You are on page 1of 16

Disadvantages

There are many disadvantages that deal with privacy and the Internet. In reality,
people have little privacy when using the Internet. For example, social networks provide
little privacy protection. Facebook, as one of the most popular social networks, doesnt
provide much privacy protection for their users. Facebook watches users and sees what kind
of things they put in their profiles and what interests them. Facebook then shares this
information with advertisers and these advertisers target the Facebook users and post their
ads on their profiles to get their attention. Facebook has been changing its privacy policy to
expose more personal information to a huge number of advertisers and marketers (Spring
2010). Even though people may think that their profiles are private, they really arent.
Some more disadvantages of privacy and the Internet are theft of personal
information, spamming, and virus threats. When you use the internet personal information
can be stolen by many people. When you put things out online such as your name, credit
card number, and where you live, these things are at risk of being used by other people
(Pakhare 2011).
Spamming is another invasion of privacy where you are sent e-mails that you do not
want and take up space on your system. These e-mails are an invasion of privacy and can be
very annoying. Virus threats can invade your privacy on the Internet and they can do much
damage to a persons computer as well (Pakhare 2011).

The software piracy rate in Malaysia, currently standing at 55 per cent, is still at an
unsatisfactory level. Having a 55-per-cent piracy rate meant that out of 100 software used in
personal computers (PC), 55 are pirated copies. There is a 1 per cent to 2 per cent decline in
the usage of pirated software in the country annually. But overall, the rate is still high,
compared with Singapore and Taiwan. The value of unlicensed software used in Malaysia has
also increased to US$657 million (Bt19.71 billion) in 2014, compared with $606 million in
2013.The value had increased because of the growth in worldwide PC shipments.

The software piracy rate in Singapore and Taiwan are 33 per cent and 37 per cent
respectively, while the average rate for Asia-Pacific is about 60 per cent.
Despite the authorities coming down hard on software piracy, the increase in such piracy in
Malaysia is worrisome, says a renowned software analyst.
What a lot of people don't realise is that when they buy a software; they are actually buying a
licence to use it, not the actual software. The licence tells them how many times they can
install the software, so it's important to read it. If the buyer makes more copies of the
software than the licence permits, they're pirating. A global software piracy study by the
International Data Corporation for BSA Malaysia showed personal computer piracy rate was
at 56% in 2012.
Software piracy is the unauthorised copying or distribution of copyrighted software via
copying, downloading, sharing, selling or installing multiple copies onto personal or work
computers. Based on the statistics, the worth of pirated software in 2012 was estimated at
US$606mil.It's a bad sign that can harm the software industry. Malaysia needs to focus on
addressing software piracy by taking measures to root out the problem. Its high time
stringent intellectual property laws are enacted and implemented to deter people from
indulging in software piracy. Current laws like the Copyright Act 1987 must be enforced
without fear or favour. Under the Act, an organisation, its director and senior management
personnel are liable to a fine between RM2,000 and RM20,000 and can be jailed up to five
years for each pirated copy of a software programme. In 2014,The Domestic Trade,
Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry mounted 61 enforcement raids and seized 394
computers and peripherals, 1,416 copies of suspected pirated software, with a combined total
estimated value of RM8.2mil.The countrys anti-piracy protection level is improving with
more stringent enforcement of intellectual property laws, says Domestic Trade, Cooperatives
and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Hasan Malek. He said Malaysia has taken the
initiative to make amendments to the copyright laws according to international standards. The
country has taken steps to strengthen protection and enforcement of intellectual property
rights and has issued regulations as well. However, we still have piracy issues and the
government is doing its best to curb this issue.. Malaysia had been on the US Trade
Representative (USTR) watch list on intellectual property violations since 1989, but was
taken off the list in 2012. Hasan stressed that the ministry is serious about eradicating piracy
and will take firm action on that. During the period of January to March 2014, a total of

11,704 premises were raided nationwide involving 235 cases and seizure of about
RM877,922 worth of counterfeit items. Last year, 98,311 premises were raided involving
1,169 cases with counterfeit goods worth RM7.956 million confiscated. Hasan said
awareness campaigns including on the legal aspects, the implications for industry players,
and a festival on user generated content will be telecast soon.

