![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Odex%27s_headquarters_in_International_Plaza%2C_Singapore_-_20070825.jpg/220px-Odex%27s_headquarters_in_International_Plaza%2C_Singapore_-_20070825.jpg)
Odex's actions against file-sharing took place between early 2007 and January 2008. Odex, a Singaporean company that licenses and releases anime for local and regional consumption, tracked the IP addresses of people believed to be downloading its anime and threatened legal action against them. Odex alleged that they had infringed its copyrights by downloading its licensed anime using the BitTorrent network. Between May and August 2007, two of three subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), compelling them to reveal the identities of subscribers, were determined by the Subordinate Courts to be justified. This led to the issuance of pre-litigation letters from Odex to numerous users; the youngest was nine years old.[1]
More than a third of the people who received the letters settled out of court for at least S$3,000 (US$2,000) each. This attracted international attention due to the similar action taken by the Recording Industry Association of America in the United States.[2] Odex's actions were considered controversial by the Singaporean anime community because its members perceived them to be sudden and heavy-handed; this led to much criticism of the company.[3] Subsequently, Odex revised its strategy; instead of letters, it sent cease and desist emails to downloaders in Singapore.[4] In November 2007 such emails were unintentionally sent to several Internet users in other countries.[5][6]
On 23 August 2007, Odex lost its lawsuit against Internet Service Provider Pacific Internet (now known as Pacnet) to compel it to reveal the identities of 1,000 subscribers. District Judge Earnest Lau ruled that Odex's evidence failed to meet legal requirements for the release of such information, especially as the company was the exclusive licensee for only one anime title.[7] Upon an appeal by Odex to the High Court in January 2008, Justice Woo Bih Li ruled that Pacific Internet had to release the information directly to Japanese anime studios and the copyright owners. District Judge Lau's previous ruling, which had denied Odex this information, was upheld.[8][9] Beginning in August 2008, two of these anime studios initiated legal action directly against downloaders.[10][11]
Actions
Odex is a Singaporean company that licenses and releases anime for local and regional consumption. The company tracked people believed to be illegally downloading its releases, using the method employed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in the United States.[2] Both companies hired the American company BayTSP to identify the IP addresses of downloaders from their respective countries and to track them for several months. BayTSP singled out the website AnimeSuki as a major source of the downloads and tracked many of its BitTorrent users.[12] This data was used to apply for subpoenas to compel Internet service providers (ISPs) to reveal personal information associated with each IP address. In May 2007, the ISP SingNet consented in writing to release personal information about its customers, before the hearing of Odex's first application against it.[13] On 13 August, Odex succeeded in its application against StarHub. The company was thus required to reveal the identities of about 1,000 ISP users.[14][15][16] Odex was represented by law firm Rajah & Tann in all its cases against major ISPs, including its application against Pacific Internet.[17]
Odex sent demand letters to people associated with IP addresses after sufficient downloading activity had been recorded by BayTSP. The letter requested monetary compensation for downloads of the company's licensed material.[18] The recipients were asked to contact Odex within one week and pay settlement fees from S$3,000 to S$5,000, or risk facing legal action. They had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, promise to destroy all copies of the downloaded anime, and stop downloading the copyrighted material.[15][19]
An Odex representative said it intended to obtain search warrants for illegally downloaded anime, if necessary.[19] The company initially believed that, unlike other countries, a mere warning letter would not stop the downloads.[20] Letters were mainly sent to people who had downloaded more popular series, such as Bleach, D.Gray-man, Fullmetal Alchemist and InuYasha.[18] There was speculation that the company would collect approximately S$15 million from 3,000 individuals through out-of-court settlements, but Odex's response was that it did not require all of them to each pay S$5,000. The main factors it considered when deciding the level of compensation were the amount of downloading by each individual, and the need to keep the amount levied to a minimum at the initial stage of enforcement. Odex confirmed that more than 3,000 IP addresses had been disclosed as a result of the court orders issued,[21] but estimated that the amount collected would cover less than 20% of its enforcement costs.[22][23] The company's director Peter Go subsequently revealed that most of the compensation payments had been paid to ISPs for the retrieval of its subscribers' personal data[24] and BayTSP.[25] 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%.[26][27]
On 3 September 2007, Odex director Stephen Sing announced on his company's Internet forum that Odex would no longer send demand letters to Internet users who had stopped their illegal downloading since the beginning of the enforcement drive.[28][29] Two weeks later, Odex installed an online warning system developed by BayTSP that generated cease and desist emails intended for alleged downloaders. The company did not obtain subscribers' information directly from ISPs, but relied on ISPs to forward such emails to their subscribers. Sing vowed that Odex would rely on weekly reports generated by BayTSP to continue its anti-piracy drive, and that it would resort to legal action again if downloaders or their ISPs did not respond adequately.[4][30][31]
On 29 January 2008, the High Court handed down its ruling on Odex's appeal. It held that Pacific Internet had to release the names of alleged illegal downloaders directly to the Japanese anime studios. In the light of this decision, Peter Go said that the company's role would shift from active enforcement to assisting the studios in their possible courses of action.[9]
Reactions
The company's actions attracted national media attention and were harshly criticised by the Singaporean anime community as sudden and severe.[32][33] Several anime fans were outraged by the issuing of legal threats to children as young as nine years old, as they believed children were unable to differentiate between legal and illegal downloading.[1][34] There were widespread calls in online blogs and forums to boycott Odex's products.[26]
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Odexvideo.jpg/220px-Odexvideo.jpg)
Odex blamed the fall in its VCD and DVD sales of up to 70% in 2006 and 2007 on illegal downloading.[36] The response of several anime fans was that the fall in sales was because Odex's products were inferior and released later than the online versions.[37] Odex then promised to improve future anime releases,[38] and blamed the inaccurate subtitling on the fansubbers – anime fans who had translated the Japanese dialogue – whom they had hired and censorship laws against mature themes such as yaoi.[20][27] In response, the Board of Film Censors said that it did not ask for subtitles to be changed, that it merely classified content, and that the onus was on distributors to ensure accurate subtitles.[39] In addition to problems of quality and scheduling, criticisms were directed at Odex's litigious strategy and poor public relations.[2][28][40] Odex received support from the Anti Video Piracy Association of Singapore (AVPAS) in making its demands for compensation.[12][41]
Stephen Sing was mocked and criticised after posting comments considered to be gloating to an online forum.[42][43] Messages posted by Sing, under the nickname "xysing", included "Me too busy sueing people" [sic] and "Hahahahah! I double-6-ed so many downloaders serve them right!".[42] 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.[3] Sing asserted that threats of arson, assault and even death were made against him and filed a police report.[32][36] Although he expressed regret over the remarks he made because they were a "PR disaster" and "very wrong", and said that he had written while feeling frustrated, he did not apologise.[3] He dismissed his "double-6-ed" remark, an expression of joy at the threats of lawsuits, as having been made "two months ago" but it was revealed that they had been made only three weeks earlier.[32] 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's employees.[34] Odex published a quarter-page article in The Straits Times on 22 August 2007 to explain its actions.[44]
It was alleged that Odex had passed off fansubs as its own work. Sing admitted that this was partially true as Odex had hired anime fans to do subtitling in 2004, who had taken "the easy way out and copied word for word the subtitles on fansubs they downloaded".[3] Sing explained that when Odex released its anime the company did not realise what the anime fans had done, and it has been "paying for this mistake ever since".Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page). Emails were also sent to the media saying that Sing and Go were directors and shareholders of a defunct company, Games Mart, that shared the same corporate address as Odex and had been raided in 1999 by the police for selling pirated game consoles. This information was confirmed by the press,[45] and Go wrote a letter to the media explaining that Games Mart was not affiliated with Odex in any way.[46][47]
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/32/Odex-defaced.jpg/220px-Odex-defaced.jpg)
Members of an online forum expressed their unhappiness by selling "anti-Odex" T-shirts. Another netizen created a video parody, entitled Xedo Holocaust, and uploaded it to YouTube and other video-sharing websites. A website was established giving details of an "Odex VCD recycling drive", where those who joined could exchange their Odex VCDs for a black awareness ribbon to wear.[35][34] 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.[49][50][51][52]
