Odex's actions against file-sharing began in 2007 when Odex, a Singaporean company that licenses and releases anime for local and regional consumption, began tracking IP addresses that were believed to be downloading anime, identifying the Internet users associated with the IP address and threatening legal action against them. Odex alleges that these users infringed on its copyrights by downloading its licensed anime via the BitTorrent network. Between May and August 2007 two out of three subpoenas on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to reveal subscribers' personal identity were ruled in Odex's favour, and several downloaders received pre-litigation letters from Odex. More than a third subsequently settled out of court for at least S$3,000 (US$2,000) per person, the youngest defendant being only nine years old.

These legal actions attracted international notoriety for the similarity to legal actions taken by the Recording Industry Association of America in the United States. They were considered controversial by the Singaporean anime community and have triggered several online reactions and criticisms of the company as fans perceived them to be sudden and heavy-handed. Subsequently Odex revised some of its legal actions that included sending cease and desist emails to downloaders in Singapore, which in November 2007 unintentionally reached several Internet users worldwide.

On 23 August 2007, Odex lost its suit against Internet Service Provider Pacific Internet to reveal 1,000 of its subscribers' information. District Judge Earnest Lau ruled that Odex failed to meet a number of requirements for the release of such information, as the company was exclusive licensee for only one anime title and its evidence was found to be unsatisfactory. The first hearing for Odex's appeal, held on 3 October 2007 before the High Court, is pending an outcome.

Methodology

Odex's method of tracking illegal downloads is similar to that adopted by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Both companies hired the American company BayTSP, to source out IP addresses, singling out those originating from Singapore and tracking them for several months. After sufficient activity had been recorded, Odex would then send a letter to the downloaders, claiming compensation for a sum of money. BayTSP has also singled out AnimeSuki as the main source of illegal downloads,thereforetracking downloaders who used the torrents from AnimeSuki as the main culprits. This comes despite the fact that all anime AnimeSuki host are not licensed by Odex nor any other American anime company. This data is then used to subpoena the courts to require that the ISPs reveal the personal information associated with the given IP addresses. In May 2007, Odex obtained personal information of 17 downloaders from the ISP SingNet, and on 13 August 2007 won its lawsuit against StarHub,thereforeforcing Starhub to give Odex the identities about 1,000 IP addresses. SingNet gave explicit consent in writing to release the personal information even before its hearing. Odex was represented by law firm Rajah & Tann in all cases against major ISPs, including its third suit that was against Pacific Internet.

Once evidence is gathered and finalised, Odex sends a demand letter to each downloader, demanding a "compensation fee". The recipient of such a letter has to contact Odex and settle the compensation fee settlement within the week, which ranged from S$3,000 to S$5,000. Failure to pay would result in Odex taking legal action against the allerged downloader. The downloader must then sign a non-disclosure agreement, promising to destroy all copies of the downloaded anime and stop any further downloading.

Odex said that it intends to begin legal suits and obtain warrants to raid homes for illegal anime, if the need be. The company initially believed that, unlike other countries, a mere warning letter would not stop anime downloads in general. Letters were mainly sent to downloaders of more popular series, such as Bleach, Fullmetal Alchemist, Inuyasha and D.Gray-man. The company had been speculated to collect approximately S$15 million from 3,000 individuals in out-of-court settlements, but Odex refutes that it did not require all downloaders to pay S$5,000. It clarified that the main factor in deciding the compensation amount for the settlement is the level of downloading carried out by each individual, and conscious efforts have been completed to keep the amount claimed to a minimum at the initial stage of the enforcement drive. Odex also confirmed that there are more than 3,000 IP addresses that are the subject of court orders already issued, and claimed that the amount collected could not even cover 20% of the enforcement costs. Later, the company's director Peter Go revealed that most of the compensation fees went into covering up the costs went to paying ISPs, and BayTSP. He also announced that the company aimed to lower illegal downloads by 85%, and justifies its actions by claiming that BayTSP's statistics showed that Singapore has one of the highest rates of illegal downloads of anime in the world.

On 3 September 2007, Odex director Stephen Sing announced on his company forum that Odex would no longer send legal threats to Internet users who previously downloaded anime but have stopped since the beginning of the enforcement drive. Two weeks later on 17 September 2007, Odex added an online warning system, developed by BayTSP, that would send cease and desist emails to alleged downloaders. The company would not obtain the subscribers' information directly from the ISPs in this method, but relies on the latter to pass on the emails to its subscribers. Sing vowed that the anti-piracy drive would continue, with weekly reports from BayTSP, and promised to continue legal action if downloaders or ISPs did not respond to the online system.