The software pirates and those trying to protect software copyrights approach the ethics of
piracy from two different viewpoints. There are two contrasting ethical views on the issue of
piracy, and both have their valid points.
Piracy is Ethical
Some think that there is nothing wrong with software piracy. They believe in the freedom of
information and expression (ie. "Information wants to be free"). According to them, it is
acceptable and ethical to copy the software because they have a right to the information
contained in the software. They also hold the idea of that reproduction and distribution of
software a part of fair use within copyright law.
Some pirates have cited their first amendment rights as an excuse for piracy. They claim that
since posting information in electronic form is protected by the first amendment, the
distribution of illegal software is an exercise of the rights of self-expression and should not be
infringed upon.
Some think that software piracy doesn't hurt anyone, that it is a victimless crime. They
believe that, with the rising prices of software, software manufacturers are really not hurt by
pirates making illegal copies of their programs. They think since they are not going to pay for
the software anyway, it is fine to get it free.

Another common excuse runs along the lines of "the software is really not worth the money
they're charging anyway." The argument continues that since the software is buggy, it's really
not a crime to distribute faulty products.
Finally, some claim that they're simply "testing" the software. "If I really like it, I'll pay for
it," runs the common excuse, "but this program just sits on my hard drive and I almost never
use it."

Piracy is Unethical
This view holds that piracy is really not a victimless crime. Due to software piracy, the
industry has seen some 12 billion dollars and over 100,000 jobs lost. The attraction of piracy
is due to its anonymity and the ease with which illegal copies of software can be made and
distributed. However, every person who makes illegal copies is contributing to the monetary
losses caused by piracy.
Information really does not "want to be free." People who write the software have rights to
profit from it, just as people who write books have the sole right to sell them. Copying
software is depriving the rightful owners of software of hard-earned wages.
Software piracy cannot be protected by the first amendment, because the first amendment
does not cover illegal activities. The claim that pirates have a right to make illegal copies of
software because the software is buggy, or too expensive, or not frequently used by the pirate,
is also flawed. Someone might think a Rolls-Royce is too expensive and not worth the
money, but this doesn't give him the right to steal it. Or, the fact that you almost never watch
television doesn't give you the right to steal a TV.
Pirating software costs everyone. Since not as many copies of software are sold, the software
manufacturers have to raise prices. This means that the legitimate users are incurring higher
costs due to piracy.
In short, piracy is not as "victimless" a crime as it may seem. Software developers,
distributors, and, ultimately, end users, are all hurt by piracy.

The Problem of Internet Piracy Gains Attention


The Internet has opened doors and avenues of communication never thought possible half a
century ago. The availability of information on the Internet extends to a great variety of
digital media. Movies, music, software programs, video games, and other content can be
accessed for free through many file-sharing networks and sites. However, the vast majority of
this shared content is protected under copyright laws, and unauthorized distribution, also
known as piracy, is illegal. The extensive copyright infringement found online has caused
record, film, and other content industries to take action against file-sharers of illegal
materials.
Fritz Attaway says illegal file sharing, is "free riding" because the users are not paying to
view

or

own

the

copyrighted

materials

Appearing on VOA News Nows Encounter program, Fritz Attaway, executive vice president
of the Motion Picture Association of America, and Alex Curtis, director of policy and new
media at the advocacy group, Public Knowledge, emphasized two types of piracy. There is
"traditional piracy," which is commercial and involves bootlegged copies of content being
distributed and sold by unauthorized parties. Illegal file sharing, on the other hand, is what
Fritz Attaway describes as "free riding" because the users are not paying to view or own the
copyrighted materials. Often, no money is being made from such distribution, but it still
results in a loss of revenue for copyright holders who would otherwise be paid for their
content.
Alex Curtis does not necessarily condone free riding but says it occurs because the music
or movie industries are not meeting consumer demand for faster releases, flexible content and
reasonable prices. Mr. Attaway argues that the answer to these demands is not to circumvent
legal ways of obtaining copyrighted materials but rather to create business models that meet
customers'

demands.

The issue of flexibility is one of the foremost causes of illegal file sharing. Many programs
allow users to manipulate content in ways that are not legal under current copyright
restrictions, such as breaking technological "locks" on DVDs to copy them onto a personal
computer. These locks are encoded into the DVD to prevent unauthorized uses. The U.S.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed into law in 1998, encompasses this

addition to digital media protection. Mr. Attaway endorses this provision and believes the law
is

just

fine

as

it

is.

