Odex's actions against file-sharing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odex's head office at International Plaza, where the out-of-court settlements to the company by alleged downloaders were made.
Odex's head office at International Plaza, where the out-of-court settlements to the company by alleged downloaders were made.

Odex's actions against file-sharing took place between early 2007 and January 2008 when Odex, a Singaporean company that licenses and releases anime for local and regional consumption, began tracking IP addresses that were believed to be downloading anime, identifying the Internet users associated with the IP address and threatening legal action against them. Odex alleges that these users infringed on its copyrights by downloading its licensed anime via the BitTorrent network. Between May and August 2007 two out of three subpoenas on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to reveal the personal identities of subscribers were ruled in Odex's favour, and several downloaders received pre-litigation letters from the company. More than a third subsequently settled out of court for at least S$3,000 (US$2,000) per person, the youngest defendant being only nine years old.[1][2]

These legal actions attracted international notoriety for the similarity to legal actions taken by the Recording Industry Association of America in the United States.[2][3] They were considered controversial by the Singaporean anime community and have triggered several online reactions and criticisms of the company as fans perceived them to be sudden, unrightful and heavy-handed.[4] Subsequently Odex revised some of its legal actions that included sending cease and desist emails to downloaders in Singapore,[5] which in November 2007 unintentionally reached several Internet users worldwide.[6][7] On 23 August 2007, Odex lost its suit against Internet Service Provider Pacific Internet (now known as Pacnet) to reveal the information of 1,000 of its subscribers. District Judge Earnest Lau ruled that Odex failed to meet a number of requirements for the release of such information, as the company was exclusive licensee for only one anime title and its evidence was found to be unsatisfactory.[8][9][10] Subsequently Justice Woo Bih Li ruled on 29 January 2008 in Odex's appeal before the High Court that Pacific Internet was to release the information directly to Japanese anime studios and the copyright owners instead. District Judge Lau's previous ruling, which denied Odex this information, was upheld.[11][12][13]

Contents

[edit] Methodology

Odex's method of tracking illegal downloads is similar to that adopted by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).[2][3] Both companies hired the American company BayTSP to source out IP addresses, singling out those originating from Singapore and tracking them for several months. After sufficient activity had been recorded, Odex would then send a letter to the downloaders, claiming compensation for a sum of money.[3][14][15] BayTSP has also singled out AnimeSuki as the main source of illegal downloads, thus tracking downloaders who used the torrents from AnimeSuki as the main culprits. This comes despite the fact that all anime AnimeSuki host are not licensed by Odex nor any other American anime company.[15][6] This data is then used to subpoena the courts to require that the ISPs reveal the personal information associated with the given IP addresses. In May 2007, Odex obtained personal information of 17 downloaders from the ISP SingNet, and on 13 August 2007 won its lawsuit against StarHub, thus forcing Starhub to give Odex the identities about 1,000 IP addresses.[14][16][17][18] SingNet gave explicit consent in writing to release the personal information even before its hearing.[19] Odex was represented by law firm Rajah & Tann in all cases against major ISPs, including its third suit against Pacific Internet.[20]

Once evidence is gathered and finalised, Odex sends a demand letter to each downloader, demanding a "compensation fee". [21] The recipient of such a letter has to contact Odex and settle the compensation fee settlement within the week, which ranged from S$3,000 to S$5,000. Failure to pay would result in Odex taking legal action against the alleged downloader. The downloader must then sign a non-disclosure agreement, promising to destroy all copies of the downloaded anime and stop any further downloading.[14][17]

