cheesecake is not from TNP. stop it leh.
you're misunderstanding. I said tell that to Cheesecake and TNP as separate entities not as one entity.
Odex Directors wanna sue anime downloaders in Singapore.
- Thread starter FooFighter
- Start date
- Status
you're misunderstanding. I said tell that to Cheesecake and TNP as separate entities not as one entity.
even worse paper. Unless you're from MIB! :bsmilie:
Cheesecake
Senior Member
Cheesecake
Senior Member
Cheesecake
Senior Member
glennyong
Senior Member
cannot challenge me one la... drink more drink more drink more !!!
give that man a Tiger ! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
glennyong
Senior Member
i actually shoot for nat geo. :bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
(o.o)y
i tot playboy ? :sticktong
centuryegg
New Member
Hey if want to discuss who is from Playboy, hustler or TNP kindly open new thread..... dont OT leh....
Legally they have a case.
But can they enforce it?
At what cost?
Destroying their own market?
Antagonising their customers & potential customers?
You know, anime is not rice or bread or noodles.
People CAN live without anime.
If they turn off enough people, then the public will just look for other hobbies or areas of interest.
By then even if they give it free, the people are not interested anymore.
But can they enforce it?
At what cost?
Destroying their own market?
Antagonising their customers & potential customers?
You know, anime is not rice or bread or noodles.
People CAN live without anime.
If they turn off enough people, then the public will just look for other hobbies or areas of interest.
By then even if they give it free, the people are not interested anymore.
so by then the firm just die out and the anime will go thru a renaisance in sg.
BBTM
Senior Member
My Own View.
Some time I feel why downloading consider illegal???
Why I say so? It is because sharing of the video is not hacking into their main server and steal the content.
If we don't have internet, we will still pass the disc (music, movie etc...) ard by the old way and therefore, we still consider illegal trading? :dunno: If let's say I know a person from other country, he got this CD, I ask him to copy and send to me and will this consider illegal?
Now, we paying for internet, which same as mailing. We got the program, we share the files, any thing wrong? If the person not willing to share, he wouldn't and no one gets it. Therefore, those who dl shouldn't be sue, those who share should be if it is illegal. But those who share out their files, they MIGHT have the rights since they brought the copy.
This kind of law teaches us one thing. DONT donate! It is because you are sharing your own money and you can be SUE!!! Why can we share our money but not those files? We are not stealing, we just sharing. But in the end, law is law, damn stupid laws. :thumbsd:
So, downloading is not illegal as long the person don't share. Ask the judge, where does the source from? We steal or share?
Some time I feel why downloading consider illegal???
Why I say so? It is because sharing of the video is not hacking into their main server and steal the content.
If we don't have internet, we will still pass the disc (music, movie etc...) ard by the old way and therefore, we still consider illegal trading? :dunno: If let's say I know a person from other country, he got this CD, I ask him to copy and send to me and will this consider illegal?
Now, we paying for internet, which same as mailing. We got the program, we share the files, any thing wrong? If the person not willing to share, he wouldn't and no one gets it. Therefore, those who dl shouldn't be sue, those who share should be if it is illegal. But those who share out their files, they MIGHT have the rights since they brought the copy.
This kind of law teaches us one thing. DONT donate! It is because you are sharing your own money and you can be SUE!!! Why can we share our money but not those files? We are not stealing, we just sharing. But in the end, law is law, damn stupid laws. :thumbsd:
So, downloading is not illegal as long the person don't share. Ask the judge, where does the source from? We steal or share?
My Own View.
Some time I feel why downloading consider illegal???
Why I say so? It is because sharing of the video is not hacking into their main server and steal the content.
If we don't have internet, we will still pass the disc (music, movie etc...) ard by the old way and therefore, we still consider illegal trading? :dunno: If let's say I know a person from other country, he got this CD, I ask him to copy and send to me and will this consider illegal?
Now, we paying for internet, which same as mailing. We got the program, we share the files, any thing wrong? If the person not willing to share, he wouldn't and no one gets it. Therefore, those who dl shouldn't be sue, those who share should be if it is illegal. But those who share out their files, they MIGHT have the rights since they brought the copy.
This kind of law teaches us one thing. DONT donate! It is because you are sharing your own money and you can be SUE!!! Why can we share our money but not those files? We are not stealing, we just sharing. But in the end, law is law, damn stupid laws. :thumbsd:
So, downloading is not illegal as long the person don't share. Ask the judge, where does the source from? We steal or share?
"Sharing" of copyrighted material might not involve hacking into servers and "stealing" content - but that does not make it legal to do so. Intangible property, such as copyrighted materials, cannot be stolen in the traditional sense, as the copyright holder is not deprived of his property - unlike tangibles, where stealing the item in question will deprive the owner the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. So how does one enjoy his copyrighted material - through legal actions.
Whether an act is illegal, depends on whether the law provides that such acts are illegal if carried out. Laws which define certain acts as illegal are enacted to protect the rights of owners of intangible property, which in the absence thereof he cannot enjoy the property he owns. For copyrighted materials, the Copyright Act, for instance, sets out various acts, which will constitute an offence when carried out. It is not up to us to decide whether an act is illegal or otherwise. We may argue whether an act is morally wrong or not - however, the law is largely not concerned with morality, even though many laws are grounded on moral concerns.
For arguments sake, let's assume that under the law, the simple act of reproducing copyrighted materials without licence from the copyright holder is illegal. If so, the so called "old way" of making copies is still an illegal act, except that the person who commits the act would not be the recipient, since it would be the holder of the "original" copy who makes the copy.
