PacNet subscribers who thought that they were in the clear from Odex’s means to get their names may have to think twice soon. Odex has filed an earlier appeal for the case to be reheard and both Odex and PacNet were called back to the chambers to discuss on some issues and to have their submissions made by the end of next week.

I am not sure how everything will turn out to be, but it still bothers me that Odex is asking the parents of children who downloaded anime to pay thousands of dollars in settlement. While I agree that downloading illegal stuffs (and not all anime are illegal to download, from what I understand) is not right, the extent to which Odex is asking for money is a little scary. Of course it also troubles me that Singnet delivers the name list to their door step (and I heard that the latter allegation may be wrong).

Odex and Pacific Internet’s (PacNet) lawyers were called back to the High Court on Thursday morning for a brief in-chambers discussion with Justice Woo Bih Li.

The Straits Times understands that Justice Woo raised a number of additional points of law, and asked both parties to give written submissions on their positions on these issues, by the end of next week.

There is no date set for any further hearings, or when a verdict can be expected in the appeal.

Odex, which distributes Japanese animated cartoons or anime here, is appealing a lower court decision denying it access to the names of PacNet subscribers it alleged were downloading pirated anime.

Odex had sent letters demanding thousands of dollars in settlement from SingNet broadband users it alleged were downloading pirated anime.

It sought a court order to get these names, and subsequently managed to obtain a court order to have access to the identities of alleged downloaders from StarHub.

But it failed to obtain a court order to get the names of PacNet downloaders, and it is appealing this now.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 3rd January 2008



Reader's Comments

  1. Tianhong | January 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    I agree with you that it isn’t fair to go after the kids and hope they will stop doing it. Or we can get peeps to view streaming video from crunchyroll or veoh.

    Why should we keep it in the first place since I don’t think it is that valuable or rather you would watch it again 5 yrs from now.

  2. Ed | January 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    I would think that it’s unfair if they are hunting after Starhub & Singnet illegal downloaders, yet stopping short at PacNet. Inevitably, PacNet will become an avenue for illegal downloading activities if they are left untouched. If Odex had to do this, they gotta do it all the way.

    Perhaps Odex can lower the amount as a deterrent, and not that much since we already know most of them are kids who are not earning their own keeps yet. Afterall, a thousand dollars (for example) from one thousand illegal downloaders and a thousand dollar from one single illegal downloader is alot of difference.

    Another thing I am questioning now, is our court practising double standards? If court orders are given against Starhub, why is the court order rejected in PacNet case? Privacy is always an issue, but one doesn’t commits an illegal act but still hope that nobody will find out their details.

  3. spyer | January 4th, 2008 at 1:56 am

    The slightly different treatment here stems from the perception that our esteemed big brother condones the arm twisting methods of a small timer. This perception generated big negative feelings on the ground. Big brother wants to do some damage control.

    Now, they are twisting and turning things around to reduce the bad press and are trying to smooth this affair out. Remember that the whole fiasco went worldwide and now everybody know how we do things here.

    People like to think that some laws are created to push the little guys down and people hate that.

  4. Daily SG: 4 Jan 07 « The Singapore Daily | January 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    […] Odex Update – Simply Jean: Odex continues pursue of PacNet name list […]

  5. Finnegan | January 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    “Another thing I am questioning now, is our court practising double standards? If court orders are given against Starhub, why is the court order rejected in PacNet case?”

    I don’t know about Starhub but I know that the courts granted the order against Singnet because Singnet didn’t even bother contesting it. In the circumstances the court granted a default judgment against Singnet. PacNet on the other hand, actually bothered to hire a lawyer and contested Odex’s application – resulting in the legal wrangling happening now.

    Don’t you feel valued as a Singnet subscriber?

  6. TP | January 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    Do you think it’s about time we should demand a comprehensive privacy laws to stop these transgressions? Look at our privacy standings. It’s dismal!

    I suspect that because of the potential precedents this case can go, they delay it. I know Singapore is not the best place to conduct peer-to-peer, not if we don’t demand for a comprehensive privacy laws here.

  7. observer | January 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    “Another thing I am questioning now, is our court practising double standards? If court orders are given against Starhub, why is the court order rejected in PacNet case?”

    Referring to Finnegan’s comment, he is absolutely right. Singtel and Starhub subscribers as singaporeans shouldn’t be demanding that Pac Net face the same breach of human rights in view of the court’s decision. Rather they should be demanding that their ISPs take similar action as PACNET in order to protect their own human rights.

    And TP has a point. Its troubling that that 2 out of 3 ISPs reacted the way they did and even more troubling that Singaporeans don’t seem to see anything wrong with the actions of Singnet and Starhub.

    Many Netizens are protesting against ODEX by boycotting their products but perhaps we’re overlooking the underlying human rights issues here. perhaps we should be boycotting Singtel and Starhub in favour of Pacnet instead.

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: