PETALING JAYA: A group of associations are opposing the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act 1987 which will hold landlords responsible for infringements committed by their tenants.
Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia (ACCCIM) national council member Datuk Teo Chiang Kok said under the new S36 (2B), item (B)(d) Liability of the Owner of Premises Used for Infringing Activities, the landlord would have to police the usage of their property.
'We cannot simply march into the premises to check on their activities because this will interfere with the 'quiet enjoyment' of the demised premises,' he told reporters on Tuesday.
He said the amendments were "totally unreasonable" from the point of enforcement of public law. 'The government must not and should not shift their role in enforcement of laws to such private individuals like the property owners,' Teo said.
He was speaking at a joint press conference organised by ACCCIM, Real Estate and Housing Developers' Association Malaysia (Rehda), Malaysian Association for Shopping and Highrise Complex Management (PPKM), Malaysia Retailers Association (MRA), Malaysia Retailer-Chains Association (MRCA), Building Management Association of Malaysia (BMAM) and International Real Estate Federation (FIABCI) Malaysian Chapter.
'For example, how are you going to check all the CDs in a premises to see whether your tenant is selling only the genuine products? We do not even have the skills to differentiate the replicas from the genuine ones,' said Rehda exco member Datuk Eddy Chen Lok Loi.
'The policing works have to go back to the party who enforces the law as the landlords are not trained to do it,' he added.
According to the act of trespass prohibited by Section 7(2) of the Specific Relief Act 1950, the landlord is prevented from entering the demised premises and taking possession of the infringing materials. A demised premises refers to a property under lease.
Teo said: 'There must be due process of law to evict the tenant and recover vacant possession. The remedy of self-help does not exist in Malaysia.'
Furthermore, he said many landlords, both locals and foreigners, engaged professional property agents to manage their PROPERTIES [].
'To be vicariously held responsibly for their tenants' wrongdoings is most unfair and unjust. This imposition will be badly received by the investors, and will dampen property as an investment product,' Teo said, adding that landlords would be scared to rent out their properties too.
'This will be detrimental and negate all the efforts by the government to make Malaysia a preferred destination for international property investment.
'In the present situation of drastic drop in the foreign direct investments (FDIs), any obstacles and uncertainties put in the path of property investments will further reduce FDIs in property investment as well,' he said.
'Are the government and the related authorities ready to provide full indemnity if the landlords are required to trespass onto tenanted premises and business operations on mere suspicion of copyright infringement?' Teo questioned.
According to him, the associations had been trying to get the attention of the government on their points for three years now, by sending memoranda to the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism.
'But it doesn't bring any changes even though we had brought up that matter in the dialogue where the minister attended. They told us that they will table the amendment in parliament soon, which is something that really worries us,' Teo added.
The associations also voiced their dissatisfaction over the proposed new S41(2), which attracts liability in having in possession one copy of infringing material for commercial purpose.
They claimed that the reduction from three copies to one copy has broadened the scope of enforcement and opened up opportunities for abuse of power and corruption.
'The ordinary man does not have adequate knowledge to determine whether any material has infringed the law. Replicas are now so well produced that there are indeed instances even the experts were misled,' Teo said.
'It is not appropriate to punish the common man but not the source and perpetrators of those in the business of infringing upon the copyright,' he added.
Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia (ACCCIM) national council member Datuk Teo Chiang Kok said under the new S36 (2B), item (B)(d) Liability of the Owner of Premises Used for Infringing Activities, the landlord would have to police the usage of their property.
'We cannot simply march into the premises to check on their activities because this will interfere with the 'quiet enjoyment' of the demised premises,' he told reporters on Tuesday.
He said the amendments were "totally unreasonable" from the point of enforcement of public law. 'The government must not and should not shift their role in enforcement of laws to such private individuals like the property owners,' Teo said.
He was speaking at a joint press conference organised by ACCCIM, Real Estate and Housing Developers' Association Malaysia (Rehda), Malaysian Association for Shopping and Highrise Complex Management (PPKM), Malaysia Retailers Association (MRA), Malaysia Retailer-Chains Association (MRCA), Building Management Association of Malaysia (BMAM) and International Real Estate Federation (FIABCI) Malaysian Chapter.
'For example, how are you going to check all the CDs in a premises to see whether your tenant is selling only the genuine products? We do not even have the skills to differentiate the replicas from the genuine ones,' said Rehda exco member Datuk Eddy Chen Lok Loi.
'The policing works have to go back to the party who enforces the law as the landlords are not trained to do it,' he added.
According to the act of trespass prohibited by Section 7(2) of the Specific Relief Act 1950, the landlord is prevented from entering the demised premises and taking possession of the infringing materials. A demised premises refers to a property under lease.
Teo said: 'There must be due process of law to evict the tenant and recover vacant possession. The remedy of self-help does not exist in Malaysia.'
Furthermore, he said many landlords, both locals and foreigners, engaged professional property agents to manage their PROPERTIES [].
'To be vicariously held responsibly for their tenants' wrongdoings is most unfair and unjust. This imposition will be badly received by the investors, and will dampen property as an investment product,' Teo said, adding that landlords would be scared to rent out their properties too.
'This will be detrimental and negate all the efforts by the government to make Malaysia a preferred destination for international property investment.
'In the present situation of drastic drop in the foreign direct investments (FDIs), any obstacles and uncertainties put in the path of property investments will further reduce FDIs in property investment as well,' he said.
'Are the government and the related authorities ready to provide full indemnity if the landlords are required to trespass onto tenanted premises and business operations on mere suspicion of copyright infringement?' Teo questioned.
According to him, the associations had been trying to get the attention of the government on their points for three years now, by sending memoranda to the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism.
'But it doesn't bring any changes even though we had brought up that matter in the dialogue where the minister attended. They told us that they will table the amendment in parliament soon, which is something that really worries us,' Teo added.
The associations also voiced their dissatisfaction over the proposed new S41(2), which attracts liability in having in possession one copy of infringing material for commercial purpose.
They claimed that the reduction from three copies to one copy has broadened the scope of enforcement and opened up opportunities for abuse of power and corruption.
'The ordinary man does not have adequate knowledge to determine whether any material has infringed the law. Replicas are now so well produced that there are indeed instances even the experts were misled,' Teo said.
'It is not appropriate to punish the common man but not the source and perpetrators of those in the business of infringing upon the copyright,' he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment