Thursday, August 25, 2022
HomeAsian NewsBread & Kaya 30: 2021 Cyberlaw circumstances within the restoration interval ..Pt...

Bread & Kaya 30: 2021 Cyberlaw circumstances within the restoration interval ..Pt 3

  • Main artists, Purple Hong Yi & Namewee money in on sizzling 2021 NFT market
  • Eye on digital banks, Seize and constitutionality of s. 233 of the CMA 1998

Bread & Kaya 30: 2021 Cyberlaw cases in the recovery period ..Pt 3

2021 noticed the rise of Non Fungible Token (NFT) in Malaysia. Malaysian artists Purple Hong Yi reported bought her NFT artwork, often called Doge to the Moon for 36.3 ETH which was valued at RM325,000. The profitable bidder of the NFT owns each the bodily (i.e. a copper plate) and digital artworks. Malaysian singer, Namewee (pic, above) additionally bought 100 NFTs of his tune which reportedly valued at RM3.5 million. Particulars of the sale of those NFTs should not publicly identified. 

[RM1 =US$0.224]

There is no such thing as a authorized definition to the time period NFT in Malaysia. However it may be described as a digital token, and a digital asset. It’s saved on a digital ledger, referred to as a blockchain. It may be traded on an internet market akin to OpenSea and Binance. In Malaysia, we now have our personal on-line market akin to

It’s often represented by an merchandise, akin to a digital artwork, a tune or a video. Nonetheless, the distinctive factor about NFT is that an individual buying the NFT doesn’t crucial personal the mental property within the NFT. For instance, you will have bought an NFT of a digital artwork which the creator had issued 100 tokens. You’re the proprietor of that exact token. The proprietor of the mental property residing in that digital work should still be the creator or the mental property proprietor.

This will sound novel however once we evaluate this with a real-life situation, that is nothing new. We will see this in stamps buying and selling or buying and selling card akin to soccer playing cards or Pokémon playing cards. One could commerce such stamps or playing cards with out limitation however the mental property rights in these creative work will nonetheless belong to the copyright proprietor. The worth of an merchandise would rely on how uncommon it’s, and the identical merchandise could differ in worth relying on varied circumstances akin to its situation, the 12 months of manufacturing, the variety of circulating copies and many others.

The USA Courts at the moment are coping with NFT disputes. In Roc-A-Fella Data, Inc. v. Sprint, 1:21-cv-05411-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2021), the plaintiff owns all rights to the album Affordable Doubt, together with its copyright. It alleged that the defendant —a minority shareholder within the firm — unlawfully stole and tried to public sale the copyright to Affordable Doubt as an NFT.

In Miramax, LLC v Quentin Tarantino et al (US District Court docket, Central District of California: 2:21-cv-08979), manufacturing firm Miramax sued director Quentin Tarantino after he introduced that he can be auctioning off “unique scenes” from the 1994 movement image Pulp Fiction within the type of NFTs. Based on his web site, “the gathering holds secrets and techniques from Pulp Fiction,” and “every NFT comprises a number of beforehand unknown secrets and techniques of a selected iconic scene from Pulp Fiction”. The “privileged” purchasers “will come up with these secrets and techniques”.

To this point, there isn’t any reported case about NFTs in our Courts. Nonetheless, there are quite a few complaints by copyright homeowners about their work getting used on NFTs and bought on NFT marketplaces. Steps had been additionally taken by corporations to make sure that their commerce mark safety extends to NFTs. For instance, Riot Video games, Inc, the model of proprietor of the favored recreation League of Legends, have filed an utility to register their commerce mark which included “digital supplies, specifically, nonfungible tokens (NFTs)” with the Mental Property Company of Malaysia.


Love scams

Public Prosecutor v Wang Jianquan [2021] MLJU 1708; [2021] 5 LNS 109 is an fascinating case a few “love rip-off” operation in Malaysia. The accused was one of many two (2) Chinese language nationals arrested and investigated for love rip-off actions deceiving Chinese language nationals. There have been 9 (9) Malaysians concerned too. One of many objects seized was an train guide containing “script of dialog” used in opposition to the victims.

The investigation revealed that the telephone belonged to one of many arrestees (B8), contained her semi-nude images, which had been despatched to the potential victims by the remainder of the arrestees (together with the accused individual). The arrestees would first talk with the victims. The mentioned arrestee (B8) would make a video name to the victims and lured them into exposing themselves (actually – by exposing their personal half). The video calls had been recorded and used to extort monies from the victims. Refusal to accede to their request was on the peril of the obscene movies and images being revealed to the sufferer’s members of the family.

The accused pleaded responsible to an offence underneath s. 420 of the Penal Code (dishonest and dishonestly inducing supply of property) and was sentenced to a one month imprisonment and RM8,000 tremendous, in default of cost two months imprisonment.

The realized Justice of the Peace was of the view that the offence issues conspiracy to cheat. The style the offence was dedicated was horrendous. The victims had been lured and deceived into exposing their personal components, which was captured and used as a bargaining chip to extort cash, leaving the sufferer with the one different choice of perpetual embarrassment dealing with their very own members of the family. It’s inhuman, gross and in need of dignity. Scaling the plea of responsible in addition to being a primary offender in opposition to the style of the offence was dedicated doesn’t tip the size in favour of the accused individual.

The realized Justice of the Peace additionally took judicial discover of the prevalence of on-line scam-related exercise in Malaysia. Statistics issued by CyberSecurity Malaysia present that on-line fraud has continued to be the very best reported incidents totalling 7,774 studies in 2019, 5123 studies in 2018, and three,821 studies in 2017, in comparison with different incidents, i.e. cyber harassment, intrusion try, denial of service, vulnerabilities report, content-related, spam, malicious code and intrusion. In 2020, out of 8,366 on-line incident circumstances reported, 6,048 had been on-line fraud circumstances.


