English Reflections 5
I refer to the article titled ‘PacNet need not reveal downloaders' names’ (http://digital.asiaone.com/Digital/News/Story/A1Story20070824-22910.html)
This article mainly talks about Odex, a distributor of popular anime, demanding names of up to 1,000 Pacific Internet (PacNet) subscribers for illegally downloading Japanese anime without the consent of Odex themselves. They wanted to clamp down on downloaders by making them pay and the company justified its demand of payments by explaining that these are to cover the expenses of enforcing copyright. However, PacNet refused. They reasoned "we respect the rights of intellectual property owners and at the same time, believes in protecting the privacy of all our subscribers". The case was hence to be settled in court. After court ruling, judges decided that PacNet does not have to reveal the names of its subscribers. Each ruling was given by a different judge. This ruling has raised eyebrows as two other Internet service providers (ISP) SingNet and StarHub were earlier ordered to give up the names of their subscribers accused of similar violations.
Firstly, I believe that PacNet, like the other two ISP(s) should receive the same judgment and give up its subscribers’ names. For this is simply unfair to the other ISP(s). Put yourself in StarHub or SingNet’s shoes, if your subscribers see that PacNet subscribers could run away Scot free after illegally downloading things. While they end up paying fines up to thousands of dollars when all they did was the same exact thing, will they lose customers? The answer is obvious.
Also it makes me wonder of the system of judging. Why give different judgments when the crimes committed, the company pursuing the matter are all the same? With this I strongly urge that in future if similar scenarios were to be up, the ministry of law could improve on the ruling system.
However, in another perspective, I think that Odex may be a little too demanding on the downloaders. They wanted a direct payment from the subscribers without even issuing a single warning! That is just like sending you straight to detention class without allowing you to accumulate bookings in a school rule system! Hence I offer Odex a simple advice: warnings people . . . warnings. .
Furthermore, the people committing this crime are mostly students. Some of whom might have even not learnt of copyright system in schools yet. There is a Chinese saying that goes ‘不知者无罪’. Therefore I hope that Odex would give them a chance by sending warning letters instead of payment letters.
Lastly I think that maybe the ministry should set some ground rules to settle this privacy matter once and for all. They can condemn or spare the offenders for all I care. But the bottom line is, at the very least make it clear to all regardless of young or ignorant what the consequence, as such they have no chance to ‘debate’ over it when it is already clear. And as for whether it will be condemn or sparing, I hope the points I mentioned earlier could aid in their quest to making the wisest decision.
This article mainly talks about Odex, a distributor of popular anime, demanding names of up to 1,000 Pacific Internet (PacNet) subscribers for illegally downloading Japanese anime without the consent of Odex themselves. They wanted to clamp down on downloaders by making them pay and the company justified its demand of payments by explaining that these are to cover the expenses of enforcing copyright. However, PacNet refused. They reasoned "we respect the rights of intellectual property owners and at the same time, believes in protecting the privacy of all our subscribers". The case was hence to be settled in court. After court ruling, judges decided that PacNet does not have to reveal the names of its subscribers. Each ruling was given by a different judge. This ruling has raised eyebrows as two other Internet service providers (ISP) SingNet and StarHub were earlier ordered to give up the names of their subscribers accused of similar violations.
Firstly, I believe that PacNet, like the other two ISP(s) should receive the same judgment and give up its subscribers’ names. For this is simply unfair to the other ISP(s). Put yourself in StarHub or SingNet’s shoes, if your subscribers see that PacNet subscribers could run away Scot free after illegally downloading things. While they end up paying fines up to thousands of dollars when all they did was the same exact thing, will they lose customers? The answer is obvious.
Also it makes me wonder of the system of judging. Why give different judgments when the crimes committed, the company pursuing the matter are all the same? With this I strongly urge that in future if similar scenarios were to be up, the ministry of law could improve on the ruling system.
However, in another perspective, I think that Odex may be a little too demanding on the downloaders. They wanted a direct payment from the subscribers without even issuing a single warning! That is just like sending you straight to detention class without allowing you to accumulate bookings in a school rule system! Hence I offer Odex a simple advice: warnings people . . . warnings. .
Furthermore, the people committing this crime are mostly students. Some of whom might have even not learnt of copyright system in schools yet. There is a Chinese saying that goes ‘不知者无罪’. Therefore I hope that Odex would give them a chance by sending warning letters instead of payment letters.
Lastly I think that maybe the ministry should set some ground rules to settle this privacy matter once and for all. They can condemn or spare the offenders for all I care. But the bottom line is, at the very least make it clear to all regardless of young or ignorant what the consequence, as such they have no chance to ‘debate’ over it when it is already clear. And as for whether it will be condemn or sparing, I hope the points I mentioned earlier could aid in their quest to making the wisest decision.
posted by BONG at
6:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home