Odex Directors wanna sue anime downloaders in Singapore.
- Thread starter FooFighter
- Start date
- Status
Not copying la - I see it as returning the favour. ;p
glennyong
Senior Member
never say pay hw much ?
they only demand $ after you meet with them the first time coz they say must calculate how much you cost them. sounds fishy right?
Check this out.
aiya i posted already a few pages ago. maybe we should just beat a dead horse lol
Oops, paisey paisey hehe ;p
Odex-PacNet ruling may set online privacy precedent
ANIME distributor Odex's failed bid to win a court order forcing Pacific Internet to disclose the names of alleged illegal downloaders may have set an important precedent in the area of Internet privacy.
District Judge Ernest Lau released his judgement to the media on Friday - a rare move in itself - and outlined his reasoning.
He compared a request for an Internet service provider's subscriber information to what is known as an Anton Piller order in the law world.
An Anton Piller order allows the plaintiff to enter someone else's premises, halt all activities, make a search - for days if necessary - and then seize all incriminating evidence found.
Because of its 'draconian' nature, such orders are only granted when the plaintiff can prove it had an 'extremely strong prima facie case of a civil cause of action', wrote Judge Lau.
He said he required a similar standard of proof in the Odex case to protect the 'public interest'.
Service providers like Pacific Internet (Pacnet), he wrote, owe it to both their customers and regulators to protect subscriber information. Singapore has no privacy law as such.
Odex, said Judge Lau, failed on two counts.
Only copyright owners - that is, the studios that made the anime - or an 'exclusive licensee' for the anime being downloaded, can take legal action under the Singapore Copyright Act.
Odex is a sub-licensee and had letters from rights owners authorising it to take action on their behalf, but the firm was neither a copyright owner or an 'exclusive licensee'.
An exclusive licensee has the sole right to distribute a product in a certain market.
Judge Lau added that he was not wholly satisfied with Odex's explanation of how it identified the downloaders.
Read the full report in Saturday's edition of The Straits Times.
Judge Ernest Lau just became the hero of many people here.
ANIME distributor Odex's failed bid to win a court order forcing Pacific Internet to disclose the names of alleged illegal downloaders may have set an important precedent in the area of Internet privacy.
District Judge Ernest Lau released his judgement to the media on Friday - a rare move in itself - and outlined his reasoning.
He compared a request for an Internet service provider's subscriber information to what is known as an Anton Piller order in the law world.
An Anton Piller order allows the plaintiff to enter someone else's premises, halt all activities, make a search - for days if necessary - and then seize all incriminating evidence found.
Because of its 'draconian' nature, such orders are only granted when the plaintiff can prove it had an 'extremely strong prima facie case of a civil cause of action', wrote Judge Lau.
He said he required a similar standard of proof in the Odex case to protect the 'public interest'.
Service providers like Pacific Internet (Pacnet), he wrote, owe it to both their customers and regulators to protect subscriber information. Singapore has no privacy law as such.
Odex, said Judge Lau, failed on two counts.
Only copyright owners - that is, the studios that made the anime - or an 'exclusive licensee' for the anime being downloaded, can take legal action under the Singapore Copyright Act.
Odex is a sub-licensee and had letters from rights owners authorising it to take action on their behalf, but the firm was neither a copyright owner or an 'exclusive licensee'.
An exclusive licensee has the sole right to distribute a product in a certain market.
Judge Lau added that he was not wholly satisfied with Odex's explanation of how it identified the downloaders.
Read the full report in Saturday's edition of The Straits Times.
Judge Ernest Lau just became the hero of many people here.
SingNet consented, StarHub had other arguments
AN extremely rare legal move on Friday has cast some light on how the anime-distributor Odex was able to obtain court orders against SingNet and StarHub but not Pacific Internet.
All three cases were heard 'in chambers' at the Subordinate Courts by different judges and these proceedings are rarely made public.
But District Judge Ernest Lau released a 14-page written judgement on Friday explaining the ruling he handed down on Thursday in Odex's case against PacNet.
Odex had demanded that the three internet service providers supply the names of subscribers who had been illegaly downloading content from Odex's anime site.
It won orders against SingNet in May and StarHub earlier this month, but Judge Lau turned down its request for an order against PacNet on Thursday.
He noted that 'for the SingNet case, the orders were made by consent'.
A lawyer familiar with such proceedings said this means during the run-up to the hearing, SingNet had written to Odex to 'consent' to its request.
Odex's lawyers, Rajah & Tann, presented this note at the hearing. Judge Lau also noted that SingNet's lawyers did not attend the hearing.
AN extremely rare legal move on Friday has cast some light on how the anime-distributor Odex was able to obtain court orders against SingNet and StarHub but not Pacific Internet.
All three cases were heard 'in chambers' at the Subordinate Courts by different judges and these proceedings are rarely made public.
But District Judge Ernest Lau released a 14-page written judgement on Friday explaining the ruling he handed down on Thursday in Odex's case against PacNet.
Odex had demanded that the three internet service providers supply the names of subscribers who had been illegaly downloading content from Odex's anime site.
It won orders against SingNet in May and StarHub earlier this month, but Judge Lau turned down its request for an order against PacNet on Thursday.
He noted that 'for the SingNet case, the orders were made by consent'.
A lawyer familiar with such proceedings said this means during the run-up to the hearing, SingNet had written to Odex to 'consent' to its request.
Odex's lawyers, Rajah & Tann, presented this note at the hearing. Judge Lau also noted that SingNet's lawyers did not attend the hearing.
Gamesmart? seems like it
Oh mama. Ernest, the Internet World Loves You. :lovegrin:
if he run for any office i vote for him!:lovegrin:
i think singnet has lost alot of customers...starhub too if they don't produce satisfactory answer.
Here's the ACRA info about Gamesmart and Odex if anyone is interested...notice the 2 same names and NRIC #?
http://www.nowhere.per.sg/local/gamesmart.pdf
http://www.nowhere.per.sg/local/odex.pdf
http://www.nowhere.per.sg/local/gamesmart.pdf
http://www.nowhere.per.sg/local/odex.pdf
glennyong
Senior Member
yah.. both owned by Sing and Ho,
i know... saw that on hwz already...
btw, pacman's internet very louya ok.... accept for the privacy part.
andd..
well..... i think very soon, there will be a couple of law cases going straight into odex's office....
and i mean VERY SOON...
i know... saw that on hwz already...
btw, pacman's internet very louya ok.... accept for the privacy part.
andd..
well..... i think very soon, there will be a couple of law cases going straight into odex's office....
and i mean VERY SOON...
- Status
Similar threads
