Something for all to read.
Something for all to read.
More twists to the saga.
Ben Maurer tested a dummy bit torrent client that can only connect to trackers/torrents, and received letters without uploading or downloading a single bit of any copyright material.
Because the university's information security office is very diligent about processing DMCA notices, I would be able to tell if the BayTSP folks sent notices based on this. With just this, completely legal, BitTorrent client, I was able to get notices from BayTSP.
In other words, the Odex/BayTSP evidence is unreliable and essentially equivalent to saying you're a murderer just because somebody saw you walking into a building.
Spread the word
p.s. This experiment was done in Feb 2007 this year. So BayTSP cannot claim it's against an outdated method.
I hope this ODEX saga quickly end. It's god damn silly in the 1st place.
陳綺貞 2010 [夏季練習曲] 巡迴演唱會 Cheer Concert 13 Nov 2010 MAX Pavilion@Singapore Expo
I pity the kids whose parents went to pay up. I am sure some got flogged by their parents for "breaking the law" Time to give them their justice back.
Interesting ... more stuff on the saga ...
Last edited by estronutz; 20th August 2007 at 08:20 PM.
how come odex can sue us(ppl dling)
but they don sue youtube.... they hosting the anime also .... we can just watch it off streaming...
is that illigal??
wa their website is still claiming that they won't press for criminal charges against people who admit they dl...isn't that wrong of them to say so since its up to the gov to decide if criminal charges should be filed?
Assuming that they are not minors, it is still within the courts powers to find the parents vicariously liable if it can be proven that the teenager is still being financially supported by his/her parent, being cared for by them. They might opt to argue that since the parents are still financially providing for the teenager it would fall on them to supervise his/her activities, especially for activities that they are paying for.
Does any one have access to this article in full:
I'm pretty interested in finding more about this - "English law still essentially takes an “adult view” of what is best for the child and does not accord mature children “autonomy rights”.
Your assertion is the subject of hot debate. What is clear is that in criminal cases, apart from our judges giving the parents a lecture, most kids have to pay for their own mistakes, ie they, not their parents, are the ones who are fined, caned, jailed, sent to boys'/girls' homes, or asked to do community service.
From what I've read, the courts recognise that parents are not 100% perfect and mistakes are a part of parenting, particularly in a busy modern society like Singapore. Hence, a failure to supervise itself, even if shown, is not a clear path to vicarious damages. Some mistakes are more serious than others (eg if you own a handgun and you failed to ensure the gun was secure, as a result, your child used it to hurt someone) and hence hard to avoid responsibility for, esp. as it would be argued that you breached your duty of care. However, minor infractions would not be likely to be treated with the same severity, and the path to damages is not clear.
1) all those who tio letter "sponsor" one guy go court to fight...if he wins, xedo no case against the rest
2) someone feeling very righteous and willing to spend his/her own money to save everyone else
3) someone feeling rich
4) some lawyer takes up the case for free
edit: just read an article in today's TODAY....webby here
Last edited by mookie; 21st August 2007 at 09:18 AM.
They could build up civil cases against all the downloaders but that would mean they have their work cut out for them, (creating a list of supposedly downloaded files, convincing the courts to allow them to search for and size evidence, going to court, fighting appeals, etc), with little guarantee that they'd win each case.
They could gather the evidence for a couple of cases and turn it over to the police and convinence them to make criminal cases out of it, possibly by bringing pressure from outside governmental agencies. The police wouldn't have to prosecute every single case, just a few to scare the remainder into running to Odex. However, if the police manage to successfully prosecute just a single case, Odex would have a lot more firepower for their future attacks.
My feeling is that they would take the second route, that way, they would save cost and let others do the "dirty work". The resultant publicity of such a case would likely scare quite a few into "settlement", after which, they would just sit back and watch for the outcome. If the downloaders are found guilty, expect more letters from Odex advising the downloaders to "settle". If they still refuse, Odex could then go the civil route if they feel confident enough. If the downloaders are found not to be breaking the law, then Odex could try to get the courts to try another case, hoping for better results.
Note that this is with the assumption that Odex does their homework properly and are going after downloaders who have downloaded titles that Odex has distribution rights to.