Highnine Talks About Copyright!

Image by Dewan Budaya Source: New Straits Times The threat to Malaysia's rich batik legacy comes from imitated more than a lack of appreciation. According to a recent report, fake batik is increasing in local marketplaces, particularly from overseas vendors who pass off mass-produced patterns as "authentic Malaysian batik." This is a smack in the face to local craftspeople and a violation of intellectual property, in addition to being a cultural insult. The New Straits Times claims that these knockoff goods, which are frequently imported from China and Indonesia, are sold as authentic Malaysian batik, misleading customers and diminishing the value of genuine craftsmanship. In contrast to batik that is hand-drawn or block-printed, which requires traditional artistry and skills, many of these products are digitally printed fabrics that have nothing to do with Malaysia's cultural heritage. Despite undercutting legitimate makers, they are used at government and corporate...

PICTURE SOURCE FROM GOOGLE Source: FreeMalaysiaToday Astro has been on a winning streak lately and not just with their content. In a string of legal victories, Astro has successfully taken legal action against several pubs and eateries for illegally streaming English Premier League (EPL) matches. They are not just a slap-on-the-wrist outcome either as the courts have awarded Astro RM75,000 and RM175,000 in statutory damages, setting a serious precedent for copyright enforcement in Malaysia. There was a pub involved for illegally streaming Astro’s premium content without authorization. This resulted in payment of RM75,000 in damages, marking the first-ever statutory damages awarded in a copyright infringement case. In another case, two eateries were fined RM175,000 combined for similar violations. All these decisions reflect a tougher stance against copyright infringement in Malaysia. These decisions make it abundantly evident that illegally streaming paid content is not only dangerous ...

PICTURES BY JOHN SHEARER / GETTY IMAGES Source: Harvard Law Today Most of us have heard the name Taylor Swift, whether you’re a fan or not it is no debate that she is one of the biggest pop stars known globally. However, did you know that she is involved in a very interesting copyright-related issue specifically in the topic of intellectual property?  On April 9 2021, Taylor Swift released her first re-recording of one of her old albums titled Fearless (Taylor’s Version). On the surface, people might wonder what is the reason for the release if the former version was already a successful money maker, well first let’s look at how it all started. Taylor Swift was originally signed to a record label named Big Machine since debut, she then recorded 6 albums total all of them being multi million sellers. In 2018 she left the company but afterwards Big Machine was bought by Scooter Braun. He then sold the company including Taylor’s albums that was owned by them to another company named ...