Watching Rogue One?
- Pic from Internet
- wong chee tat :)
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Monday, November 28, 2016
Pokémon the Movie: Volcanion and the Mechanical Marvel
I want to watch this!
- Pic from Internet
- wong chee tat :)
Monday, May 23, 2016
Lawyers in Dallas Buyers Club action face punishment
Lawyers in Dallas Buyers Club action face punishment
Lawyers in Dallas Buyers Club action face punishment
Jared Leto and Matthew McCounaughey in Dallas Buyers Club.
KOH SWEE FANG VALERIE
valeriekohsf@mediacorp.com.sg PUBLISHED: 4:15 AM, MAY 17, 2016
SINGAPORE — The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) will be going after two former lawyers of the legal firm representing United States film studio Dallas Buyers Club LLC, following a complaint lodged last year on their conduct in civil claims against illegal downloaders of the movie.
In a reply to the complainant Internet Society (Singapore), which TODAY has seen, the LawSoc said an inquiry committee has decided that a formal investigation by a disciplinary tribunal was not necessary, but that the lawyers in question “should be given a warning, reprimand or order to pay a penalty of not more than S$10,000”.
The exact punishment will be decided by the LawSoc council after the lawyers respond to whether or not they wish to be heard on their side of the story in the matter — a procedural requirement under the Legal Profession Act (LPA).
“If a penalty or reprimand is imposed by Council, it will be published in the Government Gazette as required under the LPA,” said the society in a May 11 letter to Mr Harish Pillay, who is immediate past president of Internet Society (Singapore), a non-governmental organisation promoting Internet usage. The LawSoc letter was signed off by its director of conduct and chairman of the inquiry committee K Gopalan.
When contacted yesterday, the society declined to comment. “Under the LPA, the Law Society is required to maintain confidentiality for disciplinary proceedings save for information which the Society is required by law to publish,” said a spokesperson.
In June last year, Internet Society (Singapore) complained to LawSoc that Mr Robert Raj Joseph and Mr Lee Heng Eam, who were both still with Samuel Seow Law Corporation then, had issued letters threatening criminal proceedings to advance civil claims against the film’s pirates. These demand letters to 77 M1 subscribers asking for a written offer of damages and costs had spelt out a maximum fine of S$50,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years for a conviction under Section 136(3) of the Copyright Act, and a maximum S$20,000 fine and six months’ jail term under Section 136(3A) of the Act.
At that time, Mr Samuel Seow, the firm’s managing director, had said a new batch of letters that were worded differently were sent to StarHub and Singtel subscribers who allegedly downloaded the movie illegally. He had also said Mr Raj, who was the director of the litigation and dispute resolution practice group in the firm, was leaving the firm, but the departure was not linked to his handling of the case.
The Law Society’s Practice Directions and Rulings Guide 2013 states that it is improper for a solicitor to “communicate in writing or otherwise a threat of criminal proceedings in order to achieve a stated objective in any circumstance, for example, to compel a witness to attend at the solicitor’s office to give a statement or to sign a written statement despatched to him”.
Both Mr Raj and Mr Lee could not be reached for comments yesterday. After leaving the firm, Mr Raj set up his own practice in July last year. Mr Lee left after him, and has since become an in-house legal counsel, according to Mr Seow.
Mr Seow added that he had not heard of the latest development from the LawSoc. “It would not be right for me to comment on this,” he said. “We want to take the position that we protect copyright owners. It’s unfortunate, but they are my former employees.”
- wong chee tat :)
Lawyers in Dallas Buyers Club action face punishment
Jared Leto and Matthew McCounaughey in Dallas Buyers Club.
KOH SWEE FANG VALERIE
valeriekohsf@mediacorp.com.sg PUBLISHED: 4:15 AM, MAY 17, 2016
SINGAPORE — The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) will be going after two former lawyers of the legal firm representing United States film studio Dallas Buyers Club LLC, following a complaint lodged last year on their conduct in civil claims against illegal downloaders of the movie.
In a reply to the complainant Internet Society (Singapore), which TODAY has seen, the LawSoc said an inquiry committee has decided that a formal investigation by a disciplinary tribunal was not necessary, but that the lawyers in question “should be given a warning, reprimand or order to pay a penalty of not more than S$10,000”.