Service of Court docket Paperwork on Fb

Final 12 months, I reported that the Excessive Court docket allowed the service of courtroom paperwork on Fb Malaysia Sdn Bhd because the Court docket discovered that Fb Malaysia is the agent of Fb, Inc underneath Order 10 Rule 2 of the Guidelines of Court docket 2012 (Abu Jamal Bin Sulaiman & Anor v Fb, Inc (Kuala Lumpur Excessive Court docket Unique Summons No. WA-24NCVC-57)).

The Court docket of Attraction nevertheless has overturned the choice in Civil Attraction No. W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1222-09/2020 on the grounds that, amongst others, there’s inadequate proof to show that Fb Malaysia Sdn Bhd is an agent of Fb, Inc.

On one other be aware, Fb, Inc modified its identify to Meta Platforms, Inc. Any authorized motion filed in opposition to Fb, Inc in Malaysia ought to now be in opposition to Meta Platforms, Inc and served on to them with an order to serve out of jurisdiction to their workplace in California, United States.


Whether or not Seize drivers are “staff”

Final 12 months, I reported that one Loh Guet Ching filed an motion for judicial evaluate (Loh Guet Ching v. Menteri Sumber Manusia & Ors (Kuala Lumpur Excessive Court docket Judicial Evaluation Utility No. WA-25-296-10/2020) after Minister of Transport refused to refer the matter to the Industrial Court docket. She had earlier introduced a case in opposition to Seize on the Labour Division after she was terminated as an e-hailing driver. The Excessive Court docket dismissed the appliance for judicial evaluate. She has now introduced the matter to the Court docket of Attraction.



In 2022, we are able to anticipate extra fascinating developments within the cyberlaw and IT sphere.

– New NFT authorized disputes are beginning to pop in Courts starting of 2022. It was reported OpenSea was sued by a person of its platform after the latter’s “Bored Ape Yacht Membership NFT – Bored Ape #3475” was stolen when OpenSea was hacked (McKimmy v. OpenSea, No. 4:22-cv-00545). The identical “Bored Ape Yatch Clut NFT” was an issue of one other dispute within the Singapore Excessive Court docket the place the Singapore Excessive Court docket had blocked potential sale and switch of the mentioned NFT after an internet person by the identify of “chefpierre” had taken it wrongfully from him.

Meantime, native artist Fahmi Reza launched a NFT of his Monyet Istana art work on his web site to boost funds for the Freedom of Expression Authorized Defence Fund. The authorized fund will assist assist fellow Malaysians who’re investigated and prosecuted for exercising their proper to freedom of expression. He efficiently raised RM48,000 from the sale of this NFT in 48 hours. Nonetheless, it was later reported that was blocked from entry by our native web service suppliers.

Three different noteworthy developments I’m going to observe this 12 months are:

Financial institution Negara has awarded digital banking licences to 5 consortiums. Three consortiums, specifically Enhance Holdings Sdn Bhd and RHB Financial institution Bhd, GXS Financial institution and Kuok Brothers, and SEA and YTL Digital Capital will likely be licensed underneath the Monetary Companies Act 2013.

In the meantime, a consortium comprising AEON Monetary Service Co Ltd, AEON Credit score Service (M) Bhd and MoneyLion Inc, and a consortium led by KAF Funding Financial institution will likely be licensed underneath the Islamic Monetary Companies Act 2013. These new banks will help people and companies acquire higher entry to extra personalised options backed by information analytics. It will likely be fascinating to see what cyber and digital authorized points that will come up from this new business.

Well being information portal CodeBlue broke the information concerning the possession of Malaysia’s contact tracing utility, MySejahtera, which shops the private information of hundreds of thousands of Malaysians and its residence.

While the Authorities had claimed possession of the MySejahtera utility, CodeBlue revealed that one Entomo Malaysia Sdn Bhd was the proprietor of the mental property rights (apart from the commerce mark and date collected by way of MySejahtera which is owned by the Authorities of Malaysia) in and to MySejahtera utility, and thereafter transferred it to 1 MySj Sdn Bhd.

This was based mostly on the Court docket paperwork revealed within the shareholder disputes between the corporate behind MySejahtera (P2 Asset Administration Sdn Bhd v MySj Sdn Bhd (Kuala Lumpur Excessive Court docket Go well with No. WA-22NCC-516-11/2021), Hasrat Budi Sdn Bhd v Entomo Malaysia Sdn Bhd (Kuala Lumpur Excessive Court docket Go well with No. WA-24NCC-118-02/2022)).

The Authorities of Malaysia later clarified that it solely owned the commerce mark and sure modules and their supply codes. There are different rights residing within the MySejahtera utility which is owned by different events. Nonetheless, plainly the Authorities of Malaysia is slowly transitioning MySejahtera to a non-Covid-19 pandemic associated utility.

And, to shut, activist Heidy Quah Gaik Li’s problem to the constitutionality of s. 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 hit a wall after the Excessive Court docket refused to refer the matter to the Federal Court docket based mostly on the next query – Whether or not the supply of s. 233 of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 is a permissible restriction underneath Artwork. 10(2)(a) Federal Structure learn along with Article 8 Federal Structure (infringement of freedom of speech & expression).

The matter is now pending on the Court docket of Attraction (Heidy Quah Gaik Li v Kerajaan Malaysia (Civil Attraction No. B-01(IM)-130-03/2022)). She was earlier charged for sharing alleged content material over a Fb submit that alleged mistreatment of refugees at an Immigration detention centre. The Periods Court docket then granted a discharge amounting to not acquittal after the Court docket discovered that her cost was faulty.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments