COPYRIGHT

Affidavit

Copyright - Affidavit - Copyright Act 1969(Act 10), s 12A(2)

Television Broadcasts & Ors v Seremban Video Centre Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 MLJ 171, High Court, Seremban

In this case, the plaintiffs were the copyright owners of a television program. The defendants were a video rental shop that had rented out copies of the program without the plaintiffs' permission. The plaintiffs applied to the court for an injunction to restrain the defendants from further infringing their copyright.

The plaintiffs filed an affidavit in support of their application. The affidavit set out the plaintiffs' copyright in the program, and the defendants' infringement of that copyright. The affidavit also set out the plaintiffs' loss and damage as a result of the defendants' infringement.

The court granted the plaintiffs' application for an injunction. The court held that the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs' copyright, and that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The court also held that the balance of convenience was in the plaintiffs' favor, and that the injunction was in the public interest.



Affidavit in criminal proceedings

Copyright - Affidavit in criminal proceedings - Subsistence of copyright

Chong Loy Sen & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1986] 2 MLJ 364, High Court, Singapore

In this case, the defendant was charged with the criminal offense of infringing the copyright of a book. The defendant applied to the court for an order to strike out the charge on the ground that the prosecution had not filed an affidavit in support of the charge.

The prosecution filed an affidavit in support of the charge. The affidavit set out the plaintiffs' copyright in the book, and the defendant's infringement of that copyright. The affidavit also set out the plaintiffs' loss and damage as a result of the defendant's infringement.

The court dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the charge. The court held that the prosecution had filed an affidavit in support of the charge, and that the affidavit was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.





Agreement to publish

Copyright - Agreement to publish - Not entered into - Infringement by publication - Copyright Act 1969(Act 10)

Syed Alwi v Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka [1980] 1 MLJ 129, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

In this case, the plaintiff was a writer who had written a book. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant, a publisher, to publish the book. However, the defendant had not published the book. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract.

The defendant argued that it had not infringed the plaintiff's copyright because it had not published the book. The court held that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's copyright by failing to publish the book. The court reasoned that the defendant had a duty to publish the book, and that by failing to do so, it had prevented the plaintiff from enjoying the benefits of his copyright.





Anton Piller order

Copyright - Anton Piller order - Genuine and pirated goods mixed - Plaintiff seizing both - Duty to return genuine goods - Whether plaintiff had good reason for not returning goods

Peters Edition Ltd v Renner Piano Co; Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music v Renner Piano Co [1990] 1 MLJ 337, High Court, Singapore

In this case, the plaintiffs were the copyright owners of a number of musical works. The defendants were a piano shop that had sold copies of the plaintiffs' works without the plaintiffs' permission. The plaintiffs applied to the court for an Anton Piller order to search the defendants' premises for copies of the plaintiffs' works.

The court granted the plaintiffs' application for an Anton Piller order. The court ordered the defendants to allow the plaintiffs' solicitors to enter the defendants' premises and to seize all copies of the plaintiffs' works.

The plaintiffs' solicitors searched the defendants' premises and seized a number of copies of the plaintiffs' works. The plaintiffs' solicitors also seized a number of genuine copies of the plaintiffs' works. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' solicitors should return the genuine copies of the plaintiffs' works.

The court held that the plaintiffs' solicitors were not obliged to return the genuine copies of the plaintiffs' works. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs' solicitors had seized the genuine copies of the plaintiffs' works in good faith, and that they had no reason to believe that the genuine copies were not infringing copies