|
A GROUP of irate anime downloaders are trying to rally other downloaders into suing Odex, a local distributor of Japanese anime.
They say they want back the money they paid Odex in settlement for their having allegedly downloaded the Japanese cartoons.
Their running war against Odex took its latest twist in January, when a court ruled that Internet service provider (ISP) Pacnet should cough up the names of its subscribers who were alleged downloaders.
The court said, however, that the names should go to the Japanese holders of the cartoons' copyrights, not Odex, which had pushed to get them.
The ruling came from High Court Justice Woo Bih Lee, whose 18-page written judgment was published yesterday on the Supreme Court website.
The saga began last May, when Odex sent out letters to alleged anime downloaders, demanding between $3,000 and $5,000 to settle their alleged infringing activities in lieu of further action. Several hundred of them paid up.
Odex managed to get their names from ISPs SingNet and StarHub. But its move to get downloaders' names from Pacnet was rejected by District Judge Ernest Lau, who said the distributor was the wrong party to ask for this information, and that it did not have good-enough proof of infringement.
Odex's appeal led to Justice Woo's ruling in January.
Pacnet has since given the names to the Japanese anime studios.
Since Justice Woo's ruling, online forums here have been abuzz with talk that it meant that those who paid up should now push to get their money back.
Odex's lawyers, however, say they have not received any lawyers' letters making these demands.
One 'Odex'ed' downloader going by the name FukitsuNaDouki is now trying to rustle up support by posting a 1,000-word draft petition on the XedoDefense website.
In it, he urges those who paid or who had received letters from Odex to take legal action against it; he also asked for ideas on how best to give his draft 'more oomph' before he posted it on other anti-Odex forums. FukitsuNaDouki had previously corresponded with The Straits Times, but declined to say who he was.
He said in his message that 'the odds are against Odex, and with your support, we can right the wrong, and prove ourselves that we are not to be trampled upon like cockroaches'.
He has received many positive responses on the site, from suggestions on how to sue Odex to offers to fund the lawsuit.
Three in four lawyers The Straits Times spoke to said such a case had some merit.
Mr Jonathan Kok of Harry Elias Partnership said that those who paid Odex on the basis of the High Court judgment had a good chance of getting back their money, since Odex was not the right party to claim these sums.
But he added: 'Just because Odex is not the rightful claimant does not mean that the rights owners cannot make the same claim.'
Mr Thomas Koshy, who teaches law at Republic Polytechnic, was less bullish.
He pointed out that the legitimacy of Odex's claims against the downloaders and the legal binding nature of the settlement agreement were separate issues.
So a settlement agreement may be upheld even if it was based on claims which later prove unfounded, he said.
The courts would 'generally be reluctant to unravel a settlement agreement as doing so may throw the validity of settlement agreements in general into doubt', he added.
Meanwhile, in his written judgment yesterday, Justice Woo said Odex may have been 'lulled into complacency' by its earlier victories against SingTel and StarHub downloaders, and confused by the 'minefield of copyright law', and had failed to see that it lacked the legal right to ask the court for the names of alleged infringers from their ISPs.
However, he said, Judge Lau had 'erred' in requiring the level of proof he did.
While an ISP's duty of confidentiality to its customers is 'another factor' to consider, it 'should not, in and of itself, give rise to a higher standard of proof', said Justice Woo.
And given that the Japanese studios making the anime subsequently joined Odex's appeal, and that Odex had submitted additional affidavits to explain how it obtained proof of 'wrongdoing', he ordered Pacnet to produce the names of the alleged downloaders in the 'interest of justice'.
chuahh@sph.com.sg
|