In contrast, Alex Curtis expresses some reservations about the DMCA. He says that, while
the law was "well-intentioned," it has had some unintended consequences that are harmful to
consumers' rights. In particular is the limitation on "fair use." Mr. Curtis explains that fair use
is reserved for "criticism, comment, news-reporting, educational uses, and its very much
akin to the concept of free speech." Under U.S. copyright law, copyrighted materials may be
used legally without permission if the use is "fair." The problem with the DMCA is that it
does not take into account "fair use" when it comes to breaking technological locks on
content.

All

such

circumvention

is

considered

illegal.

In many other countries, similar laws are used to provide for fair use and to enforce
copyright law. Fritz Attaway says that "we're trying to work with countries to update their
laws" so that copyright infringement is curbed. This is essential in a world where information
can be digitally accessed anywhere on the globe. Although progress is certain, it may still be
some time before old business models adjust to the fast-paced world of digital technology.
The losses due to piracy are far outweighed by the benefits of the free flow of information,
which makes the world richer, and develops new markets for legitimate content
Media executives paint the bleakest picture possible of their losses because it is in their best
interest to do so. The reality is that most of the content that is 'stolen' would never have been
purchased.
That free flow of information, media companies worry, is making consumers accustomed to
getting something for nothing. Privately, several senior media executives said technology
companies wanted to devalue copyrighted media content because it ultimately benefited the
technology companies business.
If intellectual property developed by creative people and covered by copyright was as
respected as intellectual property developed by engineers and protected by patents, this
problem would greatly improve, said a Viacom executive who was not authorized to discuss
the matter publicly.

Viacom is currently appealing a copyright infringement case against YouTube. In 2010 a


federal judge ruled in favor of YouTubes owner, Google, which Viacom accused of seeking
to profit from thousands of clips from shows like The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, posted
by users.
Media executives have a particular beef with Google. Some claim it started the online fervor
over the antipiracy bills to advance its own business interests. Michael OLeary, a senior
executive vice president at the motion picture association, put it this way: Id ask Google,
How many jobs do we have to lose before they start taking this seriously?
Media companies have no plans to immediately revisit the antipiracy legislation. Instead,
several entertainment executives said they planned to reorganize and talk to labor unions,
pharmaceutical companies and other backers of the legislation about a unified message so the
antipiracy and anti-counterfeiting movement .These executives, speaking on the condition of
anonymity because the issue is so heated, also said they wanted to look at how they could
better harness the Web to educate the public about piracy.
Of course, as consumers embrace online video and music in both legal and illegal forms,
media companies have also been learning new tricks. Warner Brothers, for example, now
offers a digital locker, part of an industry wide push to let customers who buy a DVD or Bluray disc obtain access to the movie on many different devices.
The locker is the latest effort to stem the decline in home entertainment revenue. A research
estimates that industry revenue from video rentals and sales fell 10.5 percent to $18.5 billion
in 2014.Media companies are also making more content available online.

Debates about illegal file-sharing have been going on for quite some time now, and while
there are many interesting perspectives on the issue, the one thing that continues to surprises
is that very few people seem to actually understand what the central matter being debated is.
Time and again, arguments are made that miss the point, facts or statistics are presented that
have no relevance, and ultimately discussions digress into personal opinions about artists,
major labels, the industry, etc.
The myth that piracy was born of a noble idea that everything should be free and accessible
to everyonethis notion is not what drives piracy. On the contrary, piracy is primarily
motivated by greed its a business, and apparently a very good one. Without getting into the
specifics of how money is earned through advertising, subscription fees, encouraging
additional piracy through revenue kickbacks, etc, the short of it all is that pirates are making
money. Theres nothing wrong with someone making money, but if they are making money
by commandeering and exploiting my work, and not even sharing any of those earnings with
me to boot, then it shouldnt be controversial to suggest their actions are less than admirable.
There also needs to be a distinction between those who facilitate piracy, and the general users
that benefit from it. The latter is not the issue. There are individuals who illegally download
music in virtue of simply having access to it, without any concrete conceptualization or clear
understanding of the practice they are undertaking. There are also people with low incomes
that sincerely cannot afford to purchase or acquire content in other manners, for whom filesharing is a blessing. There are even those who utilize piracy as a means to preview a large
breadth of content before subsequently legally purchasing the content they like. But all of
those who benefit from piracy in these ways are irrelevant to the piracy industry itself,
which only exists because assholes are making a living from it.Sharing on a person-to-person
level is more or less inconsequential to the livelihood of content owners. In contrast, its the
massive enterprise of sharing through file-sharing networks on a national and global scale
that is at issue, and which does affect the livelihood of content owners.
8 common arguments in favor of piracy that succeed in skirting the real issue:
1) Piracy only effects millionaires and billionaires who are already filthy rich, and
there is nothing morally objectionable about preventing these overly wealthy
individuals and companies from continuing to profit from my hard-earned money.