There were assertions that Odex had charged 10% interest for settlements paid through an instalment plan,[34][41] but a press release issued by the company denied that it had required any such interest payments.[12][21][23] By September 2007, 105 out of the 300 SingNet subscribers who had received letters had negotiated with and paid Odex,[26][53][54] although, in a news conference, Odex said that it had neither forced payment from nor fined anyone. The company explained that it would not profit from the enforcement process, and intended to donate to charity any excess amount received. It would also release a financial audit of all the money collected at the close of proceedings.[24][55] On 31 August 2007, in an attempt to address criticisms of late releases, Odex began to offer video on demand (VOD) on its relaunched website. Users could legally download and unlock a digital rights management (DRM)-protected anime episode at S$2 for seven days.[26][27]
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.[5] Although Odex and BayTSP announced shortly afterwards that the emails were sent out in error,[6] Japanese commentators suggested that the enforcement action was "a step in a right direction".[56] On 21 November 2007 Odex's website was found to be hacked and defaced and the VOD service put out of action.[57] Its main page was replaced by an angry message against the company's legal actions, and experts interviewed by representatives of the local media said that the perpetrator likely originated from Singapore.[57][48]
Odex v. Pacific Internet
Subordinate Courts decision
On 16 August 2007, Odex initiated legal action against a third Internet Service Provider, Pacific Internet. Odex sought to have Pacific Internet disclose the personal information of about 1,000 subscribers.[15][36] 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. 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.[58] Although Lau denied Odex the court order, he warned that the right to privacy was no defence to an action for copyright infringement.[59]
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,[60][61] and it was revealed that it had consented to Odex's application and had not instructed its lawyers to attend the hearing.[13][25][45] SingNet's failure to contest Odex's application, perhaps even expediting it,[45] was perceived by some of its subscribers as a voluntary breach of privacy.[7][25] SingNet later declared that it neither "gave consent" nor assisted Odex in its application for the release of subscriber information,[45] and that its customer subscriptions remained unaffected.[62]
In a rare move, District Judge Earnest Lau released a 14-page judgment explaining the court's denial of Odex's request.[13][17] He compared Odex's demands to an Anton Piller order, which provides for the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. Seen as draconian, it is only used under extreme circumstances. He held that only copyright holders themselves, or their exclusive licensees, can bring such applications, and that he was not satisfied with the evidence harvested by BayTSP for the identification of downloaders.[17][63][64] Out of all the anime licensed to Odex, only the licence in respect of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED had been granted exclusively to the company.[25] The judge noted that, out of the 13 authorisation letters presented in court, ten of them authorised the Anti Video Piracy Association of Singapore (AVPAS), not Odex, to act for the copyright holders. Odex was ordered to pay Pacific Internet's legal costs of S$7,000.[58]
High Court appeal
Odex's appeal against the Subordinate Courts decision began on 3 October 2007 before Justice Woo Bih Li in the High Court, but the first session was adjourned to allow Odex to file more affidavits in support of its appeal.[65][66][67] BayTSP's CEO, Mark Ishikawa, and representatives of four Japanese studios,[64][68] including TV Tokyo, Gonzo and Toei Animation, were flown to Singapore to testify on Odex's behalf.[53][54] Although the Japanese companies intended to file lawsuits themselves should Odex fail,[20][69] the High Court approved their addition as parties to Odex's appeal.[70]
On the morning of 3 January 2008, Justice Woo summoned the lawyers for Odex and Pacific Internet to his chambers. There, he brought up additional points of law and requested that both parties submit their positions in writing by the end of the following week.[71]
In his judgment of 29 January 2008, Justice Woo ordered Pacific Internet to release its subscribers' information to the six Japanese companies that were made parties to the case, and explicitly denied Odex access this information.[8] He upheld District Judge Lau's decision that Odex was not the correct party to ask for the release of subscriber data, and ordered the company to pay Pacific Internet's legal costs of S$20,000.[70] The ruling may have set a precedent for online privacy in Singapore by making it more difficult for copyright licensees to take legal action against downloaders.[17][63] Following the ruling, some of the downloaders who had already settled with Odex planned a countersuit to recover the money they paid to the company.[72]
