Nonetheless, it is not Odex's call whether the a charge should be made against offenders. That is the discretion of the PP.
A director of Odex must discharge its fiduciary duties in relation to Odex. If his personal interest is in conflict with Odex's, he must disclose the conflict to Odex. However, I don't see any immediate or inherent conflict of interest by a director occupying the office of directorship in Odex and running AVPS.
But criminal and civil actions are mutually exclusive - for instance, the NKF case where the director was charged and NKF brought a civil claim against the director for damages caused.
Without further details, I'm not even sure if the what the downloaders did would constitute an offence. If you look at the Copyright Act (section 136), there are a bunch of other elements that need to be present before an offence is committed.
And I believe that Odex is making claims in its own capacity?
Last edited by garou12; 19th August 2007 at 04:37 PM.
I agree that if people (believing they have a good defence, or that Odex will be unable to prove its case) do not settle the matter out of court, and indeed Odex fails to establish its claim, their present strategy would lose its steam.
But as each case will be tried on its own facts, it may or may not be used a precedent for cases against other downloaders.
You do know that I was making fun of the people who plan to say those words as a line of defence right??
Nonetheless, he may or may not owe a contractual duty to all the video distributors gathered under AVPS.
but Odex is a distributor, is Odex also the legal representative for copyright owners who supposedly grouped under AVPAS as well? if it is i can understand how they win the case to get ISPs to disclose customer information. if not then there's no reason how they won the case ... sounds fishy ...