Malaysia tweaks copyright law to hit streamers of copyright-infringing content
- Reference: 1639999630
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/12/20/malaysia_illegal_streaming_crackdown/
- Source link:
Those who facilitate copyright infringement face fines of RM200,000 ($2,377) or more, up to 20 years prison, or a combination of both, whether their illicit action be through manufacturing, importing, providing, advertising, or distributing streaming technologies.
By specifying streaming, the amendment updates the previous outdated privacy law that focused on those downloading the content into permanent storage and those who subsequently bootlegged the videos, something that all of a sudden seems [1]very 2008 .
[2]
The updated [3]act [PDF] safeguards against those who might point the finger and shift blame as it assumes all business associates of the offending party are guilty until proven innocent.
[4]
[5]
Unless one can prove "the offense was committed without his consent or connivance" and the individual did everything they could to prevent it, affiliated individuals "shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and may be charged severely."
This includes "every director, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, secretary, manager or other similar officer of the body corporate or every other partner in the firm," those assisting management, and more.
[6]
While the act eliminates the ability for guilty parties to hide under a corporate structure, it also fails to quantify due diligence and defines the new law in an overtly broad way.
[7]Global protest calls for canning SOPA-by-stealth treaty's IP bits
[8]Police probe pirate-DVD detecting dog's demise
[9]Online disinformation is an industry that needs regulation, says boffin
The Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry (KPDNHEP), which in recent weeks outwardly appears focused on [10]floods , rising food costs, and taking action on scammers who [11]overcharge tourists for barramundi, took to Facebook to [12]link to local media reports on Act 332.
KPDNHEP minister Dtuk Seri Alexander Nanta Linggi [13]told Free Malaysia Today : "Act 332 is amended to ensure copyright laws implemented will provide more efficient and effective protection in line with current demands and to fulfil the needs of the business community and stakeholders."
In 2019, Malaysians downloaded over 84 million content files through BitTorrent, according to [14]local media.
By 2019, industry had been cranky over piracy for years, claiming in 2016 to have lost more than RM1.05bn ($240m) to illegal downloads. The RM157m ($37m) allegedly lost in taxes may have been what got the government's attention. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2008/06/09/police_dog_death/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YcC2vuG-Qg9eymAKz1Dk3gAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.lowyat.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Parlimen-CopyrightAct1987-ammendment-dec21-01.pdf
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YcC2vuG-Qg9eymAKz1Dk3gAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YcC2vuG-Qg9eymAKz1Dk3gAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YcC2vuG-Qg9eymAKz1Dk3gAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2014/07/10/global_protest_calls_for_canning_sopabystealth_treatys_ip_bits/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2008/06/09/police_dog_death/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/27/disinformation_is_an_industry/
[10] https://www.facebook.com/kpdnhep/posts/450156996472405
[11] https://says.com/my/news/kpdnhep-is-now-investigating-the-restaurant-that-charged-rm1-196-80-for-ikan-siakap
[12] https://www.facebook.com/kpdnhep/posts/446469903507781
[13] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/12/15/copyright-laws-now-cover-offences-on-streaming-content/
[14] https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/02/14/minister-malaysians-pirated-84-million-files-from-bittorrent-as-industry-lo/1722980.
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Copyright is easy when it's obvious...
If you're looking to reprint it, can't you add a statement that you're looking for the descendants etc etc and then make sure you don't spend the profits for 10 years? Or are you hoping to build a TV series around it?
Why would someone downvote you? Off topic? Oh no, quelle desastre.
Re: Copyright is easy when it's obvious...
"quel désastre"
The problem is the whole life of the author (fair enough) plus seventy years… say what?
Whom does that benefit beyond Disney (other multinational copyright conglomerators are available)?
It benefits the heirs/assigns/legatees of the author, particularly if the author dies soon after creating the work.
Regarding our murine overlords, I take it that the UK doesn’t have different copyright terms for works made for hire? Here in the States, the term for works made for hire that were published after 1978 is the shorter of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation.
So what happens if you visit the country with material already loaded onto a tablet or suchlike?
Asking for a friend, obviously...
(it always amuses me that, just as you start your descent into KLIA, they choose to announce possession of illegal drugs carries a mandatory death sentence. Could they not say that before you get on the plane?)
Well they could. Or you could take responsibility for being aware of the laws of the country you are planning on visiting before you get on the plane.
The RM157m ($37m) allegedly lost in taxes
This assumes something that everybody knows is false - that one download equals one lost sale.
Some people pirate because they can, and it's not that hard to do. If it wasn't possible, would they buy it, or just wait until it turns up on broadcast TV? Or, worse, just not bother.
Re: The RM157m ($37m) allegedly lost in taxes
@heyrick
I have had my work "pirated" and yes I have lost sales. 4 of my customers dropped me because they can torrent it and use it. So...
Let us get this right, "pirates" are not pirates. They are parasites as in they depend on someone else to do all the work so they can sit on their fat arses and just press the download button. Cunts.
So I downloaded a torrent of my work, poisoned it, and seeded the fucker.
I laughed when my ex customers wanted to come back as their expensive amplifiers had seemingly trashed themselves. I told them to fuck off.
Moral, never download my audio mixes. It might be one of my uploads. Fuck the law, you have been warned.
So privacy really is a crime
the amendment updates the previous outdated privacy law that focused on those downloading the content into permanent storage
Remember, to avoid charge of piracy: when on a boat or ship do not use violence to download copyright material without a license.
"Guilty until proven innocent"
I hope the lawmakers will be able to experience first-hand what they have unleashed upon their citizens.
Re: "Guilty until proven innocent"
Doubt it. That's what connections are for...
Copyright is easy when it's obvious...
Not so much otherwise... I'm trying to find out the copyright status of a book originally written in 1916 and republished (fifth edition) in 1925 in the UK.
The publisher has disappeared into another printing company about which I can discover nothing, though Companies House indicates that it no longer exists.
I can't locate a lineal descendant of the author - online genealogy is a joke - though I still have a query or two awaiting responses. Google Books admits of its existence but provides no view and no copyright information...
The problem is the whole life of the author (fair enough) plus seventy years... say what? Who does that benefit beyond Disney (other multinational copyright conglomerators are available)?
My best guess is that the copyright still exists with the estate of the author, but I can't locate said estate. I can't even prove the year the author died (I suspect 1953 or soon after, but I can't show it). If I can find the estate, I can ask. If I can find a date of death, I can wait. But, well, I can see why Gutenberg have their rules... it's a nightmare.
At least it's obvious if you're streaming current films or music; there's little excuse there. But vintage stuff?
(if you're interested in WW1 recipes: https://github.com/nailed-barnacle/A_Yorkshire_Cookery_Book )