Reaction

The company's actions attracted national media attention and were harshly criticised by the Singaporean anime community as being sudden and too severe, though Odex claimed that notices were posted on several blogs and forums to warn illegal downloaders. Several anime fans were further outraged by the fact that children as young as nine years old were subjected to the same legal threats, claiming that children would not be able to differenciate legal downloading and illegal downloading at a young age. Odex cites the fall in VCD and DVD sales (of as much as 70%) in 2006 and 2007 was the result of illegal downloading, but several fans responded Odex's products were far inferior and released later than the downloaded versions. Odex then promised to make improvements to future anime releases, but blamed its inaccuracy in subtitling on fansubbers that it had hired and censorship laws, for disallowing mature themes such as yaoi. The Board of Film Censors responded that it merely classifies content, and it had never asked for subtitles to be tweaked, and that the onus is on the distributor to ensure the subtitles are accurate.

In addition to the problems of quality and scheduling, sharp criticisms were directed at Odex's business model for using a litigious strategy and poor public relations. The company and its partners from AVPAS, an anti-piracy alliance founded in July 2003 consisting of Japanese firms and its office based in Odex's headquarters, hold the licensing rights to over 400 titles, or almost 90% of all anime in Singapore, and does not make releases for several anime it has licensed lest the more popular ones. Calls to boycott Odex's products became widespread in online blogs and forums.

Stephen Sing found himself under fire when he was found to be posting comments online on the SCORD forum that were considered to be gloating. Messages posted by Sing, under the nickname of 'xysing', were "Me too busy sueing people~" and "Hahahahah! I double-6-ed so many downloaders~ serve them right!" [sic]. In response, Sing was branded as the "most hated man in Singapore's anime community" by the blogosphere, a wanted poster with his face circulated online, and was taunted openly in his office. Sing claimed that threats of arson, assault and even death were made against him. He filed a police report, and regretted the remarks he made as a "PR disaster", "very wrong" and made out of frustration, but without apology. His extra claim of the 'double-6-ed' remark being made 'two months ago' and forgotten turned out to be false. A Sunday Times article subsequently condemned these online responses as "lynch mobs" and "propaganda", noting that some netizens have uncovered history and home addresses of its employees. Odex published a quarter-page article in The Straits Times on 22 August 2007, to clarify their actions.

There was an allegation that Odex was passing off fansubs as its own work. Sing has admitted that this was partially true as Odex had hired some anime fans to do subtitling in 2004, who "took the easy way out and copied word for word the subtitles on fansubs they downloaded." Sing claimed that at the time of release the company did not realize what the anime fans had done, and have been "paying for this mistake ever since". It was reported at the same time that all of Odex's subtitling and translation was now being done "in house". However, Odex's release of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya in September 2007 was also found to contain translations strongly resembling an earlier unauthorised fansub release. Emails were also sent to the media about Sing and Peter Go being director and shareholder respectively of a defunct company, Games Mart, that shared the same corporate address as Odex and was raided by the police for sale of pirated consoles in 1999. This information was confirmed by the press, and Go wrote a letter to the media with the explanation that the company was not affiliated with Odex in any way.Parents paying out-of-court settlements to Odex for their children's illegal downloading, as depicted in the parody animation "Xedo Holocaust" circulating on the Internet.[improper synthesis?]

Members of an online forum have expressed their unhappiness by organizing a campaign to print "anti-Odex" T-shirts. A further netizen created a video parody of the incident, entitled "Xedo Holocaust", and uploaded it on a number of video-sharing websites including Youtube. A website was set up giving details of an "Odex VCD recycling drive", where those who joined could get rid of their Odex VCDs and receive a black ribbon which they were encouraged to wear. 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.

There were assertions that Odex charged 10% interest for settlements by installment, but the company's press release denied any such occurrences. By September 2007, 105 out of the 300 SingNet subscribers who received the letters have negotiated and paid to Odex, in which the latter revealed these figures in a news conference claimed that it neither forced payment from nor fined anyone. The company additionally claimed that it does not earn any profit from what it calls an 'enforcement process', intending to donating any excess amount to charity, and release a financial audit of all the money collected after all the proceedings. On 31 August 2007, in an attempt to address criticisms of late releases Odex began offering video on demand (VOD) on its relaunched website. Users could legally download and unlock a DRM-protected anime episode at S$2 for seven days from the website.Odex's website was hacked and defaced on 21 November 2007, possibly in retaliation to the pre-litigation letters that were sent by the company.

In mid-November 2007, the cease and desist emails initiated by Odex and BayTSP reached several international users as far as Japan, France, and the United States, some in the form of DMCA notices from their ISPs. These users claimed to have received these notices for unlicensed anime that they had downloaded from AnimeSuki torrents. Although Odex and BayTSP announced shortly afterwards that the emails were sent out in error, Japanese commentators suggested that even so the enforcement action was "a step in a right direction" globally. On 21 November 2007 Odex's website was found to be hacked and defaced with the VOD service put out of action, to the delight of several anime fans. It was believed that the attack was possibly in retaliation to the pre-litigation letters that were sent to several users, and experts interviewed by the local media believed that the perpetrator was likely to originate from Singapore.

