Odex's actions against file-sharing
Between 2007 and 2008, Singapore-based company Odex initiated a series of demands and legal actions against Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Singapore to obtain details of subscribers who they alleged were involved in illegal download activities of content.
[2] From early 2007 to January 2008, court orders for Pre-Action Discovery with evidence of illegal download activity were issued to various ISPs to request for their subscriber's details.
[8] Japanese copyright owners were represented by law firm Rajah & Tann in the Pre-Action Discovery court procedure to the major ISPs, including its application against PacNet.
[citation needed] There was speculation from the online community that the company would collect approximately S$15 million from 3,000 individuals from out-of-court settlements,[13] but Odex responded that it did not require each of them to pay a uniform S$5,000.
[18] He justified his company's actions by stating that, according to BayTSP's statistics, Singapore had one of the highest rates of illegal anime downloads in the world and that Odex wanted to reduce this by 85%.
[21][22] Two weeks later, Odex installed an online warning system developed by BayTSP that generated cease and desist emails intended for the alleged downloaders.
Sing states that Odex under the instructions of copyright owners would rely on weekly reports generated by BayTSP to continue the anti-piracy drive, and if necessary would resort to legal action if illegal downloading activity escalates.
The court upon receiving the additional legal documents from copyright owners ordered Pacific Internet had to release the names of the alleged illegal downloaders details.
"[41] Sing was labelled the "most hated man in Singapore's anime community" by members of the blogosphere, a wanted poster with his face circulated online, and he was taunted openly in his office.
[27] A Sunday Times article condemned these online responses as "propaganda" spread by "lynch mobs" and noted that some of these netizens had revealed the home addresses of Odex employees.
[30][32] A protest by a few people with several action figurines took place on 25 August 2007 under intense police scrutiny, which was considered by Western observers to be a rarity in Singapore.
It raised funds to hire a collective lawyer from Infinitus Law Corporation to represent two of the downloaders when suits were filed against them in November 2008 by the anime studios.
[19][20] In mid-November 2007, the cease-and-desist emails initiated by Odex and BayTSP reached several users in Japan, France, and the United States, some in the form of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices from their ISPs.
[6][34] The closed-door hearing was held on 23 August 2007 in the Subordinate Courts, where District Judge Earnest Lau ruled that Pacific Internet did not have to reveal its subscribers' personal information.
[65] In a rare move, District Judge Earnest Lau released a 14-page judgment explaining the court's denial of Odex's request for Pacific Internet's client information.
[68][69][70] BayTSP's CEO, Mark Ishikawa, and representatives of four Japanese studios,[67][71] including TV Tokyo, Gonzo and Toei Animation, flew to Singapore to testify on behalf of Odex.
[35][75][76] Like Odex, they were represented by Rajah & Tann and sent out letters of demand for payment to SingNet, StarHub and Pacific Internet subscribers asking users to "enter discussions" with the studios' solicitors within seven days.
[79] In April 2015, the makers of Dallas Buyers Club successfully obtained a court order against two major ISPs Starhub and M1 to reveal customers who have allegedly downloaded illegal copies of the movie.
In The Straits Times of Singapore, lawyers who were interviewed said anime fans would not have a strong defence against Odex if proof of uploading or downloading of unauthorised videos was presented.
Koshy noted that Odex had cited a legal provision intended to regulate people's file sharing for monetary gain rather than downloading by a casual consumer.
[15] Burton Ong, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law, suggested that an anime fan who downloaded a few episodes may have been able to rely on "fair dealing" as a defence against the charge of copyright infringement.
[42][82] A letter to The Straits Times pointed out that downloaders deciding to settle out of court with Odex were afforded no protection from lawsuits initiated by other companies within the anime industry.
[84] Following District Judge Earnest Lau's ruling in the Odex v. Pacific Internet lawsuit, Koshy expressed his belief that SingNet might be in breach of the spirit of the Telecommunications Competition Code, which protects the confidentiality of subscribers' information and prohibits unauthorised release.
