Explore

The Agreement contains Article 122 (2): “Each Country shall provide for appropriate measures concerning limitations on liability for service providers: (a) in case where a service provider provides a necessary deterrent to the transmission of information through telecommunication systems or networks controlled or operated by the service provider which it believes to be the infringement of copyright or related rights; and (b) in case where the infringement of copyright or related rights occurs by the transmission of information through telecommunication systems or networks controlled or operated by a service provider and where the service provider is technically unable to deter the transmission or has difficulty in finding the infringement of copyright or related rights.

Section 36(1) Copyright Act 1987 provided a measure against primary infringers “Copyright is infringed by any person who does”, and secondary infringers “or causes any other person to do,” without the licence of the owner of the copyright, an act the doing of which is controlled by copyright under this Act. According to Daniel Seng, the Copyright Act 1987 is based on the UK Copyright Act 1911, hence UK cases on the element of “authorizing infringement” will be highly persuasive to Malaysian courts. Because of the emphasis on control that a secondary defendant has to exercise over a primary infringer in U.K. cases to be held liable for “causing” the primary infringer to commit an infringing act, Seng believed that if Malaysian courts would follow U.K. case law it was unlikely that they would find an Internet...

The Amendment of Evidence Act 1950 introduced Section 114A. Presumption of fact in publication, providing (1) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved. (2) A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved. (3) Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re...

This thesis examines selected legal issues of copyright law in respect of the internet. The thesis focuses on Malaysian and UK Copyright law concerning; accessing web pages; linking; framing and caching. Since the internet is in use globally, law at an international, regional and national level have been examined in order to find solutions to these selective issues. At the regional level, European Union law is analysed. The Information Society Directive covers two of the selected issues (accessing web pages and caching). However there are still gaps in the Information Society Directive regarding the two other issues of framing and linking. In UK Copyright law, since the UK has implemented the Information Society Directive, a new section has been added to the Amendment Act, which covers accessing web pages and caching...

The report argues that (1) Malaysia’s safe harbor provisions can be improved if: (i) it will be made clear that the duties to cooperate are triggered by a compliant notice or if the service provider knows or is aware of facts and circumstances from which the infringement is apparent; (ii) injunctive or other equitable relief can be used in case of uncooperative service providers; (iii)service providers have in place a fair and effective termination policy for repeat infringers and that those that fail to inform their customers and implement such a policy would not be eligible for the safe harbors. (2) The IIPA also criticized the “48-hour” rule for takedowns, which they deem “too slow for “pre-release” materials (movies, music, games, software, or published materials not yet available in Malaysia).” Since automated...

Peter Leung, How Malaysia escaped the US IP Watch List, MANAGING INTELL. PROP. May 7, 2012 (pointing out that by introducing the immunity from secondary liability for copyright infringement under the condition of protection, Malaysia averted that it was placed under the 2012 Section 301 Watch list (an annual list published, since 1989, of countries which the US claims insufficiently protected and enforced the intellectual property rights of US companies and individuals). 2012 Special 301 Report, Ambassador Ronald Kirk, Office of the United States Trade Representative (because Malaysia established “a mechanism for cooperation by Internet service providers (ISPs) against piracy over the Internet” and passed other copyright amendments, the United States has removed Malaysia from the Watch List.) K. Pragalath, Repeal or...