Where downloading is concerned, the scenario is different. The illegal act, again, is the reproduction of copyright materials. In the case of downloads, the reproduction is carried out by the downloader (whose computer makes a copy and stores the same).
Has the uploader also committed an offence? Perhaps, as the law also prohibits the distribution of copyrighted materials without licence. However, as you rightly point out, those who share out their copies might have the right to do so. This will depend on what rights they have acquired in the copyright materials. When we "purchase" copyright materials, we are actually acquiring a licence to use the materials subject to the terms set out in the licence. We do not own the copyright unless such right is assigned (and not licensed)to us. In normal transactions, materials we obtain on DVD/CDs are licenced to us, subject to strict terms prohibiting their reproduction and distribution.
Donating money you obtained legally is not illegal, and you cannot be sued. Similarly, if you are the owner of a copyright material, for instance, a photograph you took, it is not illegal for you to "share" it by reproduction and distribution. However "sharing" money you stole is not legal, just like "sharing" copyrighted materials of which you have no licence to reproduce or distribute.
xtemujin
Senior Member
Aug 23, 2007
Odex saga: PacNet does not have to reveal names
ANIME distributer Odex has lost a court bid to force Pacific Internet to reveal names of subscribers who allegedly downloaded pirated versions of the Japanese cartoons.
The Subordinate Court handed down its decision in chambers on Thursday and no details were made public.
Pacific Internet (PacNet), which opposed the Odex action, would only say that it 'respects the rights of intellectual property owners and at the same time, also believes in protecting the privacy of all our subscribers'.
The Straits Times understands one reason for District Judge Ernest Lau's decision is that he believes Odex was not the right party to make the application, despite having the go-ahead to prosecute on the behalf of the Japanese anime studios.
Odex is demanding the names of up to 1000 PacNet downloaders.
A company spokesman said it will consult the rights owners before making its next move but it was likely to appeal. It has 14 days to do so.
The ruling on Thursday came as a surprise given that Odex had successfully obtained Court orders to get SingNet and StarHub to reveal names of their downloaders.
Different judges ruled on those cases, and both internet service providers declined to say what arguments they presented in court.
In light of the PacNet decision, a StarHub spokesman said on Thursday that it's 'assessing our options ...given the different decisions rendered by the court'. But the deadline for lodging an appeal has expired for StarHub and SingTel.
Read the full report in Friday's edition of The Straits Times.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/STIStory_151108.html
Odex saga: PacNet does not have to reveal names
ANIME distributer Odex has lost a court bid to force Pacific Internet to reveal names of subscribers who allegedly downloaded pirated versions of the Japanese cartoons.
The Subordinate Court handed down its decision in chambers on Thursday and no details were made public.
Pacific Internet (PacNet), which opposed the Odex action, would only say that it 'respects the rights of intellectual property owners and at the same time, also believes in protecting the privacy of all our subscribers'.
The Straits Times understands one reason for District Judge Ernest Lau's decision is that he believes Odex was not the right party to make the application, despite having the go-ahead to prosecute on the behalf of the Japanese anime studios.
Odex is demanding the names of up to 1000 PacNet downloaders.
A company spokesman said it will consult the rights owners before making its next move but it was likely to appeal. It has 14 days to do so.
The ruling on Thursday came as a surprise given that Odex had successfully obtained Court orders to get SingNet and StarHub to reveal names of their downloaders.
Different judges ruled on those cases, and both internet service providers declined to say what arguments they presented in court.
In light of the PacNet decision, a StarHub spokesman said on Thursday that it's 'assessing our options ...given the different decisions rendered by the court'. But the deadline for lodging an appeal has expired for StarHub and SingTel.
Read the full report in Friday's edition of The Straits Times.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/STIStory_151108.html
huh? how come PAcNet succeed where starhub and singtel didn? I wonder if this will mean that there will be alot of people who will switch to pacnet.
Static
New Member
I tink i will pull another Pacnet line in.I consider that as my "private" line :thumbsup:
http://www.riuva.com/?p=686
Peter Go's dream of a utopia anime scene in singapore. Eikin i think you'll like this.
Peter Go's dream of a utopia anime scene in singapore. Eikin i think you'll like this.
was reading some links. so just delete all the stuffs u downloaded (anime, porn, whatever) from your pc / or even format n u safe? ISP addy is all Odex got to sue?
anyway who they gonna sue.. say the contract between starhub and user is between the starhub and parent(s) but its the 13 year old kid who downloaded those anime. so who they gonna sue again? can the parent(s) say they have no idea that their kid downloaded illegally (very true, most parents dont care and dont know, so long it's not porn i think). so Odex has to sue the parents or the kids? but again most kids are protected by the minor law :nono:
ive always wondered... why Odex demanded 1000 * 3 = 3000 names. they have a quota to meet ? $$$$V :sweatsm:
anyway who they gonna sue.. say the contract between starhub and user is between the starhub and parent(s) but its the 13 year old kid who downloaded those anime. so who they gonna sue again? can the parent(s) say they have no idea that their kid downloaded illegally (very true, most parents dont care and dont know, so long it's not porn i think). so Odex has to sue the parents or the kids? but again most kids are protected by the minor law :nono:
ive always wondered... why Odex demanded 1000 * 3 = 3000 names. they have a quota to meet ? $$$$V :sweatsm:
ive always wondered if people would actually sue back Singnet or Starhub for intrusion of users' privacy :bsmilie:
:bsmilie: i can tell you that those 2 hotlines will be jammed with complaints now
- Status
Similar threads
