So, did Singnet betray her clients?

Written August 25, 2007 in Personal

Jump to comments

This thought came to my mind as I read the summary of the judgement written by District Judge Ernest Lau against Odex. I have some rudimentary knowledge of the law and application and I have to say I haven’t had time to look into the full 13-page written judgement, but what Singnet did (or rather did not do) disturbed me.

In the written judgement, Judge Lau wrote that he felt that since Singnet had not engaged lawyers to resist Odex’s application, the case was ‘never fully argued before the court’ (8, weekend Today, Aug 25-26 2007). What disturbed me was why Singnet did not hire lawyers to prevent the disclosure of confidential client information to Odex. By implication, this has several consequences, of which the main issue would be that by doing so, Singnet acknowledged that Odex had the right to request for such disclosure as ‘the legally appointed agent to act for the copyright owners.’ Which is stupid.

The question is this: WHAT THE HELL MAKES SINGNET THINK THAT IT CAN MAKE SUCH DECISIONS? Even the Courts have thrown it out. Has Singnet betrayed her clients and their right to privacy? More importantly, has she betrayed our trust as her customers by making such an important decision without even trying to protect us?

This case sets a precedence for future copyright enforcement issues and the Courts have to take a stand on it soon. The IPA makes it clear that it is wrong to infringe copyrights, I think no one refutes that. But the crux of the issue now is with enforcement and its legal implications - rights and responsibilities of the parties involved.

This article is written in the best of the author’s knowledge of the law and is not to be used as legal advice for any parties. When in doubt, consult your nearest friendly neighbourhood lawyer.

Tags: Discussion and Opinions, odex, pacnet, Personal, singnet, singtel

« Hello iPhone. Welcome into the world of telecoms other than AT&T.

Teaching Sex. »

12 comments on ' So, did Singnet betray her clients? '

correct me if im wrong, but from what i know, even if ODEX demands an individual customer to pay the fine, the customer does not have to heed it because it is not ruled by the court.

the court only asks that singnet n starhub release the names. but so what? ODEX doesnt have the ‘right’ to collect the fines, if im not wrong.

Written by Daphne Maia on August 25, 2007 at 5:55am
if im not wrong, customers dont have to pay a single cent to ODEX. there is no court ruling on this, except for singnet n starhub to release the names. thats all.

Written by Daphne Maia on August 25, 2007 at 5:57am
Customers don’t have to pay anything, but if they do not ’settle’ with Odex, Odex reserves the right to bring them to courts under the IPA.

The judge’s contention is that the prerogative is not Odex’s, but rather the Attorney-General’s Chambers to bring such users to court as it is not a civil case.

Written by Ivan on August 25, 2007 at 7:42am
everyone betrayed by singnet should put up a class action suit against Singnet for divulging customer info without proper approval

Written by Matt on August 27, 2007 at 5:43am
If im not wrong, it looks like Singnet does not value the privacy of its customers… hence they did not resist Odex claims

Written by Kevin on August 27, 2007 at 11:32am
Look. When you’re being sent such a letter about a few grands of “fine”(compensation) and possibility of criminal proceedings if you do not do as you’re told.. You will just freak out!

People who have received the letter were also advised to go for a “brainwashing” session..People w i l l pay up the sum of money.

Written by Mathew on August 27, 2007 at 11:57am
@Matt:
Singapore’s idea of a class action suit is not a typical American version. There are limited precedents, with the most recent one being the one filed by members of the Raffles Town Club. I suggest legal advice.

@Kevin:
They didn’t even seem to care. God, if they did this in the UK, you will feel the public backlash for months.

@Mathew:
Apparantly Odex turns away people who brings lawyers down to their offices for negotiation from what I hear. So much for… not profiteering. Hearsay, but I have no doubt about their intentions either way.

Written by Ivan on August 27, 2007 at 12:24pm
Hi, just a few friendly points to make.

Ivan’s right in that there are no American-style John Doe “class action” suits in Singapore. Raffles Town Club was a “representative action”, which is a very different legal animal.

