Reconceptualization of Property in the Era of Digitalization: an Analysis of the Malaysian Anti-Fake News Bill 2018

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract

    Fake news has dominated the social media. In response, the Malaysian Anti-Fake News Bill has been passed swiftly and it brought about awareness as well as other issues like the spread of unverified news and information. Clause 6 of the Bill imposes a duty on the person who is found in ‘possession’ of fake news or such publication that contains fake news. However, the word ‘possession’ is not defined. The objective of this paper is to critically examine the appropriate meaning of ‘possession’ under Clause 6. News in the era of digitalisation is essentially made out of information and digital resources intangible, transferable, shareable and non-exhaustive.  The notion of possession which derived from the traditional concept of property is not applicable to the unique nature of ‘news’ in digital form. There is a need for a reconceptualization of property and the notion of ‘possession’. Such new concept of property should not only describe ‘property’ as things but rather as ‘rights’. The meaning of ‘possession’ should refer to owner’s control, dominance and influence over news and information. This paper further examines how the new notion of possession ought to be applied in the context of Malaysian Anti-Fake News laws.



  • Keywords

    Fake news; possession; property.

  • References

      [1] Sweney, Mark. (2015). Newspapers now the least popular medium for news, says Ofcom study, The Guardian. Retrieved from

      [2] Anna Sophine Kumpel, Veronika Karnowski and Till Keyling. (2015). News Sharing in Social Media: A Review of Current Research on News Sharing Users, Content and Networks, . SAGE, Social Media + Society, July-December 2015 – 1 -14(July-December 2015 – 1 -14)

      [3] Resnick, Brian. (2018). False news stories travel faster and farther on Twitter than the truth. Retrieved 20/04, from Vox

      [4] Muthusubbarayan, Mahasweta. (2018). Fake news: What countries around the world are doing to combat the epidemic

      [5] Ungku, Fathin. (2018). Singapore starts landmark public hearing on fake news. Reuters.

      [6] Germany: Flawed Social Media Law. (2018). from Human Right Watch

      [7] Sagers C., 37–78. (2007). The Myth of “Privatization.” Administrative Law Review( 59/2007), 37-78.

      [8] Lili, Ma Minhu & Zhao. (2011). Dilemma and Approaches of Intellectual Property Rights in the Integration of Industralisation and Informatisation in China. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, p277.

      [9] King, Kelvin, & ). The Value of Intellectual Property, Intangible Assets and Goodwill Retrieved 20/04, 2018, from

      [10] Amos Witztum, Economic and Philosophy (2005). Property Rights and the Right to the Fruit of One’s Labour: A note on Adam Smith’s Jurisprudence, . (21 (2):279-289 )

      [11] Thomas W. Merrill, Henry E. Smith. (2007). Law and Morality: Property Law: The Morality of Property. 48 Wm and Mary L. Rev.(April ), 1849.

      [12] Tigar, Michael E. (1984). Symposium: A Critique of Rights: The Right of Property and the Law of Theft,. Tex. Rev. , 62 1443.

      [13] Katz, Larissa. (2008). Exclusion and Exclusivity in Property Law. University of Toronto Journal, 58, p296.

      [14] Claeys, Eric R. (2008). Exclusion and Exclusivity in Gridlock, Review Essay of Michael Heller, The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovations, and Costs Lives, New York: Basic Books, .

      [15] Wilson, James. (2009). On the Value of the Intellectual Commons. Paper presented at the Philosophy and Intellectual Property Rights Conference, London.

      [16] Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V. and Bishop, R.C, . (1975). Common Property as a Concept in Natural Resource Policy, . Natural Resources Journal, 15, 713-727.

      [17] Bromley, Daniel W. (1991). Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy. Cambridge: Blackwell Pub.

      [18] Sameulson, Paul A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics (36), 387-389

      [19] Kahn, Arnold D. (1962). Double Jeopardy, Multiple Prosecution, and Multiple Punishment: A Comparative Analysis,. Cal. L. Rev. , 50, 853.




Article ID: 17600
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i3.25.17600

Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.