Odex said that it intended to begin legal suits and obtain warrants to raid homes for illegal anime, if the need be.[14] The company initially believed that, unlike other countries, a mere warning letter would not stop anime downloads in general.[22] Letters were mainly sent to downloaders of more popular series, such as Bleach, Fullmetal Alchemist, Inuyasha and D.Gray-man.[21] The company had been speculated to collect approximately S$15 million from 3,000 individuals in out-of-court settlements, but Odex refutes that it did not require all downloaders to pay S$5,000. It clarified that the main factor in deciding the compensation amount for the settlement is the level of downloading carried out by each individual, and conscious efforts have been made to keep the amount claimed to a minimum at the initial stage of the enforcement drive. Odex also confirmed that there are more than 3,000 IP addresses that are the subject of court orders already issued,[23] and claimed that the amount collected could not even cover 20% of the enforcement costs.[24][25] Later, the company's director Peter Go revealed that most of the compensation fees went into covering up the costs went to paying ISPs,[26] and BayTSP.[9] He also announced that the company aimed to lower illegal downloads by 85%, and justifies its actions by claiming that BayTSP's statistics showed that Singapore has one of the highest rates of illegal downloads of anime in the world.[22][27][28][29]

On 3 September 2007, Odex director Stephen Sing announced on his company forum that Odex would no longer send legal threats to Internet users who previously downloaded anime but have stopped since the beginning of the enforcement drive.[30][31] Two weeks later on 17 September 2007, Odex added an online warning system, developed by BayTSP, that would send cease and desist emails to alleged downloaders. The company would not obtain the subscribers' information directly from the ISPs in this method, but relies on the latter to pass on the emails to its subscribers. Sing vowed that the anti-piracy drive would continue, with weekly reports from BayTSP, and promised to continue legal action if downloaders or ISPs did not respond to the online system.[5][32][33]

Following the ruling of Odex's appeal on 29 January 2008 for Pacific Internet to release the names of the alleged downloaders to the Japanese anime studios instead of the company, Odex director Peter Go said that its role has shifted to more of consultancy from active enforcement, assisting the studios in their next possible course of action.[12]

[edit] Reaction

The company's actions attracted national media attention and were harshly criticised by the Singaporean anime community as being sudden and too severe,[17][34][35] though Odex claimed that notices were posted on several blogs and forums to warn illegal downloaders. Several anime fans were further outraged by the fact that children as young as nine years old were subjected to the same legal threats, claiming that children would not be able to differentiate between legal downloading and illegal downloading at a young age.[1][2][36] Odex cites the fall in VCD and DVD sales (of as much as 70%) in 2006 and 2007 was the result of illegal downloading,[37] but several fans responded that Odex's products were far inferior and released later than the downloaded versions.[38] Odex then promised to make improvements to future anime releases,[39] but blamed its inaccuracy in subtitling on fansubbers that it had hired and censorship laws, for disallowing mature themes such as yaoi.[22][29] The Board of Film Censors responded that it merely classifies content, and it had never asked for subtitles to be tweaked, and that the onus is on the distributor to ensure the subtitles are accurate.[40]

In addition to the problems of quality and scheduling, sharp criticisms were directed at Odex's business model for using a litigious strategy and poor public relations.[3][41] The company and its partners from AVPAS, an anti-piracy alliance founded in July 2003 consisting of Japanese firms and its office based in Odex's headquarters,[42][43] hold the licensing rights to over 400 titles, or almost 90% of all anime in Singapore, and does not make releases for several anime it has licensed lest the more popular ones.[30][38][44][45] Calls to boycott Odex's products became widespread in online blogs and forums.[28]

Odex also claimed to have received authorisation from the AVPAS in carrying out its demands for compensation.[46] However, the legitimacy and purpose of the AVPAS has also been questioned due to several glaring factors.[47] Firstly, the main committee of the AVPAS is dominated by the Odex directors Peter Go and Stephen Sing. Secondly, the AVPAS website was created on April 21, shortly before Odex started issuing letters threatening legal action and demanding money from downloaders. Thirdly, despite being self-dubbed the Anti Video Piracy Association of Singapore, the AVPAS does not seem to be interested in monitoring or combating the piracy of non-anime or non-Japanese films as the only titles listed or displayed on its website are either anime or Japanese video titles. In addition, since its formation 5 years ago, no known action has been taken by the AVPAS against pirates dabbling in non-anime and non-Japanese videos. The AVPAS has not issued any explanations regarding its preferential treatment for certain groups of video pirates. Lastly, the AVPAS website appears to have conveniently ceased from being updated since 31 August 2007, which is coincidentally the beginning of the period when the Odex Saga started to blow over in mainstream media.

