Cheat Chun 3/8/26 Cheat Chun 3/8/26

Tuning In: A Business Owner’s Guide to Music Copyright in Malaysia

Image credits to KIRK CAMERON @psarahtonen

Music is more than just background noise; it creates a welcoming atmosphere that enhances themed décor and harmonizes the overall customer experience. In a competitive market, the right playlist can significantly increase customer loyalty and encourage repeat business by providing a relaxing backdrop. However, simply hitting "play" in a commercial space isn't as simple as it seems.

In Malaysia, playing music in public and commercial spaces is governed primarily by the Copyright Act 1987. Playing copyrighted tracks without the proper authority is illegal, and non-compliance can lead to severe legal consequences.

Understanding Music Licensing

Music licensing is the legal process that grants businesses the authority to use copyrighted works in a public or commercial setting. This process ensures that everyone involved in creating a song is fairly compensated for the public performance of their work. This includes:

Songwriters
Composers
Performers
Recording Companies

To stay compliant, businesses must identify and approach the relevant performing rights organizations based on their specific music usage and objectives:

Music Authors’ Copyright Protection (MACP): Represents the creators of the musical compositions and lyrics, specifically music usage and objectives.
Public Performance Malaysia (PPM): Represents performers, such as vocalists and musicians, and deals with the public performance rights of sound recordings.
Recording Performers Malaysia (RPM): Represents the interests of record labels.

Choosing the Right License

Not all music use is the same, and the type of license you need depends on your business goals. Most establishments will require one of the following:

Public Performance License: This is mandatory whenever music is played or performed in a public space that goes beyond a strictly personal, non-commercial atmosphere.
Synchronisation License: Often called a "sync" license, this is crucial for businesses that intend to integrate copyrighted music with visual elements, such as using background music in promotional videos or soundtracks in commercials.

The application process typically involves providing details about your premises, the nature of your business, and exactly how the music will be used. Fees are then calculated based on factors such as venue size, audience capacity, and the duration of the license.

The Exceptions: Schools and NGOs

While the law is strict, there are limited "free passes" where a license may not be required.

Educational Institutions

Schools and education institutions are generally exempt if the performance is purely for educational purposes and the audience is limited to students, staff, and people directly connected to school activities. Section 13(2)(f) allows for the inclusion of copyrighted work for teaching purposes, provided it is compatible with fair practice and does not harm the owner's market. However, there is a specific restriction regarding examinations: you cannot provide a student with a photocopied or scanned copy of an entire song for them to perform during an exam.

Non-Profit Organizations (NGOs)

NGOs often look for exceptions under Section 13(2)(k), but you only qualify for this "free pass" if you meet three conditions simultaneously:

The event is organised by a registered non-profit club or institution.
The purpose of the performance is strictly for charity or education.
Absolutely no admission fee or ‘contribution fee’ is charged to the audience.

If your event involves any kind of fee—even for fundraising—the creators are legally entitled to their royalty because you are using their work to raise that money. In these cases, NGOs should apply for a "Single Event License" unless they are using music that is specifically royalty-free or in the public domain.

A Note on the Public Domain

If you want to avoid licensing fees entirely, you can look for works in the public domain. These are creative works that are no longer protected by copyright law. In Malaysia, works generally enter the public domain once their protection period expires, which is typically 50 years.

Cheat Chun 2/15/26 Cheat Chun 2/15/26

US CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY AND LGBTQ RIGHTS : Lessons from Lawrence v Texas

*‘The 6-Color Pride Flag is one of the most well-known and used LGBT flags throughout history. This flag includes the colors red, orange, yellow, green, indigo, and violet on it.’*
Red represents life; orange represents healing; yellow represents sunlight; green represents nature; the indigo/blue is for serenity while the last color; purple/violent represents spirit and is often thought as a royal color that, denotes pride.

Lawrence v. Texas stands as a pivotal moment in modern U.S. constitutional law, particularly in the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights. Decided in 2003, the case ended the criminalisation of consensual same-sex intimacy and marked a clear departure from the Supreme Court’s earlier willingness to uphold morality-based legislation. Its importance lies less in dramatic language and more in its quiet but decisive rejection of state intrusion into private life.

The case arose after police officers in Houston, Texas, responding to a false report, entered the apartment of John Lawrence and found him with Tyron Garner, engaging in private, consensual sexual activity. They were arrested under a Texas statute that criminalised “deviate sexual intercourse” between persons of the same sex, while identical conduct between opposite-sex couples remained legal. After being convicted and fined, Lawrence and Garner challenged the law on constitutional grounds, with representation from Lambda Legal, arguing that the statute violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Before the Supreme Court, Texas argued that the statute reflected longstanding moral traditions and that no protected constitutional liberty was involved. The challengers contended that the law violated the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by criminalising private, consensual conduct between adults. On June 26, 2003, the Court issued a 6–3 decision in favor of Lawrence and Garner. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that adults have a protected liberty interest in private, intimate conduct and that the state has no legitimate interest in regulating private relationships simply to enforce moral disapproval.

Crucially, the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), acknowledging that the earlier decision had misunderstood both history and the scope of constitutional liberty. Rather than framing the issue narrowly, the Court spoke in broader terms about autonomy, dignity, and the right to define one’s personal relationships without government interference. Although the ruling rested on substantive due process, the Court also highlighted that the Texas law targeted same-sex couples alone, reinforcing its discriminatory character.

The significance of Lawrence v. Texas extends far beyond decriminalisation. By removing the legal stigma attached to same-sex intimacy, the decision undermined justifications for broader forms of exclusion and discrimination. Subsequent cases, including United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, relied on the dignity-based reasoning articulated in Lawrence. In this sense, the case laid the constitutional groundwork for the recognition of LGBTQ equality in U.S. law. Even today, Lawrence remains essential for understanding how the Supreme Court balances liberty, privacy, and equality in the modern era.

Sources/References :

Cornell Law School : https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/539/558

Cheat Chun 2/1/26 Cheat Chun 2/1/26

Can You Avoid Bankruptcy with Partial Payments IN MALAYSIA?

Title: Can Partial Payments Beat Bankruptcy in Malaysia? What Recent Cases Reveal

Introduction
In Malaysian insolvency law, it’s not uncommon for judgment debtors to attempt strategic payments to avoid bankruptcy. But can paying part of a judgment debt actually prevent a bankruptcy order? Recent cases suggest the answer is a resounding no. Let’s explore the legal principles through two notable cases: MAM Teguh Sdn Bhd v Azmi Ariffin [2023] and Re Wan Su Yi; ex parte Kai Plato Restaurant Sdn Bhd [2021].

Partial Payments Won’t Always Save You
In MAM Teguh Sdn Bhd v Azmi Ariffin [2023], the judgment debtor (JD) transferred RM9,000 to the judgment creditor’s (JC) account to reduce the claim below the statutory RM100,000 threshold. The JD argued that this payment should prevent a bankruptcy order.

The Court disagreed. It emphasized that the payment was strategic, not bona fide:

“This Court is of the opinion that the Judiciary must not be treated as a fool, and the court must not be manipulated dishonestly. The Court is vested with discretion, and shall exercise the discretion in allowing Creditor’s Petition to be granted Bankruptcy Order despite the amount has been reduced below the minimum threshold of bankruptcy.”

Key takeaway: Partial or tactical payments are insufficient to demonstrate solvency. Courts require genuine settlement of the debt to block bankruptcy proceedings.

Even Small Payments After a Bankruptcy Notice Don’t Help
The second case, Re Wan Su Yi; ex parte Kai Plato Restaurant Sdn Bhd [2021], confirms this principle. The JD made two small payments totaling RM8,000 after a Bankruptcy Notice (BN) had been served for a debt exceeding RM545,000.

The Court rejected the attempt to rely on these payments to avoid bankruptcy, noting that:

The payments were unilateral and without the creditor’s consent.
They represented only 1.46% of the judgment debt—far too small to prove solvency.
Relying on such partial payments would constitute an abuse of court process.

The Court emphasized that solvency must be demonstrated by the ability to settle the debt in full, not by small or tactical reductions.

Harmonized Legal Principle
Both cases reinforce a key principle in Malaysian bankruptcy law:

Partial payments made after the service of a Bankruptcy Notice cannot prevent bankruptcy proceedings, especially if the remaining debt exceeds the statutory threshold. If the debt drops below the threshold due to partial payment, the debtor’s intention is critical. Surreptitious attempts to manipulate the court will not succeed.

This principle ensures that the judiciary is not misled by tactical maneuvers, preserving the integrity of bankruptcy enforcement.

Conclusion
Malaysian courts are clear: you can’t dodge bankruptcy with partial payments alone. Courts will examine the debtor’s intention, the proportion of the debt paid, and whether the payment genuinely settles the debt. Attempting to manipulate the process is likely to be treated as an abuse of court discretion, ensuring creditors can enforce judgments fairly.

For judgment debtors considering partial payments to escape bankruptcy, the law is unambiguous: paying a small portion isn’t enough—intention and solvency matter.