The exact punishment will be decided by the LawSoc council after the lawyers respond to whether or not they wish to be heard on their side of the story in the matter — a procedural requirement under the Legal Profession Act (LPA).
“If a penalty or reprimand is imposed by Council, it will be published in the Government Gazette as required under the LPA,” said the society in a May 11 letter to Mr Harish Pillay, who is immediate past president of Internet Society (Singapore), a non-governmental organisation promoting Internet usage. The LawSoc letter was signed off by its director of conduct and chairman of the inquiry committee K Gopalan.
When contacted yesterday, the society declined to comment. “Under the LPA, the Law Society is required to maintain confidentiality for disciplinary proceedings save for information which the Society is required by law to publish,” said a spokesperson.
In June last year, Internet Society (Singapore) complained to LawSoc that Mr Robert Raj Joseph and Mr Lee Heng Eam, who were both still with Samuel Seow Law Corporation then, had issued letters threatening criminal proceedings to advance civil claims against the film’s pirates. These demand letters to 77 M1 subscribers asking for a written offer of damages and costs had spelt out a maximum fine of S$50,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years for a conviction under Section 136(3) of the Copyright Act, and a maximum S$20,000 fine and six months’ jail term under Section 136(3A) of the Act.
At that time, Mr Samuel Seow, the firm’s managing director, had said a new batch of letters that were worded differently were sent to StarHub and Singtel subscribers who allegedly downloaded the movie illegally. He had also said Mr Raj, who was the director of the litigation and dispute resolution practice group in the firm, was leaving the firm, but the departure was not linked to his handling of the case.
The Law Society’s Practice Directions and Rulings Guide 2013 states that it is improper for a solicitor to “communicate in writing or otherwise a threat of criminal proceedings in order to achieve a stated objective in any circumstance, for example, to compel a witness to attend at the solicitor’s office to give a statement or to sign a written statement despatched to him”.
Both Mr Raj and Mr Lee could not be reached for comments yesterday. After leaving the firm, Mr Raj set up his own practice in July last year. Mr Lee left after him, and has since become an in-house legal counsel, according to Mr Seow.
Mr Seow added that he had not heard of the latest development from the LawSoc. “It would not be right for me to comment on this,” he said. “We want to take the position that we protect copyright owners. It’s unfortunate, but they are my former employees.”
- wong chee tat :)
Friday, February 12, 2016
Dallas Buyers Club abandons fight against Aussie pirates
Dallas Buyers Club abandons fight against Aussie pirates
Date: February 11, 2016
Hannah Francis
Technology Reporter
It's a happy day for Aussie pirates: The Hollywood studio behind the film Dallas Buyers Club has abandoned its fight to extract huge sums of cash from alleged copyright infringers.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC had until midday Thursday to lodge a second appeal against an August Federal Court decision which effectively prevented it from engaging in so-called "speculative invoicing" in Australia.
Michael Bradley of Marque Lawyers, who represented the studio in the case, confirmed to Fairfax Media the studio had not appealed the decision by the deadline.
He said while his client was disappointed by the final outcome of the case, it was not the end of the war against piracy in Australia.
"The problem isn't going away; Australia is still one of the most prominent jurisdictions for infringement, and rights holders will continue to feel that they're losing a lot of money, so I expect they'll continue to look for ways of deterring that behaviour," Mr Bradley said.
"The infringement is so large scale and the financial losses involved are so big, I don't think that's the end of the story."
He said the case was "very technical" and centred around access to information, with no bearing on the actual underlying legal issues of infringement and damages.
"Presumably infringers will be happy about the result; whether it will influence their behaviour [in regard to continuing to pirate], I have no idea," Mr Bradley said.
However Graham Phillips of Thomson Geer lawyers, who led the defence by iiNet and other internet service providers whose customers' details were at the centre of the case, said the outcome effectively defeated the speculative invoicing business model in Australia.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC's application ultimately failed because the studio overreached, he said.
"The demands they wanted to make were excessive, unsupported by the evidence they collected," Mr Phillips said.
Mr Phillips praised the ISPs for defending their customers' privacy, singling out iiNet's outspoken former chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby for leading the charge.