Stephen Sing found himself under fire when he was found to be posting comments online on the SCORD forum that were considered to be gloating.[48][49] Messages posted by Sing, under the nickname of 'xysing', were "Me too busy sueing people~" and "Hahahahah! I double-6-ed so many downloaders~ serve them right!" [sic].[48][50] In response, Sing was branded as the "most hated man in Singapore's anime community" by the blogosphere, a wanted poster with his face circulated online, and was taunted openly in his office.[4] Sing claimed that threats of arson, assault and even death were made against him.[34][37] He filed a police report, and regretted the remarks he made as a "PR disaster", "very wrong" and made out of frustration, but without apology.[4] His additional claim of the 'double-6-ed' remark being made 'two months ago' and forgotten turned out to be false.[34] A Sunday Times article subsequently condemned these online responses as "lynch mobs" and "propaganda", noting that some netizens have uncovered history and home addresses of its employees.[36] Odex published a quarter-page article in The Straits Times on 22 August 2007, to clarify their actions.[51]

There was an allegation that Odex was passing off fansubs as its own work. Sing has admitted that this was partially true as Odex had hired some anime fans to do subtitling in 2004, who "took the easy way out and copied word for word the subtitles on fansubs they downloaded."[4] Sing claimed that at the time of release the company did not realize what the anime fans had done, and have been "paying for this mistake ever since".[4] It was reported at the same time that all of Odex's subtitling and translation was now being done "in house".[4] However, Odex's release of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya in September 2007 was also found to contain translations strongly resembling an earlier unauthorised fansub release.[52] Emails were also sent to the media about Sing and Peter Go being director and shareholder respectively of a defunct company, Games Mart, that shared the same corporate address as Odex and was raided by the police for sale of pirated consoles in 1999. This information was confirmed by the press,[53] and Go wrote a letter to the media with the explanation that the company was not affiliated with Odex in any way.[54][55]

Parents paying out-of-court settlements to Odex for their children's illegal downloading, as depicted in the parody animation "Xedo Holocaust" circulating on the Internet.
Parents paying out-of-court settlements to Odex for their children's illegal downloading, as depicted in the parody animation "Xedo Holocaust" circulating on the Internet.[56][57]

Members of an online forum have expressed their unhappiness by organizing a campaign to print "anti-Odex" T-shirts. Another netizen created a video parody of the incident, entitled "Xedo Holocaust", and uploaded it on a number of video-sharing websites including Youtube. A website was set up giving details of an "Odex VCD recycling drive", where those who joined could get rid of their Odex VCDs and receive a black ribbon which they were encouraged to wear.[56][36] An action figurine protest took place on 25 August 2007 under police scrutiny, which was considered by Western observers to be a rarity in Singapore.[58][59][60][61]

There were assertions that Odex charged 10% interest for settlements by installment,[36][44] but the company's press release denied any such occurrences.[15][23][25] By September 2007, 105 out of the 300 SingNet subscribers who received the letters have negotiated and paid to Odex,[27][28][62] in which the latter revealed these figures in a news conference claimed that it neither forced payment from nor fined anyone. The company additionally claimed that it does not earn any profit from what it calls an 'enforcement process', intending to donating any excess amount to charity, and release a financial audit of all the money collected after all the proceedings.[26][62][63] On 31 August 2007, in an attempt to address criticisms of late releases Odex began offering video on demand (VOD) on its relaunched website. Users could legally download and unlock a DRM-protected anime episode at S$2 for seven days from the website.[28][29]

Odex's website was hacked and defaced on 21 November 2007, possibly in retaliation to the pre-litigation letters that were sent by the company.
Odex's website was hacked and defaced on 21 November 2007, possibly in retaliation to the pre-litigation letters that were sent by the company.

