I refer to the two letters written by Mr Ngiam Shih Tung (ST, Aug 26 and 31) and the letter by Mr Pang Khang Chau from the Ministry of Law (ST, Aug 28).

Mr Ngiam appears to be under the impression that Singapore copyright owners have no recourse against infringing websites hosted outside Singapore because they are not subject to our recently amended Copyright Act.

Singapore is a member of the World Trade Organisation and is thus a party to the multilateral Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the Trips agreement).

We also acceded to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works on Sept 21 last year. Under these two international agreements, works first published in Singapore or created by Singaporeans are now entitled to copyright protection in over 100 countries which are WTO members or are signatories to the Berne Convention and vice versa.

Thus, a Singapore copyright owner can avail himself to the protection of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) against infringing websites in the US since the US is a WTO member and a Berne Convention signatory.

I do, however, agree with Mr Ngiam that the recent amendments to our Copyright Act, in giving "special protection" to network service providers, may have tilted the balance too much in favour of copyright owners.

For example, if a Singapore copyright owner finds that a US website is infringing his copyright, he may submit a notification of claimed infringement under the DMCA to the service provider hosting the site.

The service provider is protected from liability if it promptly removes or blocks access to the alleged infringing material and informs the website owner about it.

To guard against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent notifications, the DMCA gives the US website owner the right to file a counter notification. The service provider must then restore the material within 10 to 14 business days unless the Singapore copyright owner files an action seeking a court order.

Thus under US law, the copyright owner still has to initiate legal action and prove copyright infringement in court.

On the other hand, if a US copyright owner finds that a Singapore website is infringing his copyright, he can lodge a statutory declaration of infringement under our amended Copyright Act with the service provider hosting the site.

Although Mr Pang pointed out that the service provider is "not compelled by law to remove the materials", the service provider will be ignoring the statutory declaration at its peril as it will then be given the "special protection" from liability under the amended Copyright Act.

So the service provider removes or disables access to alleged infringing materials after receiving a statutory declaration of infringement from a US copyright owner.

Where does that leave the local website owner?

Unlike in the DMCA, there seems to be no provision in the amended Copyright Act for the local website owner to file a counter statutory declaration to challenge the allegation of copyright infringement.

Mr Pang also states that making a false statutory declaration is an offence and that "a person who has his materials removed by a network service provider because of a false declaration can also seek compensation from the declarant in a civil action".

First, it is not clear from the amended Copyright Act whether it is the police or the aggrieved website owner who will prosecute for any false statutory declaration, bearing in mind that the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Second, Mr Pang seems to suggest that the aggrieved website owner now has to initiate legal action to disprove copyright infringement in court before he can obtain compensation from the copyright owner for the removal of or disabling of access to his website or even before he can restore his website.

To address Mr Ngiam's concerns and to correct this apparent tilt in favour of the copyright owner, may I suggest that safeguards be prescribed in subsidiary legislation to require the copyright owner to state in his statutory declaration of infringement that: