(1) The Singapore Paliament passed an anti-piracy amendment to the Copyright Act, which will enter into force at the end of August 2014, to allow right holders to apply directly to the courts for injunctions against Internet Service Providers to prevent users from accessing the so-called “pirate sites” without having to first establish ISPs’ liability for copyright infringement. The new bill provides copyright holders with an express lane to take down the content or block the hosting site within eight weeks, if the High Court signals a green light. (2) The so-called “pirated sites”, known in the proposal as “flagrantly infringing online location”, are to be assessed by the courts based on certain non-exhaustive factors, including (i) whether the online location’s primary purpose is to commit or facilitate copyright...
Subjecting to liability for damages, interdict, delivery of infringing copies (section 24)… “any person who…does or causes any other person to do … any act which the owner has the exclusive rights to do or to authorize” (section 23) to criminal liability “any person who … without the authority of the owner of the copyright: … distributes … to such an extent that the owner of the copyright is prejudicially affected, articles which he knows to be infringing copies of the work (section 27).
(1) Article 102 provides safe harbor for intermediaries from third party copyright infringement. The provision was amended twice in 2011 first to reflect the Korea-EU FTA and then the Korea-US FTA. EU Directive 2000/31/EC Section 4 “Liability of intermediary service providers” was almost exactly reproduced verbatim in the Intellectual Property chapter of the Korea-EU FTA, and the intellectual property chapter of the Korea-US FTA adopted the structure of DMCA safe harbor provisions. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the structure of Article 102 is very similar to that of EU Directive 2000/31/EC and DMCA. Paragraph (1) sets out specific conditions necessary for safe harbor for different types of Online Service Providers (OSPs). It classifies OSPs into four classes: mere conduits (subparagraph 1), caching (subparagraph...
English Version (1) According to Article 27(2)6, a value-added telecommunications service provider of special type (the special types of OSPs such as P2P or web-hard service providers under Article 104 of the Copyright Act) which has been imposed the fine under Article 142(1) of the Copyright Act for more than three times may have its registration cancelled or its business suspended. “Value-added telecommunication service providers” is the term of art that describes all online hosts of applications and contents. (2) The amendment by Act no. 12761 on 15 October 2014, which came into force on April 16, 2015, newly included Article 22-3 which compels those special types OSPs to adopt technical measures prescribed by Presidential Decree to prevent circulation of obscene materials. Those OSPs in violation of Article 22-3...
(1) widening the definition of copyright criminal offense so as to include any act of exploitation, and no longer limited to acts of reproduction, plagiarism, distribution and communication to the public; (2) when the conditions are met, the information service providers’ active facilitation to access or locate copyrighted works that are made unlawfully available on the internet will be considered a criminal offense (Article 151-152 modifing Article 270-271 of the Criminal Code).
providing that ISP could be obliged in some situations to reveal the identity of a subscriber who allegedly engages in copyright infringement (art. 256).