In mid-November 2007, the cease and desist emails initiated by Odex and BayTSP reached several international users as far as Japan, France, and the United States,[6] some in the form of DMCA notices from their ISPs.[64] These users claimed to have received these notices for unlicensed anime that they had downloaded from AnimeSuki torrents. Although Odex and BayTSP announced shortly afterwards that the emails were sent out in error,[7] Japanese commentators suggested that even so the enforcement action was "a step in a right direction" globally.[65] On 21 November 2007 Odex's website was found to be hacked and defaced with the VOD service put out of action, to the delight of several anime fans.[66] It was believed that the attack was possibly in retaliation to the pre-litigation letters that were sent to several users, and experts interviewed by the local media believed that the perpetrator was likely to originate from Singapore.[66][67]

[edit] Odex v. Pacific Internet

[edit] Subordinate Courts decision

On 16 August 2007, Odex initiated legal action against a third Internet Service Provider, Pacific Internet (now known as Pacnet post-merger with Asia Netcom), to disclose the personal information of about 1,000 subscribers.[14][17][18][37] The closed-door hearing was held in the Subordinate Courts on 23 August 2007, and District Judge Earnest Lau ruled in the ISP's favor that Pacific Internet did not have to reveal its subscribers' personal information. Lau believed that Odex was not the correct party to make the application, despite having permission to prosecute on behalf of the Japanese anime studios. The decision came as a surprise to many, and Odex quickly announced its intent to appeal.[8] Although Lau denied Odex the court order, he warned that the right to privacy was no defense for copyright infringement.[68]

In light of the decision, the ISP StarHub, represented by Drew & Napier, said: "[we are] assessing our options, given the different decisions rendered by the court". Meanwhile, SingNet's two week appeal deadline passed,[35][69][70] and it was revealed that SingNet gave consent to Odex's application and did not even instruct its lawyers to attend their hearing.[9][53][19][20] SingNet's failure to contest Odex's application, perhaps even expediting it,[53] incurred the wrath of its subscribers as the action (or lack thereof) was perceived as a voluntary breach of privacy.[9][10] SingNet later claimed that it neither 'gave consent' nor assisted Odex in its application for release of subscriber information,[53] and that its customer subscriptions remain unaffected.[71]

In a rare move, District Judge Earnest Lau released a 14 page judgment explaining the court's denial of Odex's request.[19][20] In the written judgment, he compared Odex's demands to an Anton Piller order, which provides for the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. Being seen as draconian, it is only used under extreme circumstances. He also wrote that only copyright holders themselves, or its exclusive licensee, can make such copyright claims, and that he is not satisfied that the evidence was harvested by BayTSP for the identification of downloaders.[20][72][73] Out of all the anime licensed to Odex, only Mobile Suit Gundam SEED's license was granted exclusively to the company.[9] Lau noted that, out of the thirteen authorization letters presented in court, ten of them authorized AVPAS, not Odex, to act for the copyright holders. Odex was ordered to pay Pacific Internet's legal costs of S$7,000.[8]

[edit] High Court appeal

The appeal began on 3 October 2007 before Justice Woo Bih Li in the High Court,[5][32] and the first session was adjourned to allow Odex to add more affidavits in support of its appeal.[74][75][76] Odex flew Mark Ishikawa (CEO of BayTSP) and representatives of four Japanese studios,[73][77] including TV Tokyo, Gonzo and Toei Animation, into Singapore to help the company prepare and testify.[27][62] Although the Japanese companies initially announced their intention to file lawsuits themselves should Odex fail,[22][78] they were added to the appeal on the side of Odex with the approval of the High Court.[13]

On the morning of 3 January 2008, Justice Woo summoned the lawyers for Odex and Pacific Internet to his chambers. There, he brought up some additional points of law and requested that both parties submit their positions on these points in writing by the end of the following week.[79]

Justice Woo ruled on 29 January 2008 that Pacific Internet was to release its subscribers' information to the six Japanese companies that were adduced to the case, but explicitly denied such access to Odex.[11] He upheld District Judge Lau's decision that Odex was not a rightful party to ask for the release of subscriber data, and ordered the company to pay Pacific Internet legal fees of S$20,000.[13] The ruling may set a precedent for online privacy in Singapore and raise the bar for burden of proof on the copyright holder to take legal action against downloaders, in which currently no such laws exist.[20][72] Following the ruling, some of the downloaders who have settled to Odex plan to file a counter suit to recover the sum of money that was paid to the company.[80]

