt imply that link-liability is infinitely contagious. Which is to say, if by following a link on your page, you can get to an illegal page, you can be charged with having an illegal link.
Emphasis mine.
The court's ruling means that if somebody creates a Web page that includes a link to another page, and if that other page is in violation of the law, then the person who creates the link can be charged with aiding and abetting the crime. This is regardless of whether or not they are aware of the illegality of the page they linked to.