News
| Title | Malaysia, indonesia September Copyright Industrial Trend |
|---|---|
| Date | 2009-11-03 |
| Attached Files | malaysia_indonesia(20090930).pdf |
□ DVD copyright owners peddling away their rights <New Straits Times> July 20, 2009 It was reported that illegal DVD pedlars are at times found liable only for minor charges, such as failing to put price tags on their goods when in actual fact the real and major offence is the illegal reproduction and commercial sale of those pirated CDs, VCDs and DVDs. As a result, the punishment meted out against these illegal pedlars does not commensurate with the severity of their illegal infringing acts and, therefore, they often return to their old ways of peddling illegal DVDs and CDs even after they have been convicted by the court. The reason for this scenario is said to be caused by the complacency of copyright owners who are not concerned about the need for them to testify in court against those illegal pedlars. According to an intellectual property practitioner, Ms Chew Kerk Ying, where there has been an infringement, there are two options available to copyright owners, First, they can commence a civil suit against the illegal pedlar. Secondly, they can lodge a complaint to the relevant governmental authorities. However, there are a number of difficulties with the first option. The cost of instituting legal proceedings is high and the time taken for the matter to be finally heard in court can be between three to five years. This long span of time could mean that much damage may have been done in the interim whereas the real solution is to remove the pirated copies off the market completely when they are being marketed. Another difficulty arises from the fact that most pirated DVDs are of foreign movies and it is costly for rights owners to travel to the country to prove their copyright and establish their claims. According to Ms Chew, the more pragmatic option for the copyright owner is to file a complaint to the government authorities who will then pursue the case as a criminal offence. Yet, there are some industry observers and politicians who take the view that it was a waste of government’s funds to fight the cause of copyright owners. Instead, they are of the view that copyright owners should pursue the enforcement of their rights through civil actions. To assist in balancing the interests of copyright owners and the government in ensuring that optical discs piracy does not thrive, Ms Chew suggested that Malaysia should allow the private prosecution of criminal intellectual property cases. According to her, this would alleviate the government’s burden of time and money in having to pursue cases through the court process. Whether or not private prosecution is allowed depends on the Attorney-General’s Department. In the past, the Malaysian Bar Council had brought such a suggestion to the government but thus far, there has been no progress in that direction. Ms Chew stated that private prosecution had been made available in Singapore for the last 20 years. In private prosecution of criminal matters, the Attorney-General can grant a fiat, which is essentially an authorisation, to the copyright owner to prosecute. When that is granted, the copyright owner will bear the cost of prosecuting the copyright offender. Ms Chew also suggested that the Copyright Act 1987 should make the process of proving copyright simpler by allowing registration of copyright. With registration, there will be prima facie proof of ownership unless the registration had been obtained by fraud. It is common that the only defence for the defendant is to challenge the copyright owner’s right over his work. When such a defence is raised, it may be difficult for the copyright owner to retrieve all the evidence and to gather all the authors and other individuals involved to testify. ........................... |
|