[edit] Legal opinions

Lawyers interviewed by the local newspaper The Straits Times stated that the fans have no strong case against Odex as long as there is proof of uploading or downloading.[81] However Thomas Koshy, a legal academic and writer for another local newspaper Today, questioned the legality of Odex threatening criminal prosecution (as stated in the legal letters to downloaders), as the power to prosecute rests only with the Attorney-General (or delegated by fiat).[24] Only government institutions or bodies may prosecute people for criminal offenses; Odex, however, is a commercial entity as is the AVPAS which it is issuing the letters on behalf of and hence cannot enact legal action on the said law. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) takes an anti-piracy stance, but has not prosecuted people under criminal law on behalf of Odex, nor has it stated that it will. The author noted that in addition to never having been used, the law cited by Odex in its letters was never intended by IPOS to target the man-on-the-street, but rather prosecute people pirating for monetary gain (i.e., reselling of pirated goods for profit).[24] An NUS law associate professor, Burton Ong, suggested that an anime fan who downloaded a few episodes of anime may qualify in using fair dealing as a defence if he/she is able to prove that it subsequently boosts, rather than undermines the commercial viability of the anime industry, amongst other criteria.[38][55]

Anime fans and sympathizers used the Internet to raise money and lodge a legal challenge to Odex's heavy-handed methods. An Internet user even created an invitation-only forum for those considering going to court against Odex over its allegations of illegal downloads. Fans also sought help in the form of legal advice and have put together a library of relevant material.[49][81] A letter to The Straits Times argued that downloaders who decide to settle out-of-court with Odex affords no protection from lawsuits if initiated by another company within the anime industry.[82]

Following District Judge Earnest Lau's ruling in the Odex v. Pacific Internet lawsuit, Koshy believed that SingNet may be in breach of the spirit of the Telecommunications Competition Code (TCC), which protects the confidentiality of subscribers' information and such forms of unauthorized release.[9] Another lawyer interviewed by ZDNet, however, did not think that SingNet's actions were improper.[10] A spokesman for the Infocomm Development Authority said that SingNet was found to be in compliance with the code.[53] Another Straits Times editor, Andy Ho, wrote that the intellectual property laws may be used invasively by private entities to have a chilling effect on free speech, and called for privacy laws to be enacted soon.[55][83]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes and references

