Explore

Singapore introduced its first comprehensive data protection legislation in the form of the Personal Data Protection Act in 2012 (“PDPA”). The PDPA subjects all Singapore organizations as “data organizations” to various data protection obligations regarding the collection, processing and use of personal data. Data intermediaries however only have to observed a qualified set of data protection obligations. "Data intermediaries” are defined in the PDPA as “an organisation which processes personal data on behalf of another organisation but does not include an employee of that other organization.” An organization that qualifies as a “data intermediary” only has to observe limited obligations regarding use of reasonable security arrangements to protect personal data from unauthorized access and similar risks (PDPA section...

(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...

This is one of series of country reports prepared for the Council of Europe in 2015. Other countries' reports, and responses from national governments, are available here. The studies undertake to present the laws and, in so far as information is easily available, the practices concerning the filtering, blocking and takedown of illegal content on the internet.

The Court denied liability of the discussion forum provider for libelous comments of unknown users. The provider was sued without previous notice and takedown request. Although the first instance Court held the provider liable for users comments, without explaining the basis of such liability, the Court of Appeals rejected this because the provider did not act against the right of the plaintiff himself. The Court did not discuss liability for wrongful omission or liability to serve injunctions as a non-infringer. The case was appealed further to the Supreme Court, where it is currently pending.

The Court rejected a delictual cease and desist claim against the domain authority arguing that it is not liable for registrations carried out by the third parties. The court does not provide extensive explanation for this and neither does it discuss an alternative basis of secondary liability. It can be also argued that this decision is not a good example because the claim that was rejected, although having basis in the delict law, was formulated more as a concrete contractual act that the domain name authority should carry out (withdrawal). Hence the consequences of the decision remain mostly open. see also Huťko´s Technology Law blog post