Please find attached a submission from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Forum (Content Forum) on the proposed amendments.

By way of brief context: the Content Forum is the self-regulatory industry body for content in Malaysia, designated under Section 212 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. Our members include broadcasters, content producers, advertisers, advertising agencies, digital platforms , internet service providers, civil society groups and others. Our comments are confined to the areas where the proposals affect how online content is notified, assessed and removed, and where they intersect with obligations our members already carry under the Content Code and other instruments. We have not commented on licensing and remuneration, which the rights holder bodies are better placed to address.

We support the direction of the reform. Our submission sets out fifteen recommendations, and we would be glad to discuss any of them further.

Thank you again for the consultation.

Please find attached the Copyright Alliance's comments in response to MyIPO's consultation. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.

I congratulate MyIPO on the excellent infographic. Pending a draft Bill, one can only comment in generalities, but I would emphasise the following:

- In an ideal world, AI companies would negotiate licences with copyright holders. This is already beginning, despite the insistence of the main AI players that they should have the entire corpus of creative achievement for free. The current TDM exceptions do not benefit AI training: there is no research objective in the training of an LLM. A broad exception for AI will kill off licensing, which should be given the chance to develop. Historically, technology providers have had to share the profits of their exploitation of creative works with the authors of those works. AI should be no different.

- A majority view has quickly developed that AI-generated works should not receive copyright protection, partly driven by the technicalities of registration in the US. It is worth pausing to consider whether this is necessarily the right approach, at least in common law countries where the mystical continental European conception of authorship does not operate. A few countries, beginning with the UK, have enacted provisions conferring protection on computer-generated, authorless works, specifically to deal with AI. They have not yet been seriously tested and should be given a chance to work. Many common law jurisdictions, including Malaysia, confer copyright on films, sound recordings and broadcasts without any requirement of originality. Why? Because the grant of rights allows the creation of a market. It is not cost-free to create a saleable AI work. It may be that the AI companies will oppose such protection, out of a general distaste for copyright; and that collecting societies also will not like the risk that their portfolios will suffer more competition. However, if consumers want computer-made works, is it right to limit the incentives to produce them?

- With the growth of streaming, TPM/RMI become more relevant. But the WIPO Treaties' RMI provisions were too weak and have been a failure, largely because of the connection with copyright infringement and their mens rea requirements. The opportunity should be taken to toughen them up.

- Malaysia should think carefully before introducing a non-assignable artist's resale right. It is far from universal. Significantly, the Swiss decided against it on the grounds that it might damage the national art market and might reduce the market value of art works, while not significantly improving the position of artists.

- While dynamic injunctions are highly desirable, consideration should also be given to administrative processes for site-blocking, which can coexist with judicial remedies. The Italian system, managed by telecoms regulator AGCOM, is exemplary.

- Consideration could be given to imposing a duty on online advertising agencies to use reasonable care (for example, by signing up to the WIPO ALERT data-sharing system) to avoid placing advertising on infringing websites.

Media Prima Berhad fully supports the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act 1987 to ensure that the legal framework remains relevant and responsive to the evolving creative and digital landscape, particularly in light of the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies.

The proposed amendments should establish a balanced legal framework that protects the interests of copyright owners, creators, broadcasters, and other rights holders. A robust and future-ready copyright framework will help protect original works from unauthorised use, provide clear guidance on the use of AI-generated and AI-assisted content, encourage investment in the creative industries, and ensure that Malaysia's copyright regime remains aligned with international best practices and standards.

As the creation, distribution, and commercialisation of copyrighted works continue to evolve, it is essential that the legislation keeps pace with these developments while providing legal certainty for all stakeholders.

Cadangan yang dilampirkan adalah bagi memastikan keperluan CMO selaras dengan keperluan yang terpakai kepada CLBG yang berdaftar di bawah SSM

Cadangan yang dilampirkan adalah bagi memastikan keperluan CMO selaras dengan keperluan yang terpakai kepada CLBG yang berdaftar di bawah SSM

Overall, I support the proposed amendments as they represent a timely and necessary effort to modernize the Copyright Act in response to the rapid development of AI technologies. The proposed direction is appropriate, but I believe several aspects would benefit from further refinement rather as follows:
• The amendments should clearly state whether the use of copyrighted works for AI training is permissible under specific exceptions or requires prior authorization. Clear legal guidance will reduce uncertainty for both copyright owners and AI developers.
• While these principles are appropriately recognized, they should be supported by practical implementation mechanisms. For example, AI developers could be encouraged or required to maintain reasonable transparency regarding the use of copyrighted materials, while ensuring that copyright owners have appropriate opportunities for licensing or remuneration where commercial interests are involved.
• International experiences such as those of Japan and Singapore provide useful references, but Malaysia should avoid adopting any single model wholesale. Instead, the framework should be tailored to Malaysia's legal, economic and creative ecosystem while maintaining an appropriate balance between innovation and protection of creators' rights.
• Given the rapid pace of AI development, the legislation should allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate future technological advances. Periodic review of the relevant provisions or the issuance of implementation guidelines would help ensure that the Act remains relevant over time.
• The amendments should protect the legitimate interests of copyright owners without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens that may discourage AI research, innovation or investment. Achieving this balance will be important for supporting both the creative industry and Malaysia's digital economy.