This is fascinating logic, but not very compelling. For one, people are a little
uncomfortable with the populace collectively deciding that Katy Perry has made
enough money at the end of the day, she made a product & if you want that product,
buy it; if not, dont. If her content is so appealing that it turns her into a billionaire,
good for Katy. Is this really so objectionable? Moreover, its not just the content of
established and successful artists that are being pirated its also up and-coming artists
and independent artists. Yes, the content of established artists is pirated the most from
a quantitative standpoint, but this has no bearing on the fact that independent artists
who dont have large streams of income are substantially affected by the pirating of
their content.
2) Artists are getting screwed by their labels anyway, so what does it matter if their music
is pirated? Well thats very nice that you have decided to stand up for artist exploitation at
the hands of their respective labels by choosing to steal their content. Id like to point out that
this has no relevance to artists that are not affiliated with labels, nor does it have any bearing
on the many major / indie label artists with very good deal structures in place. But even in
cases where labels are screwing over their artists, if an artist chose to enter into a bad deal,
thats their prerogative why are you so concerned with their business decisions? And
furthermore, do you realize that even if we suppose 100% of all major label artists have bad
deals, youre enabling of the piracy industry isnt combatting that its simply changing
which group of assholes are making money (and at least in the former case, artists are making
something from their work, even if scant).
3) Piracy is the best thing that could ever happen to independent or up-and-coming
artists.now their work is being exposed to way more people than it would otherwise have
been. Maybe yes, maybe no. But shouldnt that decision rest with the artists and rights
owners of the music? If they see the merit in your perspective, and choose to distribute their
catalogue for free, so be it. However, if they disagree with your position, why should they be
unable to manage their catalogue as they see fit? Moreover, plenty of artists music is readily
available through online streaming sites my entire discography for example can be listened
to in its entirety through my website and YouTube channel so the issue is not about having
free access to music, its about having music illegally distributed in an exploitative capacity
without artists consent.

4) Music and movies are grossly overpriced, and pirating such content amounts to an
objection of those inflated prices. There are certainly cases where content is overpriced, and
such cases are definitely irritating to all consumers. However, it is unfair to characterize the
entire entertainment industry, or even a significant part of it, as being grossly overpriced.
$10 for a music album is not overpriced. Those who suggest otherwise either dont have an
understanding of what goes into the making of this content, or simply dont appreciate what
theyre getting for their money. Either way, such ignorance is beyond my ability to remedy,
but while such a deluded perspective can understandably lead to person-to-person filesharing, it does not legitimize the global money-making business of the piracy industry. I
hope we can agree on at least that much.
5) Artists have an easy life you can barely call what they do work. They are living the
dream, and they shouldnt be entitled to such obscene income and a life of luxury. So who
cares if their content is being pirated. Ill be sure to ask for your permission the next time I
have to take a shit. But let me just point out to you that while there do exist individuals in
every industry who have had some remarkable opportunities just fall into their lap, the
majority of successful professionals, including artists and entertainers, have all worked
extremely hard to get to where they are. It seems to me that the real source of your ire is the
cultural / political / societal system that we are all born intoI sympathize with youbut
dont take it out on artists, especially when its art that stands the best chance of taking the
edge off the absurdity of all that angers you, and the best chance of inspiring the change that
your miserable soul yearns for.
6) Piracy is not actually theft its an infringement of copyright, which is not the same
thing. Yes, technically speaking, you are correct. But regardless of the legal nuance
involved, I think we can all agree some form of theft is at work. Should the illegal filesharing of music be treated equivalent to the stealing of a car? No. But that doesnt mean its
somehow acceptable to steal intellectual content. In the same way that we treat the physical
theft of objects differently based on the value of the object in question a DVD vs a
Mercedes so should we treat the theft of objects differently according to the nature of the
object physical vs digital vs intellectual property. But make no mistakeall occurrences of
theft should be addressed in some manner.