  1. ^ a b Parents get shock letter, Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 2 August 2007
  2. ^ a b c d Who will protect the kids from copyright owners?, Thomas Koshy, Today, 5 September 2007
  3. ^ a b c d RIAA-style lawsuits hit Singapore anime scene, Nate Anderson, Ars Technica, 27 August 2007
  4. ^ a b c d e f Anime firm boss gets online death threats, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 16 August 2007, p. 4
  5. ^ a b c Odex softens on illegal downloaders, Victoria Ho, ZDNet Asia, 17 September 2007
  6. ^ a b c Anime BitTorrent Users Reportedly Sent Notices by ISPs, Anime News Network, 19 November 2007
  7. ^ a b Odex takes on the world (by mistake), Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 21 November 2007
  8. ^ a b c Odex had "no right of civil action" against illegal downloaders, Loh Chee Kong, Today, 25 August 2007
  9. ^ a b c d e f Anime in court: 2 ISPs, 2 different outcomes, Thomas Koshy, Today, 27 August 2007
  10. ^ a b c Odex loses court bid against PacNet, Victoria Ho, ZDNet Asia, 27 August 2007
  11. ^ a b Pacnet ordered to turn over customer records, Victoria Ho, ZDNet Asia, 29 January 2008
  12. ^ a b Give up names of illegal anime downloaders, Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 31 January 2008
  13. ^ a b c "PacNet to turn in anime downloaders to studios", Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 30 January 2008, p. 1
  14. ^ a b c d e Court forces ISP to reveal culprits, Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 9 August 2007
  15. ^ a b c Odex Clarification Article, Odex Press Release, dated 20 August 2007
  16. ^ Door open for IP owners to get names of those doing it illegally, Derrick A Paulo, Today, 15 August 2007
  17. ^ a b c d "Singapore court orders Internet company to reveal customers who illegally download videos", Associated Press, 14 August 2007 (Also published in Forbes and Houston Chronicle, 14 August 2007)
  18. ^ a b "StarHub must give names of illegal anime downloaders", Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 14 August 2007
  19. ^ a b c SingNet consented, StarHub had other arguments, The Straits Times, 24 August 2007
  20. ^ a b c d e "Odex 'failed tough standard of proof'", Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 25 August 2007
  21. ^ a b Singapore Anime Licensor Pursues Illegal Downloaders, Anime News Network, 3 August 2007
  22. ^ a b c d Japanese anime firms close ranks with Odex, Loh Chee Kong, Today, 31 August 2007
  23. ^ a b Speculation false, says Odex, Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 21 August 2007
  24. ^ a b c "Are anime providers stretching the law?", Thomas Koshy, Today, 21 August 2007
  25. ^ a b Odex: Settlements hardly cover costs, Sheralyn Tay, Today, 21 August 2007
  26. ^ a b Odex to hire independent auditor to show sincerity, Today, 31 August 2007
  27. ^ a b c Odex stands firm on pursuing illegal downloaders of anime, Jermyn Chow, The Straits Times (Breaking News), 30 August 2007
  28. ^ a b c d "Odex defends 'enforcement action'", Serene Luo, The Straits Times, 31 August 2007
  29. ^ a b c Poor subtitles because of censorship laws, Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 1 September 2007
  30. ^ a b "It's been a PR disaster", Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 6 September 2007
  31. ^ Odex extends olive branch to downloaders, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 5 September 2007 (Also published on The Star (Malaysia), 9 September 2007)
  32. ^ a b "Odex to get ISPs to issue online warnings", Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 3 October 2007
  33. ^ Amid furore, Odex changes tack, Ansley Ng, Today, 18 September 2007
  34. ^ a b c S'porean incurs wrath after prosecuting downloaders, Victoria Ho, ZDNet Asia, 17 August 2007
  35. ^ a b Odex loses case against PacNet, Ansley Ng, Today, 24 August 2007
  36. ^ a b c d "Online lynch mob", Chua Hian Hou, The Sunday Times, 26 August 2007. (Also published on The Star (Malaysia), 2 September 2007)
  37. ^ a b c PacNet subscribers' fate in the balance, Loh Chee Kong, Today, 17 August 2007
  38. ^ a b c "Separating bona fide fans from freeloaders", Burton Ong, The Straits Times, 27 August 2007
  39. ^ Getting anime illegally online? Beware, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 1 June 2007
  40. ^ Subtitles must be done accurately: Censors, Tan Lee Cheng (Board of Film Censors), Today Voices, 4 September 2007
  41. ^ "Anime downloading: An alternative perspective", Andy Ho, The Straits Times, 16 August 2007, p. 27 Review