Feedback on AI in the Arts Industry

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant concept in the creative arts—it is already embedded in the workflows of Grammy-winning producers, major label executives, and iconic artists. From Timbaland’s AI entertainment ventures to Grimes open-sourcing her voice, and even Randy Travis regaining his voice through AI, the technology is reshaping how music is created, distributed, and experienced. While public debates often question whether AI-generated works are “real art,” the reality is that AI is now a practical tool used across the industry. It is a future of today!

Opportunities and Benefits

1. Creative expansion: AI enables artists to explore new sounds, styles, and collaborations that may not be possible through traditional methods.

2. Accessibility: Independent musicians and smaller labels gain access to production-quality tools, lowering barriers to entry.

3. Preservation and restoration: AI can revive voices and performances, offering cultural and emotional value.

4. Efficiency: Streamlined workflows allow faster production and experimentation, supporting innovation, reducing creation and production costs.

Risks and Concerns

1. Intellectual property: Without clear regulation, AI-generated works risk infringing on existing copyrights or misusing artists’ likenesses.

2. Authenticity and trust: Audiences may feel misled if AI contributions are hidden or uncredited.

3. Economic impact: Fully-reliance on AI could reduce opportunities for human creators, especially session musicians and lyricists.

4. Ethical use of voices and identities: Cases like voice cloning demand strict consent and transparency.

Recommendations for Regulation

1. Transparency requirements: Works created or assisted by AI should be clearly labeled, ensuring audiences and stakeholders understand the role of AI. For example: FULL CREATION OF AI or MIXED CREATION BY HUMAN & AI.

2. Consent and licensing: Use of an individual’s voice, likeness, or style must require explicit permission and fair compensation.

3. Balanced copyright frameworks: AI-generated works should also be protected, as of human creators’ rights. A mixed system recognizing both human authorship and AI-assisted creation may be necessary. Human composers who subscribe to or utilize AI music and artwork generators as creative tools should be afforded EQUAL LEGAL RECOGNITION as those who employ modern instruments, applications, or systems in the creation of their works.

4. Industry standards: Establish guidelines for metadata, credits, and royalty flows to ensure fair distribution when AI is involved.

5. Education and awareness: Regulators should support initiatives that help artists, audiences, and businesses understand AI’s role, risks, and opportunities.

Conclusion

AI is neither a threat nor a miracle—it is a tool. The challenge for Malaysia’s creative ecosystem is to regulate AI in a way that protects artistry, ensures fairness, and embraces innovation. By setting clear standards for transparency, consent, and rights management, government can help the industry EVOLVE responsibly while safeguarding cultural integrity and ensuring that independent artists are not left behind.

I support the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act 1987 as they are important for keeping Malaysia's copyright framework aligned with rapid technological developments, artificial intelligence (AI), and the growing digital content ecosystem. At the same time, the amended legislation should strike a fair balance between safeguarding the rights of copyright owners and promoting education, research, innovation, and access to knowledge.

The revised Act should include clear guidance on AI-generated content, appropriate copyright exceptions for educational and research activities, effective digital enforcement mechanisms, and continuous engagement with relevant stakeholders. These measures will help ensure that the legislation is practical, balanced, and adaptable to future technological changes while fostering the sustainable growth of Malaysia's creative and digital economy.

