# Talk:Odex's actions against file-sharing

And in Canada... something for "see also"? BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe Chensiyuan 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also of tangential usefulness: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers -- in a way it's disparately different insofar as it deals with ISP liability, but the role of ISPs in copyright litigation is interesting. Chensiyuan 14:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware that wikipedia talk page is not a forum and should only be used to improve a wiki article... But I don't know where else to go... T,T
I'm planning to enroll at a singapore university this August, and when I heard about this whole ODEX thing, i was kinda startled as I am one of those liable to be extorted...
What's the current situation?? Has the whole controversy stabilised? on Which side does the government stand for? Otakus or ODEX?
Can anyone tell me a site, blog or whatever that contain every information including rumors regarding this matter, as I'm aware that Wiki can only present notable facts...
Is there any way to still get ourselves the 'so called illegal' fansubbed anime without having ODEX banging on our front door?
Thanx 4 d info, and sorry again for asking this stuff here Lolipedofin (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article updated. Slow news day... - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mailer diablo, I've started copyediting the article. Here are the major changes I've made so far:


### Lead and "Actions" section
In {{cite xxx}} templates, I changed "last=yyy |first=zzz" to "author=aaa". During a previous featured article review, I was advised that in footnotes the names of authors of sources should be indicated in the usual way (e.g., "John Doe"), whereas in "References", "Further reading" and other bibliography-type sections they should be indicated with the surname first ("Doe, John").
ISO 8601 dates (e.g., "1976-05-13") are generally not used in Wikipedia (see "Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates"), so I changed such dates in citation templates to the usual "13 May 1976" format.
If a reference name (e.g., "<ref name=staug25>") consists of only one word, it's unnecessary to enclose it in quotation marks.
However, there were some issues I could not fix:
ure reports. That is why all of them are assigned names.
- Mailer Diablo 

The lead section is supposed to summarize what is in the article. However, in this case, a lot of substantive information is in the lead section and is not fully set out in the article. For example, the "Actions" section states "In May 2007, before the hearing" but does not explain what hearing is referred to. If you move the substantive information into the main part of the article, then the footnotes in the lead can be removed.
The following sentence appears in the "Action" section: "Odex was represented by law firm Rajah & Tann in all its cases against major ISPs, and in its third lawsuit against Pacific Internet." The reference to a "third lawsuit" against Pacific Internet does not seem right, as there is no mention of two earlier lawsuits against that company.
"There was speculation..." By whom?
"Peter Go subsequently revealed that most of the compensation payments had been paid to ISPs ..." Why did Odex have to pay the ISPs? This is not clear from the article.
If a particular citation is not going to be referred to later in the article, it is not necessary to assign it a name using "<ref name=>". This just needlessly bloats the article.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Point one + two clarified.
For point 3, New Paper ("speculation false") and CNA ("rumour has it") confirms that there were speculation, but did not credit where it originated.
For point 4, this was a fee imposed by ISPs before they would spit out the subscriber's information. ("Odex also has to pay the ISPs to reveal their subscribers' identities – one asked for up to $150 per IP address, said Mr Sing")
At point of writing the article, before the incident died down, I wrote the content keeping in mind that there is a possibility that it might get referred again in fut18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding point 4, I think you should make this clear in the article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Done! - Mailer Diablo 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


### "Reactions" section
Copyediting completed. I haven't got any comments about this section, but notice that the next section, "Odex v. Pacific Internet", deals in detail with a court case that was previously mentioned in the "Actions" section. You may like to consider merging "Odex v. Pacific Internet" into the "Actions" section (or making it a subsection of that section) as the current arrangement of sections doesn't seem to flow very well. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so inclined to merge the section because the heading "Action" is going to cause a new set of problems (plus Odex v. Pacific Internet has another subheading), and that the event is significant enough to justify its own heading. What I think I'll work at instead is the flow of the "Actions" section. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. My point is that it seems a little odd for the Pacific Internet case to be mentioned in the "Actions" section, then not mentioned at all in the "Reactions" section, but then discussed in great detail in "Odex v. Pacific Internet". Perhaps swapping "Reactions" and "Odex v. Pacific Internet" around will improve the article's flow. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, regarding your point about the "accessdate" parameter in the {{cite}} templates: you have to indicate the dates in "yyyy-mm-dd" format for that parameter, otherwise it doesn't render properly. The alternative is to swap over all citations to the {{citation}} template. The "accessdate" parameter in that template renders dates without links. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


### Remaining sections
Copyediting completed! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, to you and all the other copyeditors, thank you very much for your assistance! - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the article, I have a few questions. What ISPs were issued subpoenas? What month did the legal action start? \  / (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Singnet and Starhub were successful issued subpoenas. Pacific Internet was not (which halted the legal action by Odex). The media did not state the exact date where the first subpoena went out, as they only first noticed when people went to the media with the demand letters. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to give this article a bit of a clean up, restructuring etc. Might be a bit messy for a few hours. \  / (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tried to rework parts. Suggest merging the Pacific Internet case into the Legal Action section. \  / (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The headings of Pacific Internet case has to be retained in some form, as this was the turning point of Odex's legal actions. The background section in its current form is very short; I presume you'll shifting more stuff into it? - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As soon as I find more material. \  / (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The refs below the article are exhaustive. You might be able to gain more context if you have the time to go through a few vital ones. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Have cut up the intro. Trying avoid having too much detail there, yet still maintaining the article's dignity. \  / (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm restoring to the original version for now, but your proposed structure along with this one will be discussed in length at the upcoming peer review on the best structure of the article. I'm thinking the end result would be is most likely a mid-way between the two versions in terms of length for the lead-in (original is really long, while the proposed one is comparatively short). - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken up the copy editing challenge on this topic, but so far worked only on this concluding section. I'll be looking at it from a language and comprehension point of view. --Parkwells (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just lost many changes due to not saving often enough. Overall, my concern is that the article is prevented from meeting FAC because it is too journalistic; it has many details of day-today events, but does not focus on the underlying issues of the cases and what they mean for the online communities and companies. Will start over and save often.--Parkwells (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This may still be improved by more focus on issues rather than details of events.--Parkwells (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the lede should be much shorter and focus on an overview of the subject.  The number of citataions should be kept at a minimum (ideally, there should be no citations at all) since the bulk of the citation-necessary information will come in the body of the article.  The lede should only give a casual surfer a quick one- or two-paragraph summary of the information included in the article, and everything mentioned in the lede should be explained in detail in the body. tanankyo (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I just finished a grammar and style copy-edit of the article, and one thing that I did was italicize all the instances of "anime" I could find unless it was included in a direct quote.  Anime is italicized in the lede, or at least in the first couple of paragraphs, and I opted to continue in that vein for consistency.  If you decide to remove the italics from this word, please do so throughout.  Thanks! tanankyo (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The word "anime" should not be in italics. It is no longer considered a foreign word, as it has a separate meaning from the Japanese definition and is in English dictionaries. It is the practice of the anime wikiproject to have "anime" rendered without italics.--Remurmur (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Write as neutrally as possible, and not like the Odex company has just exterminated your whole family.  This is a Wikipedia standard guideline and not complying to it will result in changes made to the article. The article makes it sound like downloading anime from the Internet is a right thing to do. 116.14.226.146 (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Odex's actions against file-sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928004600/http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/GroundsOfDecision/OS159_07%20Odex%20v%20Pacific%20Internet.pdf to http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/GroundsOfDecision/OS159_07%20Odex%20v%20Pacific%20Internet.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Odex's actions against file-sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930224936/http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,137645,00.html to http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,137645,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Odex's actions against file-sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221162427/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=76054 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=76054
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tnp.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,148399,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)