Further action by anime studios
In early August 2008, seven months after the High Court ruling, Showgate (previously Toshiba Entertainment) and Geneon Entertainment initiated legal actions on their own accord.[10][11] Like Odex, they were represented by the law firm Rajah & Tann and sent out demand letters to several Singnet and Starhub subscribers.[73] The letters asked the users to "enter discussions" with its solicitors within seven days.[74] Showgate, which supported Odex in its appeal against Pacific Internet, consulted Odex before beginning its own legal actions.[74] Settlements were reported to range between S$5,000 and S$6,000 (US$4,000) per person.[74] In August 2008, BayTSP was reportedly in contractual talks with other anime studios to track downloaders in Singapore.[11]
Legal opinions
In an interview with the Singapore newspaper The Straits Times, lawyers said anime fans would not have a strong defence against Odex if proof of uploading or downloading of unauthorised videos was presented.[75] The legal academic Thomas Koshy, writing in another local newspaper, Today, questioned the legality of Odex threatening criminal prosecution in its letters of demand to downloaders, as the power to prosecute lies with the Attorney-General and there was no evidence he had given a fiat to Odex to conduct prosecutions on his behalf. Moreover, it was improper for Odex to have combined its demand for compensation with a threat of criminal prosecution. Finally, although the letters had alleged "illegal downloading activity", Odex had stated the punishment for the more serious offence of distributing materials infringing copyright infringing materials and not simple downloading. Koshy noted that, in addition to never having been used, the legal provision cited by Odex in its letters was never intended by IPOS to target the man in the street, but rather to deal with people pirating for monetary gain, that is, those selling pirated goods for profit.[22] A NUS law associate professor, Burton Ong, suggested that an anime fan who downloaded a few episodes of anime might be able to rely on fair dealing as a defence to copyright infringement if he can prove that the download subsequently boosted, rather than undermined, the commercial viability of the anime industry, among other criteria.[37][47]
Anime fans and sympathisers used the Internet to raise money and lodge a legal challenge to Odex's methods. An Internet user created an invitation-only forum for those considering going to court against Odex over its allegations of illegal downloads. Fans solicited legal advice and put together a library of relevant material.[43][75] A letter to the Straits Times pointed out that downloaders deciding to settle out of court with Odex are afforded no protection from lawsuits initiated by other companies within the anime industry.[76]
Following District Judge Earnest Lau's ruling in the Odex v. Pacific Internet lawsuit, Koshy believed that SingNet might be in breach of the spirit of the Telecommunications Competition Code, which protects the confidentiality of subscribers' information and such forms of unauthorised release.[25] Another lawyer interviewed by ZDNet, however, did not think that SingNet's actions were improper.[7] A spokesman for the Infocomm Development Authority said that SingNet was found to be in compliance with the code.[45] Another Straits Times editor, Andy Ho, wrote that intellectual property laws might be used invasively by private entities, with a chilling effect on free speech, and called for privacy laws to be enacted soon.[47][77]
See also
Notes and references
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (2 August 2007). "Parents get shock letter". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b c Anderson Nate (27 August 2007). "RIAA-style lawsuits hit Singapore anime scene". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b c d Chua Hian Hou (16 August 2007). "Anime firm boss gets online death threats". The Straits Times. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b Victoria Ho (17 September 2007). "Odex softens on illegal downloaders". ZDNet Asia. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b "Anime BitTorrent users reportedly sent notices by ISPs". Anime News Network. 19 November 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (22 November 2007). "Odex takes on the world (by mistake)". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b c Victoria Ho (27 August 2007). "Odex loses court bid against PacNet". ZDNet Asia. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b Victoria Ho (29 January 2008). "Pacnet ordered to turn over customer records". ZDNet Asia. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (31 January 2008). "Give up names of illegal anime downloaders". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b "Japan's Showgate warns alleged Singaporean file-sharers". Anime News Network. 14 August 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-25.
