<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Odex to Pay Legal Costs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/</link>
	<description>Message of The Day</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:22:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Message of The Day &#187; Odex, Throwing the White Towel?</title>
		<link>http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>Message of The Day &#187; Odex, Throwing the White Towel?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:04:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/#comment-14</guid>
		<description>[...] decided to soften their approach towards local anime downloaders after District Judge Earnest Lau dismiss Odex&#8217;s bid to force Pacnet to disclose it&#8217;s customer&#8217;s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] decided to soften their approach towards local anime downloaders after District Judge Earnest Lau dismiss Odex&#8217;s bid to force Pacnet to disclose it&#8217;s customer&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mad-libs and Link Love</title>
		<link>http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Mad-libs and Link Love</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 06:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/#comment-13</guid>
		<description>[...] each of them was more interesting than the next. The first was Message of the Day with questions on Odex&#8217;s legal costs. The second was a heavily pregnant lady with 175cm waistline. The third was Keropokman at the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] each of them was more interesting than the next. The first was Message of the Day with questions on Odex&#8217;s legal costs. The second was a heavily pregnant lady with 175cm waistline. The third was Keropokman at the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: motd</title>
		<link>http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>motd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 04:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/#comment-12</guid>
		<description>aelgtoer: The presiding Judge must be very careful on his judgement from now on as this will be a landmark case. If Odex being a sub-licensee able to win the law suit, others will most likely follow suit.

backfire: Starhub and SingNet can&#039;t appeal against the ruling anymore. Their loyal customers must be shaken badly by this. Especially Singnet. Lawyers are not even present during the hearing. Just how far did SingNet go to protect the rights and privacy of their customers?

WishBone: It&#039;s a grey area in Singapore law. On one hand they want to be good pals with the U.S.A on the other it is too expensive to bring everyone who ever downloaded copyright material to court.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>aelgtoer: The presiding Judge must be very careful on his judgement from now on as this will be a landmark case. If Odex being a sub-licensee able to win the law suit, others will most likely follow suit.</p>
<p>backfire: Starhub and SingNet can&#8217;t appeal against the ruling anymore. Their loyal customers must be shaken badly by this. Especially Singnet. Lawyers are not even present during the hearing. Just how far did SingNet go to protect the rights and privacy of their customers?</p>
<p>WishBone: It&#8217;s a grey area in Singapore law. On one hand they want to be good pals with the U.S.A on the other it is too expensive to bring everyone who ever downloaded copyright material to court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WishBoNe</title>
		<link>http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>WishBoNe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:34:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/#comment-11</guid>
		<description>After 2 &quot;successful&quot; lawsuits to get SingNet and Starhub to review the names of the downloaders based on the IPs, only one judge made the call that the &quot;letter of authority&quot; to sue the downloaders was invalid because Odex is not even allowed to get a cent from the illegal downloads.

My, my, what was going on in the first place? Was the anti-piracy streak so strong such that the other judges did not even think about whether it was legal of Odex to do it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After 2 &#8220;successful&#8221; lawsuits to get SingNet and Starhub to review the names of the downloaders based on the IPs, only one judge made the call that the &#8220;letter of authority&#8221; to sue the downloaders was invalid because Odex is not even allowed to get a cent from the illegal downloads.</p>
<p>My, my, what was going on in the first place? Was the anti-piracy streak so strong such that the other judges did not even think about whether it was legal of Odex to do it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: backfire</title>
		<link>http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>backfire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/#comment-10</guid>
		<description>Look like Odex get somehow &#039;betray&#039; by Starhub! Odex get overconfident thinking that if a giant like Starhub will Bounce down before Odex, other ISP will do likewise. Little did they know that StarHub had somehow trap Odex unintentionally, and now Starhub can either sue Odex or Odex can vanish into thin air.

In chinese Idiom. Hai Ren Hai Ji; Harm others end up harming himself !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look like Odex get somehow &#8216;betray&#8217; by Starhub! Odex get overconfident thinking that if a giant like Starhub will Bounce down before Odex, other ISP will do likewise. Little did they know that StarHub had somehow trap Odex unintentionally, and now Starhub can either sue Odex or Odex can vanish into thin air.</p>
<p>In chinese Idiom. Hai Ren Hai Ji; Harm others end up harming himself !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aelgtoer</title>
		<link>http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>aelgtoer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motd.escrito.info/2007/08/25/odex-to-pay-legal-costs/#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Great post. This does reveal more grounds for the Judge&#039;s decision and shows that Odex&#039;s actions were based on much shakier foundations than previously assumed. Of particular importance is the AVPAS authorisation part (showing that Odex was not directly authorised as claimed earlier) and that Odex is just a sub-licensee.

If so, based on the Copyright Act, it would certainly appear that a sub-licensee in contrast to an exclusive licensee and copyright owner has no right to commence a civil action for copyright infringement as was mentioned in my post on the&lt;a&gt; legal aspects of Odex&#039;s currect actions&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post. This does reveal more grounds for the Judge&#8217;s decision and shows that Odex&#8217;s actions were based on much shakier foundations than previously assumed. Of particular importance is the AVPAS authorisation part (showing that Odex was not directly authorised as claimed earlier) and that Odex is just a sub-licensee.</p>
<p>If so, based on the Copyright Act, it would certainly appear that a sub-licensee in contrast to an exclusive licensee and copyright owner has no right to commence a civil action for copyright infringement as was mentioned in my post on the<a> legal aspects of Odex&#8217;s currect actions</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