"The case is a great legacy for Steve Dalby ... who was keen to protect his customers from DBC's unfair speculative invoicing practice," Mr Phillips said.
Rights holders could succeed where Dallas Buyers Club had failed in obtaining details of alleged pirates, if they were able to prove in court their claims for damages would be reasonable and within the law, he said.
Federal Court Justice Nye Perram granted Dallas Buyers Club access to the names and addresses of the alleged pirates back in April, but put a temporary stay on access until the studio could prove to the court it would not threaten and pursue individuals for excessive amounts of money.
Justice Perram rejected "several versions" of the studio's proposed correspondence with individuals before deciding in August to lift the stay but impose strict conditions on access. These included that the studio only seek damages from individuals for the cost of obtaining the film plus some out-of-pocket expenses, and that it forfeit a $600,000 bond if the terms were breached. The restrictions effectively made any further action from the studio against individual pirates prohibitively expensive.
In September, Dallas Buyers Club LLC appealed the decision and sought access to the contact details of only 472 alleged pirates with a $60,000 bond – 10 per cent of the original amount – plus the right to seek further compensation. Justice Perram rejected the request in December, ordering the case to be thrown out on February 11 unless further action was taken.
- wong chee tat :)
Date: February 11, 2016
Hannah Francis
Technology Reporter
It's a happy day for Aussie pirates: The Hollywood studio behind the film Dallas Buyers Club has abandoned its fight to extract huge sums of cash from alleged copyright infringers.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC had until midday Thursday to lodge a second appeal against an August Federal Court decision which effectively prevented it from engaging in so-called "speculative invoicing" in Australia.
Michael Bradley of Marque Lawyers, who represented the studio in the case, confirmed to Fairfax Media the studio had not appealed the decision by the deadline.
He said while his client was disappointed by the final outcome of the case, it was not the end of the war against piracy in Australia.
"The problem isn't going away; Australia is still one of the most prominent jurisdictions for infringement, and rights holders will continue to feel that they're losing a lot of money, so I expect they'll continue to look for ways of deterring that behaviour," Mr Bradley said.
"The infringement is so large scale and the financial losses involved are so big, I don't think that's the end of the story."
He said the case was "very technical" and centred around access to information, with no bearing on the actual underlying legal issues of infringement and damages.
"Presumably infringers will be happy about the result; whether it will influence their behaviour [in regard to continuing to pirate], I have no idea," Mr Bradley said.
However Graham Phillips of Thomson Geer lawyers, who led the defence by iiNet and other internet service providers whose customers' details were at the centre of the case, said the outcome effectively defeated the speculative invoicing business model in Australia.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC's application ultimately failed because the studio overreached, he said.
"The demands they wanted to make were excessive, unsupported by the evidence they collected," Mr Phillips said.
Mr Phillips praised the ISPs for defending their customers' privacy, singling out iiNet's outspoken former chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby for leading the charge.
"The case is a great legacy for Steve Dalby ... who was keen to protect his customers from DBC's unfair speculative invoicing practice," Mr Phillips said.
Rights holders could succeed where Dallas Buyers Club had failed in obtaining details of alleged pirates, if they were able to prove in court their claims for damages would be reasonable and within the law, he said.
Federal Court Justice Nye Perram granted Dallas Buyers Club access to the names and addresses of the alleged pirates back in April, but put a temporary stay on access until the studio could prove to the court it would not threaten and pursue individuals for excessive amounts of money.
Justice Perram rejected "several versions" of the studio's proposed correspondence with individuals before deciding in August to lift the stay but impose strict conditions on access. These included that the studio only seek damages from individuals for the cost of obtaining the film plus some out-of-pocket expenses, and that it forfeit a $600,000 bond if the terms were breached. The restrictions effectively made any further action from the studio against individual pirates prohibitively expensive.
In September, Dallas Buyers Club LLC appealed the decision and sought access to the contact details of only 472 alleged pirates with a $60,000 bond – 10 per cent of the original amount – plus the right to seek further compensation. Justice Perram rejected the request in December, ordering the case to be thrown out on February 11 unless further action was taken.
- wong chee tat :)
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)