The law implements the Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. (1) Article 78 of the law provides for the right of the rightholders to apply to court for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related rights. (2) Intermediaries are defined as electronic communication service providers who transmit information provided by third parties, provide access to communication networks and/or store information.
providing that the President of the District Court ("Tribunal d'arrondissement") may issue an interim injunction, upon request of a person authorised to file an action for counterfeiting, against an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right designed to: prevent any imminent infringement to an intellectual property right; prohibit, on a temporary basis, the pursuit of the alleged infringements to an intellectual property right; subordinate the pursuit of the alleged infringements to the constitution of guarantees designed to ensure the indemnification of the requesting party; or order the seizure of the goods suspected to infringe an intellectual property right in order to prevent their introduction or their movement within the commercial channels (art 27)
providing that the judge may issue a cessation injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe a copyright or a sui generis right on databases (Article 76).
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...
In 2012 Section 36(1) Copyright Act 1987 remains unaltered in the amendment (Act A1420) of 2012. However, Part VIB ‘Limitation of Liabilities of the Service Provider’ Sections 43B-I, was added which provides a safe harbor provision for internet intermediary liability for copyright infringement. The provisions are similar to the DMCA in the US in which ISPs and content aggregators are provided immunity from liability for copyright infringement if they protect copyright owners by removing or disabling access to infringing content. 43B. Interpretation A service provider is a person who provides services relating to, or provides connections for, the access, transmission or routing of data; or operates facilities for, online services or network access. 43C. Transmission, routing and provision of connections (1) A service...
(1) In Mexico there is no ad hoc legislation, such as the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Copyright Law contemplates provisions which accommodate concepts such as fixation, reproduction or communication to the public in the digital environment. (2) The Copyright Law does not make internet service providers (ISPs) liable or provide any safe harbours excluding liability in specific situations like caching, search engine, mere conduit or routing. The exceptions and limitations imposed by the Copyright Law are restrictive in scope and it would be difficult to invoke in connection with digital rights. (3) The Copyright Law of Mexico does not provide exceptions or limitations to copyright or neighboring rights in connection with the activities of ISPs or other intermediaries.