- ^ a b c Liew Hanqing (28 August 2008). "Hunt for illegal downloaders widens". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
- ^ a b c "Odex clarification article" (Press release). Odex. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-15.
- ^ a b c Chua Hian Hou (24 August 2007). "SingNet consented, StarHub had other arguments". The Straits Times.
- ^ Derrick Paulo (15 July 2007). "Door open for IP owners to get names of those doing it illegally". Today.
- ^ a b c Associated Press (14 August 2007). "Singapore court orders Internet company to reveal customers who illegally download videos". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (14 August 2007). "StarHub must give names of illegal anime downloaders". The Straits Times.
- ^ a b c d Chua Hian Hou (25 August 2007). "Odex 'failed tough standard of proof'". The Straits Times.
- ^ a b "Singapore anime licensor pursues illegal downloaders". Anime News Network. 3 July 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (2007-08-09). "Court forces ISP to reveal culprits". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b c Loh Chee Kong (31 July 2007). "Japanese anime firms close ranks with Odex". Today.
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (21 August 2007). "Speculation false, says Odex". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b Thomas Koshy (21 July 2007). "Are anime providers stretching the law?". Today.
- ^ a b Sheralyn Tay (21 August 2007). "Odex: Settlements hardly cover costs". Today.
- ^ a b "Odex to hire independent auditor to show sincerity". Today. 31 August 2007.
- ^ a b c d e Thomas Koshy (27 July 2007). "Anime in court: 2 ISPs, 2 different outcomes". Today.
- ^ a b c d Serene Luo (31 August 2007). "Odex defends 'enforcement action'". The Straits Times.
- ^ a b c Liew Hanqing (1 September 2007). "Poor subtitles because of censorship laws". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (6 September 2007). "It's been a PR disaster". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (5 September 2007). "Odex extends olive branch to downloaders". The Straits Times. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (3 October 2007). "Odex to get ISPs to issue online warnings". The Straits Times.
- ^ Ansley Ng (18 September 2007). "Amid furore, Odex changes tack". Today.
- ^ a b c Victoria Ho (17 August 2007). "S'porean incurs wrath after prosecuting downloaders". ZDNet Asia. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Ansley Ng (24 August 2007). "Odex loses case against PacNet". Today.
- ^ a b c d Chua Hian Hou (2 September 2007). "Online lynch mob". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (21 August 2007). "Trash that CD and buy a T-shirt". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b c Loh Chee Kong (17 August 2007). "PacNet subscribers' fate in the balance". Today.
- ^ a b Burton Ong (27 August 2007). "Separating bona fide fans from freeloaders". The Straits Times.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (1 June 2007). "Getting anime illegally online? Beware". The Straits Times. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Tan Lee Cheng (4 September 2007). "Subtitles must be done accurately: Censors". Today.
- ^ Andy Ho (16 August 2007). "Anime downloading: An alternative perspective". The Straits Times. p. 27.
- ^ a b Toh Hsia Yee (20 August 2007). "Not all anime in S'pore distributed by Odex". The Straits Times.
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (16 August 2007). "Most hated most wanted". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ a b "Angry anime fans plan defence against legal crackdown: Beware". The Earth Times. Deutsche Presse-Agentur. 17 August 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ "Odex clarification article". The Straits Times. 22 August 2007.
- ^ a b c d e Chua Hian Hou (29 August 2007). "SingNet: We did not 'consent' to Odex". The Straits Times.
- ^ Peter Go (30 August 2007). "No relationship between Odex and Games Mart". The Straits Times.
- ^ a b c Andy Ho (2 September 2007). "Is it time for privacy laws?". The Sunday Times.