  42. ^ Speech by Senior Minister of State at the Opening Ceremony of Anti Video Piracy Association (Singapore), Ministry of Law (Singapore) Press Release, 30 July 2003
  43. ^ Whose interests is Avpas really serving?, Chen Liang, The Straits Times Forum, 12 September 2007
  44. ^ a b "Not all anime in S'pore distributed by Odex", Toh Hsia Yee, The Straits Times Forum, 20 August 2007. (Also published on Today, 20 August 2007)
  45. ^ AVPAS Authorized Titles, Anti Video Piracy Association of Singapore, retrieved 30 October 2007
  46. ^ "Odex is authorised by the Anti-Video Piracy Association (Singapore) (AVPAS), a non-profit organisation whose members consist primarily of Japanese companies involved in the anime industry,..." Odex Clarification Article, by Odex on the AVPAS homepage
  47. ^ Whose interests is Avpas really serving?, Chen Liang, The Straits Times Forum, 12 September 2007
  48. ^ a b Most Hated Most Wanted, Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 16 August 2007
  49. ^ a b Angry anime fans plan defence against legal crackdown, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 17 August 2007
  50. ^ Original posts on SCORD, retrieved 17 August 2007
  51. ^ "Odex Clarification Article", Odex, The Straits Times, 22 August 2007
  52. ^ Singapore's Odex Subs Haruhi with Similar Text to Fansub, Anime News Network, 28 September 2007
  53. ^ a b c d e SingNet: We did not 'consent' to Odex, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 29 August 2007
  54. ^ "No relationship between Odex and Games Mart", Peter Go (Odex), The Straits Times Forum, 30 August 2007
  55. ^ a b c "Is it time for privacy laws?", Andy Ho, The Sunday Times, 2 September 2007
  56. ^ a b Trash that CD and buy a T-shirt, Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 21 August 2007
  57. ^ Somebody's Watching You, Episode 9 Season 6, Get Rea!, Channel NewsAsia, first broadcast 15 October 2007
  58. ^ Anime figurine protesters meet real police, Reuters, 7 September 2007
  59. ^ Getting message across, Seah Chiang Nee, The Star (Malaysia), 15 September 2007 (Also published on The Brunei Times, 16 September 2007)
  60. ^ "Civil society making its mark, quietly", Sheralyn Tay, Today, 17 September 2007
  61. ^ Asian Kung-Fu Generation, Andrew Leonard, Salon, 18 October 2007
  62. ^ a b c Odex has copyright owners' support, Victoria Ho, ZDNet Asia, 30 August 2007
  63. ^ Odex says it is not going after illegal downloaders for profit, Foo Siew Shyan, Channel NewsAsia, 30 August 2007
  64. ^ Comcast Targets Unlicensed Anime Torrenters, Slashdot, 19 November 2007
  65. ^ コムキャストが違法アニメのダウンローダーに警告？米国での奇妙な噂, AnimeAnime.jp, 20 November 2007 (Japanese)
  66. ^ a b Odex website hacked, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 22 November 2007
  67. ^ Odex website hacked, Liew Hanqing, The New Paper, 23 November 2007
  68. ^ "PacNet need not reveal anime downloaders' names", Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 24 August 2007
  69. ^ Odex saga: PacNet does not have to reveal names, The Straits Times (Breaking News), 23 August 2007
  70. ^ Odex case: PacNet need not reveal downloaders' names to distributor, Ansley Ng, Channel NewsAsia, 23 August 2007
  71. ^ (SingNet) Broadband grows, no impact from Odex case, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 8 November 2007
  72. ^ a b Odex-PacNet ruling may set online privacy precedent, The Straits Times, 24 August 2007
  73. ^ a b BayTSP CEO flies to Singapore to support anime crackdown, Nate Anderson, Ars Technica, 28 August 2007
  74. ^ High Court adjourns Odex's appeal to give lawyers more time, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 3 October 2007
  75. ^ High Court allows Odex to submit new evidence in appeal, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 30 October 2007
  76. ^ Odex just won't quit, Zul Othman, Today, 31 October 2007
  77. ^ Former hacker to help appeal against court ruling (singaporesnippets), Loh Chee Kong, Today, 28 August 2007
  78. ^ Odex back in court, copyright owners may join in, Zul Othman, Today, 29 November 2007
  79. ^ Odex, PacNet summoned to High Court for meeting with judge, The Straits Times, 3 January 2008
  80. ^ Anime dispute tangled in legal minefield, Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 12 March 2008
  81. ^ a b "Anime fans seek ways to fight Odex crackdown", Chua Hian Hou, The Straits Times, 17 August 2007
  82. ^ "Will those who settle with Odex face other suits?", Yim Yew Fei, The Straits Times Forum, 4 September 2007 (Also published on Today, 4 September 2007)
  83. ^ "Intellectual property rights v. privacy", Andy Ho, The Straits Times, 8 September 2007

[edit] Further reading