Under the Internet Class Licence Scheme introduced in 1996, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) can require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to remove offending websites for a variety of reasons even if the owner of the website has not been convicted or charged with any offence relating to that website.
Recent amendments to the Copyright Act ("Copyright Act extended to cyberspace, new media", ST, Aug 18) give even private copyright owners the power to demand the removal of other people's websites without having to go through the courts.
Under the amendments, a copyright owner can demand that an ISP remove a website if he believes that his copyright has been infringed. The purported copyright owner does not need to prove his charges in court or even to show reasonable cause to believe that copyright has been infringed.
All he has to do is to make a statutory declaration that he believes that his copyright has been infringed, and the ISP will have to comply with his demand or face legal action.
While these amendments are intended to promote the Internet industry and encourage creative innovation, I fear that they may well have the opposite effect.
To see why, let us consider Third Voice, an Internet company founded by three Singaporean entrepreneurs and identified by the US magazine Fortune as one of the Cool Companies of 1999. Users of the Third Voice service can write notes regarding other people's websites and view notes written by other users while they browse that website.
The company's stand is that since only the notes are stored on Third Voice servers and they do not make copies of any other websites, their service does not infringe any copyright.
Opponents of Third Voice, however, claim that the notes debase their work and do violate copyright.
This claim has never been tested in court, but if Third Voice's servers were located in Singapore, a disgruntled website owner only has to believe that his copyright has been infringed and he could file a statutory declaration and then demand that the offending notes be removed, or even that Third Voice's website be shut down completely.
Luckily for Third Voice, it is located in Silicon Valley, and so is not threatened by this kind of business risk.
It is not hard to imagine other scenarios where a copyright dispute results in the websites of both sides being removed. If one side is located outside Singapore, however, the Singapore website might get removed but the foreign one would remain untouched because it is not subject to the same regulations.
There is no requirement either that compensation be paid if a website is removed but the accusations of copyright infringement are later proven to be false.
It should be remembered that "copyrights" are actually monopolies given to authors by the state. The justification for these monopolies is that they promote literature, the arts and, recently in Singapore, the knowledge-based economy.
Like all monopolies, they must be monitored carefully to ensure that they do not work against the interests of the public. All human knowledge is built upon a foundation of previous knowledge. Far from promoting creative innovation, the new amendments discourage the creation of new content and serve only to regulate the passive consumption of content created by others.
I urge the Government to delay putting these amendments into effect until a better balance can be achieved between the rights of copyright owners and the public.
NGIAM SHIH TUNG
Originally published in the Straits Times, August 28, 1999.