Is the wording accurate here? This is essentially the only source besides the untranslated article and the machine translated version sounds confusing (whether it applies to what is created by AI or what can be consumed in training).
What actually happened was that Takashi Kii of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan was arguing that the current laws (from 2018) are problematic because they are extremely loose and allow even illegally obtained content to be used for training, and he asked Keiko Nagao, Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology to confirm that this is the case.
She confirmed that under current laws that's true but said that they need to keep an eye on it because there's a balance between the development of new AI technology and protection of copyright.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology is also in the process of compiling information about case law on copyright and AI but there don't seem to be any current plans to amend the law again in either direction.
(You can see the whole exchange here although the translated autogenerated subtitles on youtube may not be great: https://youtu.be/fyxx_0KmaKw?t=4457 )
> It is permissible to exploit a work, in ... cases ... it is not a person's purpose to personally enjoy or cause another person to enjoy ... provided, however, that this does not apply if the action would unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner ...
> i)if it is done for use in testing to develop or put into practical use technology ...
> (ii)if it is done for use in data analysis (meaning the extraction, comparison, classification, or other statistical analysis of the constituent ...
> (iii)if it is exploited in the course of computer data processing or otherwise exploited in a way that does not involve what is expressed in the work being perceived by the human senses (for works of computer programming, such exploitation excludes the execution of the work on a computer), beyond as set forth in the preceding two items.
Japanese legalese is a rather inefficient pseudo-european built on Japanese language, so I wouldn't recommend making decisions based on a blog article like this; there hasn't been too much news stories regarding this too as additional anecdotal datapoint.
