Odex Directors wanna sue anime downloaders in Singapore.

[furrycake]

Saw this link on another forum, even TalkingCock.com has gotten into the act. Bloody hilarious!

http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article.php?sid=2341&mode=thread&order=0

this is one of the most insightful and best one ive read so far. love it!! hahahahaha!! :thumbsup:

 

[Canonised]

this is one of the most insightful and best one ive read so far. love it!! hahahahaha!! :thumbsup:

young lady, i'll tell your daddy that you are reading tokingcock .....:bsmilie::sweatsm:

 

[furrycake]

young lady, i'll tell your daddy that you are reading tokingcock .....:bsmilie::sweatsm:

im old already.... hehe...tell my daddy? :think:

 

[Hommie]

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/207695.asp

Anime in court: 2 ISPs, 2 different outcomes
Judge's ruling in favour of PacNet against Odex only throws up more questions


Thomas Koshy

IT WAS a case of third time unlucky for Odex in its application to court for a discovery order to find out the names of subscribers who had allegedly downloaded copyright infringing anime off the Internet.
.
After successfully obtaining such orders against SingNet and StarHub, its similar application against Pacific Internet (PacNet) failed last week.
.
Since similar information was sought in presumably similar circumstances against all three Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the natural question that arises is why PacNet succeeded where SingNet and Starhub had failed.
.
More importantly, the decision throws up more questions about the already controversial saga.
.
District Judge Ernest Lau, who decided the PacNet case, explained that the issues raised in the PacNet case were never fully argued in the StarHub case.
.
What he said about the SingNet case was, however, more troubling: "For the SingNet case, the orders were made by consent."
.
This means that SingNet did not even argue against Odex's application for subscriber information. The ISP did not even instruct its lawyers to attend the court hearing of Odex's application.
.
The Telecommunications Competition Code (TCC) prohibits unauthorised release of subscriber information by ISPs.
.
Although the TCC provision may be trumped by a court order, should SingNet not have argued against Odex's application rather than consent to it?
.
If the ISP does not argue for its subscribers' rights to privacy, who will?
.
Without a voice in court, the prohibition in the TCC becomes effectively an empty promise.
.
One also wonders whether SingNet has acted in breach of the spirit of the TCC provision and, if so, whether punitive measures are warranted.
.
So, what were the arguments that PacNet raised, which the other ISPs had not?
.
Essentially, PacNet challenged both Odex's right to make the copyright infringement claims and the reliability of Odex's tracing of copyright infringers.
.
The challenge to Odex's claim was largely successful because Odex was not the copyright owner or exclusive licensee of all but one anime video titled Mobile Suit Gundam Seed. For all the rest, it was a mere sub-licensee and, therefore, not entitled to pursue claims for copyright infringement only copyright owners or exclusive licensees may do so.
.
Accordingly, the court held that Odex had "no civil right of action under the Copyright Act against the persons whom the identities are sought".
.
Copyright infringers should, however, bear in mind that even though Odex may not have the right to pursue such claims, the actual copyright owners or exclusive licensees would have such a right.
.
It was reported that Odex might appeal against the PacNet decision.
.
But what about the enforcement action that Odex has already taken?
.
Should it desist from further pursuing any claims unless it manages to get the PacNet decision reversed?
.
What about the funds that Odex has collected in settlement of its supposed claims? Is Odex obliged to return those funds if the PacNet decision is not overturned on appeal?
.
This brings to the fore another aspect of the Odex case

 

[zcf]

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/207695.asp

Anime in court: 2 ISPs, 2 different outcomes
Judge's ruling in favour of PacNet against Odex only throws up more questions


Thomas Koshy

IT WAS a case of third time unlucky for Odex in its application to court for a discovery order to find out the names of subscribers who had allegedly downloaded copyright infringing anime off the Internet.
.
After successfully obtaining such orders against SingNet and StarHub, its similar application against Pacific Internet (PacNet) failed last week.
.
Since similar information was sought in presumably similar circumstances against all three Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the natural question that arises is why PacNet succeeded where SingNet and Starhub had failed.
.
More importantly, the decision throws up more questions about the already controversial saga.
.
District Judge Ernest Lau, who decided the PacNet case, explained that the issues raised in the PacNet case were never fully argued in the StarHub case.
.
What he said about the SingNet case was, however, more troubling: "For the SingNet case, the orders were made by consent."
.
This means that SingNet did not even argue against Odex's application for subscriber information. The ISP did not even instruct its lawyers to attend the court hearing of Odex's application.
.
The Telecommunications Competition Code (TCC) prohibits unauthorised release of subscriber information by ISPs.
.
Although the TCC provision may be trumped by a court order, should SingNet not have argued against Odex's application rather than consent to it?
.
If the ISP does not argue for its subscribers' rights to privacy, who will?
.
Without a voice in court, the prohibition in the TCC becomes effectively an empty promise.
.
One also wonders whether SingNet has acted in breach of the spirit of the TCC provision and, if so, whether punitive measures are warranted.
.
So, what were the arguments that PacNet raised, which the other ISPs had not?
.
Essentially, PacNet challenged both Odex's right to make the copyright infringement claims and the reliability of Odex's tracing of copyright infringers.
.
The challenge to Odex's claim was largely successful because Odex was not the copyright owner or exclusive licensee of all but one anime video titled Mobile Suit Gundam Seed. For all the rest, it was a mere sub-licensee and, therefore, not entitled to pursue claims for copyright infringement

Singnet is really a let down.

 

[Hommie]

that the Odex letters of demand to subscribers were apparently not sent by lawyers but by Odex itself.
.
Letters of demand sent by lawyers are subject to rules on legal conduct. For example, a lawyer may not "demand anything other than that recoverable by due process of law".
.
Should such provisions be made broader so as to embrace letters of demand sent by persons such as Odex as well?
.
Otherwise, a client sending out a letter of demand himself

 

[Hommie]

that the Odex letters of demand to subscribers were apparently not sent by lawyers but by Odex itself.
.
Letters of demand sent by lawyers are subject to rules on legal conduct. For example, a lawyer may not "demand anything other than that recoverable by due process of law".
.
Should such provisions be made broader so as to embrace letters of demand sent by persons such as Odex as well?
.
Otherwise, a client sending out a letter of demand himself — even if after procuring legal advice — may easily circumvent them.
.
Another interesting snippet from the decision of District Judge Lau concerns the costs incurred by Odex in tracing the copyright infringers.
.
Odex engaged an American company, BayTSP, to track the copyright infringers. Odex's Peter Go had quoted an article in his affidavit, which highlighted the low cost of BayTSP's services — tracing up to 100 files for only $12 per month, with a setup fee of $25 for 100 images.
.
In a notice that has been put up on its website, Odex stated that "many of those who received Odex's letter have ... settled the matter. The average amount of compensation paid by those who have settled is about $3,000 to $5,000."
.
And yet, in a letter issued to the media last week, Odex had said the total amount it has recovered so far "has not covered even 20 per cent of Odex's enforcement costs".
.
The revelation of BayTSP's low costs heightens the mystery surrounding Odex's "enforcement costs" and revives the question of whether the quantum of the sums demanded by Odex to settle its claims against copyright infringers is excessive.
.
In the fog of all the negative perceptions generated by Odex's pursuit of copyright infringers, it should not be forgotten that copyright infringement is illegal and offenders run the risk of civil and criminal penalties.
.
But the Odex case has highlighted that all parties involved must pay more than lip service to the due process of the law.
.
.
The writer is a legal academic.
.
These are his personal views.

 

[garou12]

Singnet is really a let down.

jump ship lor...is their service honestly better than starhub or pac net?

 

[garou12]

Otherwise, a client sending out a letter of demand himself

sound like extortion if that's the case.

 

[Hommie]

Another interesting snippet from the decision of District Judge Lau concerns the costs incurred by Odex in tracing the copyright infringers.
.
Odex engaged an American company, BayTSP, to track the copyright infringers. Odex's Peter Go had quoted an article in his affidavit, which highlighted the low cost of BayTSP's services — tracing up to 100 files for only $12 per month, with a setup fee of $25 for 100 images.
.
In a notice that has been put up on its website, Odex stated that "many of those who received Odex's letter have ... settled the matter. The average amount of compensation paid by those who have settled is about $3,000 to $5,000."
.
And yet, in a letter issued to the media last week, Odex had said the total amount it has recovered so far "has not covered even 20 per cent of Odex's enforcement costs".
.
The revelation of BayTSP's low costs heightens the mystery surrounding Odex's "enforcement costs" and revives the question of whether the quantum of the sums demanded by Odex to settle its claims against copyright infringers is excessive.

 

[garou12]

Another interesting snippet from the decision of District Judge Lau concerns the costs incurred by Odex in tracing the copyright infringers.
.
Odex engaged an American company, BayTSP, to track the copyright infringers. Odex's Peter Go had quoted an article in his affidavit, which highlighted the low cost of BayTSP's services — tracing up to 100 files for only $12 per month, with a setup fee of $25 for 100 images.
.
In a notice that has been put up on its website, Odex stated that "many of those who received Odex's letter have ... settled the matter. The average amount of compensation paid by those who have settled is about $3,000 to $5,000."
.
And yet, in a letter issued to the media last week, Odex had said the total amount it has recovered so far "has not covered even 20 per cent of Odex's enforcement costs".
.
The revelation of BayTSP's low costs heightens the mystery surrounding Odex's "enforcement costs" and revives the question of whether the quantum of the sums demanded by Odex to settle its claims against copyright infringers is excessive.

i wonder if the judge ask them where the excess monies go coz it certainly shows that they can't justify the amount of money they claim they've put into the case.

 

[jsbn]

Another interesting snippet from the decision of District Judge Lau concerns the costs incurred by Odex in tracing the copyright infringers.
.
Odex engaged an American company, BayTSP, to track the copyright infringers. Odex's Peter Go had quoted an article in his affidavit, which highlighted the low cost of BayTSP's services — tracing up to 100 files for only $12 per month, with a setup fee of $25 for 100 images.

Here, Odex said that they had ENGAGED BayTSP to TRACK copyright infringers.

Yet in the court documents submitted, it was shown that Go himself bought the solution, ran it himself and set the date as mentioned.

1) Go is in no way, in the eyes of law, a IT Security expert
2) How could he have interpreted the results as what an IT Security expert would have?
3) How could he had engaged the company to track when all he did was to purchase the solution & run it himself when the only service he was using off the company was - the software itself?

Lotsa interesting contradictions it seems. Hmmm.... I think the best way for 'damage control' by Odex is by withdrawing from appeal, cease whatever they are doing and close the company down.

It seems that the more they speak, the more contradictions pop up. :think:

 

[Prismatic]

the lawyers i know have all pretty said if you signed that document you're screwed because its pretty much worded against you. And claiming duress in that case might not fly either because its hard to prove.

The people who signed the letter, admitted to infringement of the listed titles. But from I think the Pacnet court case judge was saying is that Odex dun own the rights to the titles cos of the sub-licensee status. So in other words, how can someone admit to stealing something from a particular person, when the items he/she stole dun belong to that person? Does that person still have the right to charge for the items he/she took?
So is there a case here?

 

[Cheesecake]

Lotsa interesting contradictions it seems. Hmmm.... I think the best way for 'damage control' by Odex is by withdrawing from appeal, cease whatever they are doing and close the company down.

It seems that the more they speak, the more contradictions pop up. :think:

i love this part.:bsmilie:

 

[furrycake]

i wonder if the judge ask them where the excess monies go coz it certainly shows that they can't justify the amount of money they claim they've put into the case.

there are 2 issues here... in regards to Odex.

sorry my English ain't that powerful but i'll try to say what i can.

1. Case for Singnet and Starhub vs Users

Users.
i'm talking about customers of Singnet and Starhub, the ones paying the monthly subscriptions,tolerating some crappy services when there's so much downtimes, you guys heard or experienced more than enough, needless for me to pinpoint here in case i go out of topic)
I don't think one should dispute whether it's wrong to download or upload, so long one watches the anime on youtube also will get it - it's downloading while we watched.
I'm more concerned on how Singnet and Starhub decide to release without really fighting. with all due respect, they (Singnet and Starhub) think in the interests of their own companies - that by order of the Court that they're ordered to release, so they released , simple as that. the real paymasters are the users, but they think users' got in trouble also never mind.

2. Odex's rights.
Say i'm Odex, so on command to shoot ... err i meant on instruction to act on behalf of, Odex decided to go against Users/ downloaders/freeloafers. proper channel is always Letter of demand, and Letters of demand can be issued by Odex or appointed Lawyer / solicitor. so there're always 2 susequent action(s) after Letters of demand issued.

Odex's inhouse Letter of Demand. they asked for 'compensation' ranging from S$3,000 to S$10,000.. however, say the one being Odex-ed refuses to pay up a single cent or feels the amount demanded is unjustified, he or she could always demand answers from Odex 1st - justify amount, justify more evidence.

Letters of Demand are always 1st step. Normally if the person wants to be serious about suing, the Letters of Demand are always issued by lawyer(s) but next step would be to file against the "Defendant" - to get a Court Order , followed by Writ of Summons or Writ of Distress - not a simple process even in the case of clear owing monies.

Odex had only gotten Court Order to Singnet & Starhub but not against Users. but Odex was 'smart' to say they are 'authorised' to plunder. pun intended

 

[garou12]

The people who signed the letter, admitted to infringement of the listed titles. But from I think the Pacnet court case judge was saying is that Odex dun own the rights to the titles cos of the sub-licensee status. So in other words, how can someone admit to stealing something from a particular person, when the items he/she stole dun belong to that person? Does that person still have the right to charge for the items he/she took?
So is there a case here?

doesn't matter by signing the letter they admitted to wrongdoing. If AG want to go after them or the production houses themselves there's nothing much the people who signed it can do. Unless they have a good lawyer i suppose.

 

[garou12]

Here, Odex said that they had ENGAGED BayTSP to TRACK copyright infringers.

Yet in the court documents submitted, it was shown that Go himself bought the solution, ran it himself and set the date as mentioned.

1) Go is in no way, in the eyes of law, a IT Security expert
2) How could he have interpreted the results as what an IT Security expert would have?
3) How could he had engaged the company to track when all he did was to purchase the solution & run it himself when the only service he was using off the company was - the software itself?

Lotsa interesting contradictions it seems. Hmmm.... I think the best way for 'damage control' by Odex is by withdrawing from appeal, cease whatever they are doing and close the company down.

It seems that the more they speak, the more contradictions pop up. :think:

then don't you think they should keep burying themselves then?

 

[garou12]

there are 2 issues here... in regards to Odex.

sorry my English ain't that powerful but i'll try to say what i can.

1. Case for Singnet and Starhub vs Users

Users.
i'm talking about customers of Singnet and Starhub, the ones paying the monthly subscriptions,tolerating some crappy services when there's so much downtimes, you guys heard or experienced more than enough, needless for me to pinpoint here in case i go out of topic)
I don't think one should dispute whether it's wrong to download or upload, so long one watches the anime on youtube also will get it - it's downloading while we watched.
I'm more concerned on how Singnet and Starhub decide to release without really fighting. with all due respect, they (Singnet and Starhub) think in the interests of their own companies - that by order of the Court that they're ordered to release, so they released , simple as that. the real paymasters are the users, but they think users' got in trouble also never mind.

2. Odex's rights.
Say i'm Odex, so on command to shoot ... err i meant on instruction to act on behalf of, Odex decided to go against Users/ downloaders/freeloafers. proper channel is always Letter of demand, and Letters of demand can be issued by Odex or appointed Lawyer / solicitor. so there're always 2 susequent action(s) after Letters of demand issued.

Odex's inhouse Letter of Demand. they asked for 'compensation' ranging from S$3,000 to S$10,000.. however, say the one being Odex-ed refuses to pay up a single cent or feels the amount demanded is unjustified, he or she could always demand answers from Odex 1st - justify amount, justify more evidence.

Letters of Demand are always 1st step. Normally if the person wants to be serious about suing, the Letters of Demand are always issued by lawyer(s) but next step would be to file against the "Defendant" - to get a Court Order , followed by Writ of Summons or Writ of Distress - not a simple process even in the case of clear owing monies.

Odex had only gotten Court Order to Singnet & Starhub but not against Users. but Odex was 'smart' to say they are 'authorised' to plunder. pun intended

need to wait and see what happens to the appeal...

 

[furrycake]

The people who signed the letter, admitted to infringement of the listed titles. But from I think the Pacnet court case judge was saying is that Odex dun own the rights to the titles cos of the sub-licensee status. So in other words, how can someone admit to stealing something from a particular person, when the items he/she stole dun belong to that person? Does that person still have the right to charge for the items he/she took?
So is there a case here?

there're several contradictions here. the people who signed the letter... which i think is very vague. kids signing the letter ? kids are protected by the minor law but i presumed that most contracts are made between parents and the ISPs so by right, Odex should go after the parents or the kids or both?

yes it's illegal to download but i think Odex has chewed off more than it can bite. :thumbsup:

 

[garou12]

there're several contradictions here. the people who signed the letter... which i think is very vague. kids signing the letter ? kids are protected by the minor law but i presumed that most contracts are made between parents and the ISPs so by right, Odex should go after the parents or the kids or both?

yes it's illegal to download but i think Odex has chewed off more than it can bite. :thumbsup:

if its kids who sign thencan ask judge to repeal coz they're not old enuff to understand what they sign. If its the parents sign for them...they're screwed...