Odex may bring an action for infringement if they are the exclusive licencee of the anime titles. For criminal offences, only the public prosecutor may press charges for an offence.
defense for pple sued by odex?
- Thread starter cosycatus
- Start date
- Status
Odex may bring an action for infringement if they are the exclusive licencee of the anime titles. For criminal offences, only the public prosecutor may press charges for an offence.
But don't you think its to their deteriment if the PP gets involved? Then they will not be able to collect the money owed to them.
Civil and criminal cases can go hand in hand. Any fines imposed in a criminal case will not be distributed to Odex. However, Odex can proceed with a civil case, even if a downloader has been found guilty of an offence. It may be detrimental to Odex to the extent that the offender may not have the resources to pay both the penalty and the damanges.
Nonetheless, it is not Odex's call whether the a charge should be made against offenders. That is the discretion of the PP.
I understand that AVPS is not a legal entity, therefore if a director is running or managing AVPS, it would be a matter of personal interest.
A director of Odex must discharge its fiduciary duties in relation to Odex. If his personal interest is in conflict with Odex's, he must disclose the conflict to Odex. However, I don't see any immediate or inherent conflict of interest by a director occupying the office of directorship in Odex and running AVPS.
that's what i meant, if its their intent to make $$$ from this wouldn't it bad to get the pp involved coz then the gov will get the money from the fines and odex gets nothing.
Not exactly. You cannot be charged for a same offence twice, nor can someone bring a same civil action against you twice.
But criminal and civil actions are mutually exclusive - for instance, the NKF case where the director was charged and NKF brought a civil claim against the director for damages caused.
well if that's the case shouldn't he be going after all downloaders instead of just anime downloaders if that's his function within AVPS...isn't only going after people who "hurt" his company contridictory to what AVPS is supposed to do and thus conflict of interest?
Yah I agree, but that's not Odex's call. So far, I understand no criminal action is being brought against the downloaders.
Without further details, I'm not even sure if the what the downloaders did would constitute an offence. If you look at the Copyright Act (section 136), there are a bunch of other elements that need to be present before an offence is committed.
that's why i keep saying that what they're doing is myopic not just in a business sense. They're running a huge risk if one of their victims counter sues and wins because that would set a legal precedent.
That may be true if AVPS is a legal entity, but would also depend on the position he occupies in the AVPS entity. Anyway, if AVPS is not a legal entity, who does the director owe the duty to go after all downloaders? Is there a contract with all copyright holders gathered under the AVPS with the director whereby the director has an obligation to seek legal redress on their behalf? If not, the director owes no duty to anyone but himself. And as I said earlier, he must make sure his personal interest does not conflict with the duties of Odex. Currently, I don't see anything that has been done that is against the interest of Odex.
And I believe that Odex is making claims in its own capacity?
yes Odex is making claims, but it's confusing what kind of claims. they throw big words like copyright infringement and such around. which is why i can't differentiate between AVPAS and Odex anymore, if there's any conflict of interest, Odex should be going after illegal distributors, maybe in the pasar malams, not running after little kids and their parents
I believe the AVPS is meant to be a public body to represent all video distributors here so as a director of it he does have a responsibility to go after all video pirates not just ones that he deems to be hurting his business interests. Odex maybe the ones making the claims but there should be a conflict of interest because he is also sitting on the AVPS and in this case only going after peopel who hurt his...Vince123123 can clarify?
I think it makes sense in so far that they can avoid the hassle of going to court to claim their losses (bearing in mind a law suit may not even guarantee a successful claim). Haven't looked at the letter of undertaking, but signing it it may constitutes an admission of liability by a downloader.
I agree that if people (believing they have a good defence, or that Odex will be unable to prove its case) do not settle the matter out of court, and indeed Odex fails to establish its claim, their present strategy would lose its steam.
But as each case will be tried on its own facts, it may or may not be used a precedent for cases against other downloaders.
is AVPAS a legal entity even? -> http://www.avpas.com.sg/
it's a ''.com.sg'' and not a ''.org.sg'' and definitely not a ''.gov.sg''
You mean as in when a waiter in a restaurant looses a customer's coat and the restaurant owner is made responsible and has to pay for it? I was required to do some business law and am familiar with vicarious liability.
Edit:
You do know that I was making fun of the people who plan to say those words as a line of defence right??
__
Is AVPS a corporate body established under the Companies Act? If not, there is no board by which someone can take the office of a director. If the director of Odex is not a director of AVPS, he does not any duty to AVPS (which does not exist as a separate entity under law).
Nonetheless, he may or may not owe a contractual duty to all the video distributors gathered under AVPS.
maybe that's why it's Odex handling the cases and not AVPAS :think:
but Odex is a distributor, is Odex also the legal representative for copyright owners who supposedly grouped under AVPAS as well? if it is i can understand how they win the case to get ISPs to disclose customer information. if not then there's no reason how they won the case ... sounds fishy ...
- Status
Similar threads