Saya menyokong sepenuhnya cadangan pindaan Akta Hak Cipta 1987 (Akta 332) ini kerana ia amat relevan dengan cabaran semasa yang dihadapi oleh pencipta dan pemegang hak, khususnya dalam kalangan graduan seni dan reka bentuk di negara kita.
Salah satu isu kritikal yang sering diabaikan dalam wacana dasar harta intelek ialah jurang besar antara nilai komersial sesebuah karya seni dengan pulangan sebenar yang diterima oleh penciptanya. Ramai graduan bidang Seni Halus dan Reka Bentuk (Art and Design) tamat pengajian dengan kemahiran kreatif yang tinggi, namun tidak melihat kerjaya sebagai artis sebagai satu pilihan yang berdaya maju dari segi ekonomi. Fenomena ini bukan berpunca daripada kekurangan bakat, tetapi lebih kepada struktur ekosistem hak cipta yang tidak memberi jaminan pulangan jangka panjang kepada pencipta asal, terutamanya selepas karya tersebut dijual buat pertama kali.
Ini membawa kepada satu paradoks yang amat membimbangkan: ramai artis tempatan yang karyanya telah berulang kali dijual semula dengan harga yang tinggi di pasaran seni sekunder (seperti lelongan dan galeri), namun mereka sendiri kekal dalam keadaan kewangan yang tidak stabil. Nilai ekonomi yang terhasil daripada peningkatan reputasi dan permintaan terhadap karya mereka selalunya hanya dinikmati oleh pengumpul, pengedar, dan rumah lelongan — bukan oleh pencipta asal.
Justeru, saya berharap pindaan Akta Hak Cipta ini turut mempertimbangkan pengenalan mekanisme seperti Hak Jualan Semula Artis (Artist's Resale Right / droit de suite), yang telah diamalkan secara meluas di negara-negara Kesatuan Eropah dan beberapa negara Komanwel. Melalui mekanisme ini, artis dan pewaris mereka berhak menerima peratusan tertentu daripada hasil jualan semula karya seni visual mereka di pasaran sekunder. Ini bukan sahaja satu bentuk keadilan ekonomi, tetapi juga satu bentuk pengiktirafan simbolik terhadap sumbangan kreatif jangka panjang seseorang artis.
Dari perspektif dasar pendidikan dan pembangunan modal insan kreatif, pengukuhan hak ekonomi sebegini amat penting untuk membina keyakinan generasi muda bahawa kerjaya sebagai artis dan pereka adalah satu pilihan hidup yang berdaya maju, bukan sekadar minat sampingan. Ia turut selari dengan agenda negara untuk memperkasakan ekonomi kreatif dan industri kandungan sebagai penyumbang kepada Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK).
Saya berharap pihak Kementerian dan MyIPO dapat mengambil kira aspek ini dalam kerangka pindaan akta, di samping memastikan keseimbangan yang wajar antara hak pencipta, kepentingan industri, dan akses awam kepada karya kreatif dalam era digital.

I support the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act 1987 as they are necessary to address technological advancements, AI, and digital content distribution. However, the revised legislation should maintain an appropriate balance between protecting copyright owners and supporting education, research, innovation, and public access to knowledge. Clear provisions regarding AI-generated content, copyright exceptions for educational purposes, digital enforcement, and stakeholder engagement will help ensure the Act remains practical, equitable, and future-ready while strengthening Malaysia's creative and digital economy

terbaik

Secara amnya kami bersetuju dan menyokong usaha MyIPO untuk mengemas kini Akta Hak Cipta 1987 bagi memastikan kerangka perundangan kekal relevan, responsif dan berkesan dalam mendepani cabaran penguatkuasaan yang timbul akibat perkembangan teknologi digital. Dari perspektif penguatkuasaan, landskap pelanggaran hak cipta telah berubah secara signifikan daripada pelanggaran yang melibatkan salinan fizikal kepada pelanggaran dalam persekitaran digital, termasuk melalui platform penstriman, media sosial, aplikasi pesanan, laman sesawang, perkhidmatan pengkomputeran awan (cloud computing) dan platform e-dagang. Modus operandi ini menjadikan aktiviti pelanggaran lebih pantas, sukar dikesan, melibatkan pelbagai bidang kuasa serta memerlukan pendekatan penguatkuasaan yang lebih dinamik dan berasaskan teknologi. Sehubungan itu, pengemaskinian akta ini penting bagi memastikan peruntukan undang-undang dapat menyokong pelaksanaan tindakan penguatkuasaan yang lebih efektif terhadap tindakan pelanggaran yang berlaku. Pindaan ini dapat menyokong usaha kerajaan dalam membanteras aktiviti pelanggaran digital, termasuk penstriman haram, pengedaran kandungan tanpa kebenaran dan pelanggaran hak cipta melalui platform dalam talian yang semakin berleluasa. Secara keseluruhannya, Bahagian Penguat Kuasa KPDN berpendirian bahawa cadangan pengemaskinian Akta Hak Cipta 1987 adalah selaras dengan keperluan semasa penguatkuasaan dan wajar dilaksanakan bagi memastikan peruntukan undang-undang kekal relevan, mampu menangani evolusi bentuk pelanggaran hak cipta serta meningkatkan keberkesanan tindakan penguatkuasaan dalam era digital.

Secara amnya, kami mengalu-alukan usaha MyIPO untuk mengkaji semula Akta Hak Cipta selaras dengan perkembangan teknologi digital, ekonomi kreatif dan amalan terbaik di peringkat antarabangsa. Pindaan yang dicadangkan diharap dapat mewujudkan keseimbangan antara perlindungan hak pemilik hak cipta, kepentingan pengguna serta keperluan inovasi dan pembangunan ekonomi digital. Bagi pelaksanaan pindaan, adalah dicadangkan supaya Peruntukan baharu dirangka dengan jelas bagi mengelakkan tafsiran yang berbeza serta memudahkan pelaksanaan dan penguatkuasaan, Sebarang hak, kewajipan dan mekanisme pelaksanaan adalah bersifat praktikal serta tidak membebankan pihak berkepentingan, Pindaan mengambil kira perkembangan teknologi baharu, termasuk kecerdasan buatan (AI), tanpa menjejaskan hak sah pemilik hak cipta, Sesi libat urus secara berterusan bersama pihak industri, pengamal undang-undang, institusi pendidikan dan agensi kerajaan diteruskan sebelum pindaan dimuktamadkan.