Odex v. Pacific Internet

Subordinate Courts decision

On 16 August 2007, Odex initiated legal action against a third Internet Service Provider, Pacific Internet, to disclose the personal information of about 1,000 subscribers. The closed-door hearing was held in the Subordinate Courts on 23 August 2007, and District Judge Earnest Lau ruled in the ISP's favor 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. Although Lau denied Odex the court order, he warned that the right to privacy was no defense for copyright infringement.

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, and it was revealed that SingNet gave consent to Odex's application and did not even instruct its lawyers to attend their hearing. SingNet's failure to contest Odex's application, perhaps even expediting it, incurred the wrath of its subscribers as the action (or lack thereof) was perceived as a voluntary breach of privacy. SingNet later claimed that it neither 'gave consent' nor assisted Odex in its application for release of subscriber information, and that its customer subscriptions remain unaffected.

In a rare move, District Judge Earnest Lau released a 14 page judgment explaining the court's denial of Odex's request. In the written judgment, he compared Odex's demands to an Anton Piller order, which provides for the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. Being seen as draconian, it is only used under extreme conditions. He also wrote that only copyright holders themselves, or its exclusive licensee, can make such copyright claims, and that he is not satisfied that the evidence was harvested by BayTSP for the identification of downloaders. Out of all the anime licensed to Odex, only Mobile Suit Gundam SEED's license was granted exclusively to the company. Lau noted that, out of the thirteen authorization letters presented in court, ten of them authorized AVPAS, not Odex, to act for the copyright holders. Odex was ordered to pay Pacific Internet's legal costs of S$7,000.

High Court appeal

The appeal began on 3 October 2007 before Justice Woo Bih Li in the High Court, and the first session was adjourned to allow Odex add more affidavits in support of its appeal. Odex flew Mark Ishikawa (CEO of BayTSP) and representatives of four Japanese studios, including TV Tokyo, Gonzo and Toei Animation, into Singapore to help the company prepare and testify. The Japanese companies announced their intention to file lawsuits themselves should Odex fail. The High Court resumed hearing on 16 November 2007, and is currently pending a decision.

Should this ruling stand, it may set a precedent for online privacy in Singapore and raise the bar for burden of proof on the copyright holder to take legal action against downloaders, in which currently no such laws exist.

On the morning of January 3, 2008, Justice Woo Bih Li summoned the lawyers for Odex and Pacnet to his chambers. There, he brought up some extra points of law and requested that both parties submit their positions on these points in writing by the end of the following week. No date was set for further hearings or for a verdict in this case.

Legal opinions

Lawyers interviewed by the local newspaper The Straits Times stated that the fans have no strong case against Odex as long as there is proof of uploading or downloading. However Thomas Koshy, a legal academic and writer for another local newspaper Today, questioned the legality of Odex threatening criminal prosecution (as stated in the legal letters to downloaders), as the power to prosecute rests only with the Attorney-General (or delegated by fiat). Only government institutions or bodies may prosecute people for criminal offenses; Odex, however, is a commercial entity as is the AVPAS which it is issuing the letters on behalf of and hence can't enact legal action on the said law. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) takes an anti-piracy stance, but has not prosecuted people under criminal law on behalf of Odex, nor has it stated that it will. The author noted that in addition to never having been used, the law cited by Odex in its letters was never intended by IPOS to target the man-on-the-street, but rather prosecute people pirating for monetary gain (i.e., reselling of pirated goods for profit). An NUS law associate professor, Burton Ong, suggested that an anime fan who downloaded a few episodes of anime may qualify in using fair dealing as a defence if he/she is able to prove that it subsequently boosts, instead of undermines the commercial viability of the anime industry, amongst other criteria.

Anime fans and sympathizers are using the Internet to raise money and lodge a legal challenge to Odex's heavy-handed methods. An Internet user even created an invitation-only forum for those considering going to court against Odex over its allegations of illegal downloads. Fans also sought help in the form of legal advice and have put together a library of relevant material. A letter to The Straits Times argued that downloaders who decide to settle out-of-court with Odex affords no protection from lawsuits if initiated by another company within the anime industry.

Following District Judge Earnest Lau's ruling in the Odex v. Pacific Internet lawsuit, Koshy believed that SingNet may be in breach of the spirit of the Telecommunications Competition Code (TCC), which protects the confidentiality of subscribers' information and such forms of unauthorized release. A further lawyer interviewed by ZDNet, however, did not think that SingNet's actions were improper. A spokesman for the Infocomm Development Authority said that SingNet was found to be in compliance with the code. A further Straits Times editor, Andy Ho, wrote that the intellectual property laws may be used invasively by private entities to have a chilling effect on free speech, and called for privacy laws to be enacted soon.