It is a widespread phenomenon that online platforms which enable users to upload copyright-protected content use software-based tools that automatically identify and restrict copyright-infringing user uploads based on algorithms – so-called upload filters. The European Union is currently at the forefront of the development to govern upload filters through legislation, both with regard to requiring platforms to filter infringing content (Art 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market) and with regard to mitigating risks of automated filtering (especially through the newly adopted Digital Services Act). Against this background, this article analyses the European approach to algorithmic enforcement of copyright and compares it with the situation in the United States. After laying out the legal foundations from which the necessity to engage in algorithmic enforcement results, this article focuses particularly on legal approaches to avoiding the restriction of permissible content (“overblocking”).

The defence of qualified privilege has developed in the defamation law of many countries that share English legal heritage. Malaysian cases have applied, in particular, English or Australian developments in qualified privilege. However, Malaysian judgments have not engaged in a close analysis of how the foreign changes arise under Malaysian law. This article explains how the Australian developments appear difficult to apply within the Malaysian context, while the English developments offer a clear avenue for Malaysian defamation law's modernisation. The key reason for this is the way in which the English Reynolds privilege can be seen to have its origins, at least in part, within the common law as well as within European human rights standards. The common law aspects of Reynolds, apparent from a wide range of English judicial statements, offer a doctrinal basis for the existing and future application of the Reynolds defence in Malaysian defamation law.

Like Baloo of The Jungle Book, I have been involved in the teaching of law (and more specifically, Company Law) for a long time. Company Law is considered to be an essential subject for all lawyers in Singapore. This is borne out by its inclusion as a compulsory paper in Part A of the Bar Examination conducted by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education ("SILE") for graduates of foreign universities intending to be called to the Bar, even though it is not mandatory in many LLB courses abroad. This short piece is a distillation of my experiences not only as a teacher of law but also as a legal practitioner in both the public and private sector over a period of more than thirty years, as well as a member of the board of directors of several listed and non-listed companies. On the basis of that experience, may I proffer the following thoughts on the teaching of Company Law specifically and on legal_x000D_ teaching generally, in the hope of provoking some reflection and discussion.

This article attempts to identify the conditions necessary for the rational assessment of the causes of insolvency and the formulation and implementation of rescue plans. This framework of discussion facilitates a comparative study of existing insolvency practices and a contextual evaluation of the statutory scheme of judicial management.