7) Were in a new modern age where unrestricted access to digital content is now a basic
reality that the entertainment industry needs to accept and find a way to adapt to.
Interestingso taken to its logical conclusion, I suppose the theft of all the digital money
in your bank account is something youll just have to get over and accept as a reality of
modernity, right? After all, its not physical money just a bunch of zeros and ones on a
computer screen, so perhaps we shouldnt even consider it theft in the first place. Right, I
hear you the theft of digital money is different from digital music, because digital money
isnt copiedits stolen, in the real and legal sense of that term. Uh huh well when 50
thousand people copy Lady Gagas record, who otherwise would have bought it, is that not
an actual measurable and legitimate loss of income? Does that not qualify as theft in your
expert opinion? We can debate how many individuals that illegally download music would
otherwise buy it if left no other choice but while its impossible to know the answer, I think
we can agree that some amount of individuals would legally purchase music if a free
alternative did not existand when you consider the millions of people throughout the world
downloading thousands of music and movie files, even if that number were as low as 10% it
would amount to a significant loss of income to content owners.
8) Copyright law is ridiculous in and of itself with terms lasting authors life + 70 years
theres no reason for ownership to last that long, and its only purpose is to ensure labels
keep profiting for years and years. It should last somewhere between 5 and 20 years max.
So as far as Im concerned, piracy is rectifying this obscenity. Ughwhere to begin. Start
by reading points 1 and 2 above. Then explain to me why it is you feel I should be forced to
relinquish ownership of something that I created with my own two hands. Then let me know
what time youll be home so I can stop by to take that Mercedes from you I think youve
owned it for long enough, dont you?
With all of that out of the way, what we are left with is that assholes are exploiting other
peoples work without their consent, and profiting from that exploitation.
Now, I cannot prevent you from being an asshole. Only you can do that. So if you choose to
be an asshole, it is what it is. We can get into why one would make such a choice, and
speculate as to the psychological and emotional underpinnings that lead to such a choice, and
even look to other industries where assholes have succeeded in astounding the world with

their assholiness (white collar criminals and those Wall Street fuckers come to mind)in the
end though, it doesnt matter. Just accept that there are assholes in the world.
So, given pirates decisions to be assholes, what can I do? I can perhaps try to persuade them
that their decision has consequences that effect other human beings, and hope that theyre
able to see beyond their own selfish perspective. But Im not going to waste my time trying to
converse with assholes, as it doesnt make for very enlightening conversation.
It seems to me the logical thing to do is to remove the ability of assholes to steal without
impunity in the first place not to remove their desire to do so just the ability. Consider
this: if one person comes into a bank and steals handfuls of cash, it is easy to stop that
individual. But if hordes of assholes are storming banks across the country, stealing
everyones money, then its not practical to stop them all, nor efficient to discuss their actions
on an intellectual and philosophical levelbut it is practical and efficient for banks to start
securing their money within vaults, and in so doing, remove the ability of said assholes to
steal it. Its not rocket sciencewe just need to apply the same principle to piracy.
Obviously, the literal concept of a bank vault is not applicable to illegal file-sharing.
However, just like in the bank analogy, we can diagnose what allows pirates to do what they
do, and then seek to undermine that. In the case of banks, allowing piles of cash to be
publicly accessible leads to massive theft of that cash. In the case of piracy, the enterprise
functions as a result of a simple distortion: the notion that file-sharing websites facilitate the
transfer of digital content between other people, without directly participating in the content
being transferred, and that as such, they have no control over if their users choose to upload
and share content illegally, and are thus not responsible for any copyright infringement that
occurs all they can do is have such content removed once uploaded, provided the content
owners inform them of such violations. This laughable perspective is what has allowed the
piracy industry to flourish, for it is not feasible for content owners to scour through thousands
of file-sharing websites to discover if their content is being illegally distributed, only to then
have to submit claims to each website for each specific instance of copyright infringement
only to then have to repeat the process again and again week after week.
This is where new legislation comes into play. We need properly written legislation that
enforces intellectual property rights without curtailing 1st amendment freedoms, and which

holds piracy facilitators accountable instead of users. This should not be that difficult to put
together folkspeople simply have to agree on its necessity. Of course, if you happen to be
an asshole, then you will want to oppose such measures.
I leave a detailed exploration of solutions for another time, but suffice it to say that if filesharing companies / websites were simply responsible for policing the content whose
distribution they facilitate (instead of the burden falling on the content owners an
impossible task), and there were effective consequences in place for the failure of such
companies / websites to perform said responsibilities, then the entire piracy industry would
go away pretty fucking quick. This is not to say that file-sharing would stop in total just that
the national and global business of file-sharing would.

While industry revenues from digital formats continue to grow, surpassing $4 billion for the
first time in 2012, and reaching nearly 4.4 billion in 2013 while accounting for 64% of
industry revenues, digital music theft has been a major factor behind the decline in sales over
the past 15 years. And although use of peer-to-peer sites has flattened during recent years,
other forms of digital theft have emerged, including unauthorized digital storage lockers used
to distribute copyrighted music, streamripping programs, and mobile applications that enable
digital content theft.
Consider these staggering statistics:
o Since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site
Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in
the U.S. have dropped 53 percent, from
$14.6 billion to $7.0 billion in 2013.
o From

2004

through

2009

alone,

approximately 30 billion songs were


illegally downloaded on file-sharing
networks.

o NPD reports that only 37 percent of


music acquired by U.S. consumers in
2009 was paid for.
o According

to

the

Information

Technology & Innovation Foundation,


the digital theft of music, movies and
copyrighted content takes up huge
amounts of Internet bandwidth 24
percent globally, and 17.5 percent in the
U.S.
o Digital

storage

locker

downloads

constitute 7 percent of all Internet traffic,


while 91 percent of the links found on
them were for copyrighted material, and
10 percent of those links were to music
specifically,

according

to

2011

Envisional study.
The music industry, while enormous in its economic, cultural and personal impact, is by
business standards relatively small. So theft on this scale has a noticeable and devastating
impact: employment at the major U.S. music companies has declined by thousands of
workers, and artist rosters have been significantly cut back. The successful partnership
between a music label and a global superstar and the revenue generated finances the
investment in discovering, developing and promoting the next new artist. Without that
revolving door of investment and revenue, the ability to bring the next generation of artists to
the marketplace is diminished as is the incentive for the aspiring artist to make music a full
time professional career.
Piracy:

On

the

Street

Digital music theft often grabs headlines, but millions of illegal music CDs are manufactured
and sold in the United States each year. They can be manufactured by corrupt CD plant
operators as well as in clandestine operations engaged in the large-scale burning of music to

blank CD-R discs that are then sold in flea markets, on street corner tables, even in local
retail stores. The copying and trafficking of pirated music is an increasingly sophisticated
trade plied by savvy multi-state criminal operations that distribute illegal product designed to
resemble

authentic

CDs

and

replace

legitimate

sales.

But what is the crime? Why is this important? Who gets hurt? The answers are simple. The
crime is theft. If music is important to you, then this is an important crime. And everyone
who

makes,

enjoys

or

earns

living

in

music

is

hurt.

Think about it: the makers of fake products dont pay the songwriter, the musician, or the
recording studio costs. They dont develop new artists or finance the promotion or the
marketing of new music. Music pirates arent in the music business, they are in the plastics
business. They buy and sell plastic and get consumers to pay them 10 to 20 times their cost
for

blank

disc

by

simply

loading

that

plastic

up

with

stolen

music.

We also know that not only music creators and fans are impacted by theft of music but so too
are taxpayers. One credible study by the Institute for Policy Innovation pegs music piracys
ANNUAL harm at $12.5 billion dollars in losses to the U.S. economy as well as more than
70,000

lost

jobs

and

$2

billion

in

lost

wages

to

American

workers.

In short: legitimate sales are being replaced by sales of counterfeit goods, and the people who
create, package and legally sell music are paying the price. The damage is real and
demonstrable and undercuts the economic foundation of the most creative and vibrant music
industry

in

the

world.

We are fortunate to have federal, state and local law enforcement working tirelessly to
combat street piracy a problem that costs local economies millions of dollars in tax revenue
and is frequently tied to other criminal activities. Each year, hundreds of law enforcement
departments across the country engage in thousands of anti-piracy actions. Yet the
sophisticated, multi-state operations of todays pirate trade demand even greater awareness
and action across the board from us, our partners in the music community, law enforcement
and

music

fans.

When consumers buy the real thing, everyone wins not only the fan who bought a high-

quality CD, but also the enormous cast of industry players working behind the scenes to bring
music to your ears. That cast includes songwriters, recording artists, audio engineers,
computer technicians, talent scouts and marketing specialists, producers, publishers and
everyone else involved in making music.

The basic law of copyright in Malaysia is under the Copyright Act 1987 which came into
force on 1 December 1987. The law has undergone various significant updates since then,
with amendments to the Act taking effect in 1990, 1999, 2000 and 2003.[1]

You might also like