- ^ a b Liew Hanqing (23 November 2007). "Odex website hacked". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ "Anime figurine protesters meet real police". Reuters. 7 September 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Seah Chiang Nee (15 September 2007). "Getting message across". The Star. Retrieved 2008-07-13. (Also published in The Brunei Times, 16 September 2007)
- ^ Sheralyn Tay (17 September 2007). "Civil society making its mark, quietly". Today.
- ^ Andrew Leonard (18 October 2007). "Asian kung-fu generation". Salon.com. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ a b Jermyn Chow (30 August 2007). "Odex stands firm on pursuing illegal downloaders of anime". The Straits Times.
- ^ a b Victoria Ho (30 August 2007). "Odex has copyright owners' support". ZDNet Asia. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ Foo Siew Shyan (30 August 2007). "Odex says it is not going after illegal downloaders for profit". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
- ^ "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 (in Japanese). 20 November 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) - ^ a b Chua Hian Hou (22 November 2007). "Odex website hacked". The Straits Times.
- ^ a b Loh Chee Kong (25 July 2007). "Odex had "no right of civil action" against illegal downloaders". Today.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (24 August 2007). "PacNet need not reveal anime downloaders' names". The Straits Times.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (23 August 2007). "Odex saga: PacNet does not have to reveal names". The Straits Times.
- ^ Ansley Ng (23 August 2007). "Odex case: PacNet need not reveal downloaders' names to distributor". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved 2008-07-15.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (8 November 2007). "(SingNet) Broadband grows, no impact from Odex case". The Straits Times. Retrieved 2008-07-15.
- ^ a b Chua Hian Hou (24 August 2007). "Odex-PacNet ruling may set online privacy precedent". The Straits Times.
- ^ a b Nate Anderson (28 August 2007). "BayTSP CEO flies to Singapore to support anime crackdown". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2008-07-15.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (3 October 2007). "High Court adjourns Odex's appeal to give lawyers more time". The Straits Times.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (30 October 2007). "High Court allows Odex to submit new evidence in appeal". The Straits Times.
- ^ Zul Othman (31 October 2007). "Odex just won't quit". Today.
- ^ Loh Chee Kong (28 August 2007). "Former hacker to help appeal against court ruling (singaporesnippets)". Today.
- ^ Zul Othman (29 November 2007). "Odex back in court, copyright owners may join in". Today.
- ^ a b Chua Hian Hou (30 January 2008). "PacNet to turn in anime downloaders to studios". The Straits Times. p. 1.
- ^ "Odex, PacNet summoned to High Court for meeting with judge". The Straits Times. 3 January 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
- ^ Chua Hian Hou (12 March 2008). "Anime dispute tangled in legal minefield". The Straits Times. Retrieved 2008-07-15.
- ^ Mark Schilling (19 August 2008). "Showgate sets piracy showdown". Reed Business Information. Retrieved 2008-08-25.
- ^ a b c Liew Hanqing (15 August 2008). "Japanese anime producer sends lawyer's letters". The New Paper. Retrieved 2008-08-25.
- ^ a b Chua Hian Hou (18 August 2007). "Anime fans seek ways to fight Odex crackdown". The Straits Times.
- ^ Yim Yew Fei (4 September 2007). "Will those who settle with Odex face other suits?". The Straits Times.
- ^ Andy Ho (8 September 2007). "Intellectual property rights v. privacy". The Straits Times.
Further reading
- Odex's legal threat letter - "Illegal Online Downloads", Stephen Sing (hosted by DarkMirage). Retrieved 16 August 2007
- Notes from a Conversation with Dr. Toh See Kiat, 5parrowhawk. Retrieved 16 August 2007
- Odex Letter of Undertaking, Monkey_D_Luffy (SGCafe). Retrieved 16 August 2007
- Grounds of decision, Odex Pte Ltd v. Pacific Internet Limited, District Judge Earnest Lau, The Subordinate Courts of Singapore. Retrieved 4 September 2007