The legal letters are not demands to pay fines. Instead, they are offers of settlement in exchange for not commencing legal proceedings against you.

The difference is this. Say, you get punched in the face.
(A) You can either report it to the police, who will ask you to make a Magistrate’s complaint etc etc which could result in a fine or jail term. This is prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor.
(B) You can also sue the guy and get monetary damages as compensation. Here, you engage your own lawyers.

ODEX can threaten (B) but cannot threaten (A) because (A) is within the prerogative of the Attorney-General’s Chambers. My guess is that ODEX’s lawyers (Rajah and Tann?) were not very smart by including mentions of S 136 of the Copyright Act in their letters, because I believe (although I am really not sure) that they cannot do that.

What you pay for is in return for ODEX not getting their lawyers to sue you for infringing their (limited, as we now know) copyrights. Ignore these at your peril if you wish to allow civil litigation to commence against you. Always seek legal advice. Here, they can recover damages against you, but they would have to quantify this by proving that they actually lost money.

Just a thought: if ODEX does not actually release many of the titles it has non-exclusive licences over, can it be said to have made losses? This will affect how much it can actually recover in court. Hence, always seek your own legal advice. It might just save you some money if your downloading activities don’t actually cause that much damage.

Don’t get me wrong: copyright infringement is wrong. At the same time however, recovering more than what ODEX deserves is also wrong.

Finally, I think there are professional conduct rules that prohibit lawyers from contacting the other party’s client directly. Imagine if you already kena sued and have engaged lawyers to take care of you. Suddenly next day these lawyers come knocking on your door instead. It’s unethical. That’s probably why ODEX turns away people who bring lawyers. Their lawyers should contact Rajah and Tann instead.

Written by Kris on August 27, 2007 at 3:15pm
See the sequence of key events as follows:

1998 - Odex founded by Peter Go for the purpose of licensing and bringing in videos ranging from drama to animation of all kinds into Singapore.

2000 - Odex formed the animation section, to license and bring in Japanese animation into Singapore. Thus changing the whole company’s direction.

2003 - Odex formed the Anti Video Piracy Association of Singapore (AVPAS) to fight video piracy in Singapore, of which the Vice-President is Peter Go, who himself signed the letter to authorise his own Odex to act on their behalf. (Why did Peter Go formed AVPAS?????)

2007 May - Odex started sending out letters to illegal downloaders of their licensed anime for settlement of a sum between $3,000 to $5,000. Further changing the company’s direction. Many parents were scared because in its letter Odex threatened criminal charges, which it has no right to do so, and so paid up for their children according the the sum of monies demanded.

2007 Aug - Court ruled that Odex has no right of civil action because it is
not the lawful licensed agent for such action. That means Odex was collecting the monies illegally. That means also SingNet had breached the govt’s regulations regarding Code of Practice for ISPs. Read what Judge Lau said:

“In this application, the Defendant is asked to disclose the identities of subscribers whom they owe a contractual as well as regulatory duty via the Code of Practice for ISPs to keep subscriber information confidential. I cannot justify compelling the Defendant give discovery (which is to order them to do what they have undertaken not to do)”.

Written by Alana on August 27, 2007 at 7:12pm
NMP Siew (http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com) has actually done a very good review of the case in layman’s terms and the implications and effects it may cause. I’m no legal eagle, but what I question is the ethics and the way Odex carried out this issue. From what I understand, they did not issue a Cease and Desist which is in effect a warning letter, but a letter to threaten direct legal (criminal) action which it has no purview over as a civil body. Criminal cases fall under the AGC. Out to grab money? I feel so.
On the other hand, I also do like the the conflicts of interests and so-called AVPAS approving, considering it’s a small select group of individuals.

Written by Ivan on August 27, 2007 at 11:39pm
And I think Odex’s lawyers are from Allen & Glennhill, whilst Pacific Internet had Rajah & Tann.
Can’t quite remember.

Written by Ivan on August 28, 2007 at 4:28am
When company is not making money, sometimes might resort to unethical means of securing some cash flow like this. quick and dirty. check their accounts!

Written by hehehaha on August 30, 2007 at 8:35am