Copyright protection of foreign works in Malaysia / Zuraida Mohd Zabidi

Malaysia did not have a comprehensive legislation on copyright until 1969. The legislation relating to the copyright in the Malay states comprised the Federated Malay States Copyright Enactment 1935. The United Kingdom Copyright Act 1911 applied as extended to the Straits Settlements and the United Kingdom Copyright Act 1956 as extended, to the states of Sabah and Sarawak. While in the former Unfederated Malay States, there was no copyright law in operation. The committee responsible for preparing the Copyright Bill 1969 (as it was then called) based its work mainly on several laws, taking as its model the Nigerian Copyright Bill which was specially drawn up for a developing country. The committee also made use of materials, study papers and working papers that were presented at the Asian Seminar On Copyright held in New Delhi in January, 1967 and the protocol for developing countries introduced at the Revision Conference of the Berne Convention held in Stockholm in June 19678 . The Malaysian law in respect of copyright underwent a revision and consolidation which provide a uniform copyright law for the whole of Malaysia. The Copyright Bill 1969 as it was then called, was also intended to be an improvement on the proposed Copyright Bill of 1967 which was published in the government gazette of June 1967. Copyright now subsists by virtue of this Act only

Copyright Legislation and Technological Change

Throughout its history, copyright law has had difficulty accommodating technological change. Although the substance of copyright legislation in this century has evolved from meetings among industry representatives whose avowed purpose was to draft legislation that provided for the future,6 the resulting statutes have done so poorly. The language of copyright statutes has been phrased in fact-specific language that has grown obsolete as new modes and mediums of copyrightable expression have developed. Whatever copyright statute has been on the books has been routinely, and justifiably, criticized as outmoded.7 In this Article, I suggest that the nature of the legislative process we have relied on for copyright revision is largely to blame for those laws\u27 deficiencies.

Copyright Legislation and Technological Change

Throughout its history, copyright law has had difficulty accommodating technological change. Although the substance of copyright legislation in this century has evolved from meetings among industry representatives whose avowed purpose was to draft legislation that provided for the future,6 the resulting statutes have done so poorly. The language of copyright statutes has been phrased in fact-specific language that has grown obsolete as new modes and mediums of copyrightable expression have developed. Whatever copyright statute has been on the books has been routinely, and justifiably, criticized as outmoded.7 In this Article, I suggest that the nature of the legislative process we have relied on for copyright revision is largely to blame for those laws\u27 deficiencies.

Goldstein v. California: Sound, Fury, and Significance

Some cases in the Supreme Court involve controversies of enormous immediate importance with little potential for effecting doctrinal constitutional change. Other cases seem of minimal moment, but call into question basic doctrinal issues whose resolution might have broad and serious effects. Goldstein v. California falls into the second category. The obvious and dramatic limitation that Goldstein places on the scope of the Copyright Act may have obscured its more subtle revisions of constitutional doctrine in other areas. For Goldstein not only defines the spheres of federal and state competence for copyright legislation; it also reinterprets precedents on preemption and supremacy principles that forebode substantial revision of these basic areas.https://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-books/1025/thumbnail.jp

Couture Copyright: Copyright Protection Fitting for Fashion Design, 9 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 602 (2009)

The fashion industry does not need special, protective legislation. Laws are already in place that can serve to aid in the protection of fashion design. Legislation has extended copyright protection to architectural plans and their associated structures. This extension was based on rationale that is applicable, without revision, to fashion design. The practice of denying protection to fashion design is unsupported by law. In fact, courts already have the means to grant protection to fashion design. First, the court can grant protection through analogy to architectural works. Second, the court can clarify the separability test for utilitarian designs—a test which often disqualifies fashion designs from protection—choosing one test instead of the patchwork of tests that is now in existence

From The Statute of Anne To Z.Z. Top: The Strange World of American Sound Recordings, How it Came About, And Why it Will Never Go Away, 15 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2015)

Uniquely among all industrialized nations, the United States extended no copyright protection to sound recordings until 1972. The individual aural representation captured for playback could only be protected by the common or statutory laws of individual states. This feature was carried forward into the comprehensive revision of the Copyright Act implemented on January 1, 1978. Although the Copyright Act contained a sweeping provision that brought works created prior to the legislation under federal protection, pre-1972 sound recordings were specifically exempted. The extent to which this lack of status has created a legal and environmental void is best demonstrated by a series of cases litigated in New York from 2003 to 2006, known colloquially as the Capitol v. Naxos cases. They involved a series of classical music recordings made in England in the 1930s and reissued in 1999, over a decade after their United Kingdom copyright had expired. The critical New York state court case—Capitol v. Naxos IV—strongly implied that states have a fundamental power of copyright covering those things defined in the Constitution as writings, but which do not fall under federal copyright. Moreover, federal copyright does not extinguish such state powers, but instead merely preempts them for the duration of federal protection, at which point state copyright reverts—in perpetuity

Moral Rights in California

This Article critiques the California Art Preservation Act of 1979, the first major legislation in the United States on moral rights for artists. The author focuses his discussion on the restrictions on protection, such as the restrictions on the types of eligible art and artists, potential defendants, duration of moral rights, and remedies. The author also focuses on the relationship of this legislation to other art-related laws in the United States and elsewhere, with particular reference to relevant sections of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. The author concludes that, while it fails to adequately address the realities of the world of art and commerce, the Act has the potential to serve as a national model for the recognition of the moral rights of artists and other creators

Grading the Performance of a Legislator

The case is made that Rep Robert Kastenmeier should be honored as a distinguished public servant. His record reflects both a concern for the public interest and a sensitivity to the needs of special interest groups

Some Thoughts on the Dynamics of Federal Trademark Legislation and the Trademark Dilution Act of 1995

Basic transcription factor 3 (BTF3) is a general RNA polymerase II transcription factor and is also involved in apoptosis regulation. Increasing evidence shows that BTF3 is aberrantly expressed in several kinds of malignancies, but there is no study to analyze BTF3 expression in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Applying immunohistochemistry, we detected BTF3 in CRCs (n = 156), the corresponding distant (n = 42), adjacent normal mucosa (n = 96), lymph node metastases (n  = 35), and analyzed its relationships with clinicopathological and biological variables. Our results showed that BTF3 staining significantly increased from distant or adjacent normal mucosa to primary CRCs (p < 0.0001) or metastases (p = 0.002 and p < 0.0001). BTF3 was higher in distal cancers than in proximal cancers (57 % vs. 39 %, p = 0.041). It also showed stronger staining in primary CRCs stage I and II than that in stage III and IV (64 % vs. 35 %, p = 0.0004), or metastases (64 % vs. 29 %, p = 0.004). Cancers with better differentiation had a higher expression than those with worse differentiation (56 % vs. 37 %, p  = 0.031). There were positive correlations of BTF3 expression with nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB), RAD50, MRE11, NBS1, and AEG-1 (p  < 0.05). In conclusion, BTF3 overexpression may be an early event in CRC development and could be useful biomarker for the early stage of CRCs. BTF3 has positive correlations with NF-κB, RAD50, MRE11, NBS1 and AEG-1, and might influence complex signal pathways in CRC