Support Groups (Public & Private) => Support Groups (Public) => Topic started by: greentara on April 11, 2015, 01:38:12 PM

Title: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 11, 2015, 01:38:12 PM
Background to this Support Group

Studio demands compensation from more than 500 people here who downloaded movie
Published on Apr 7, 2015 9:16 PM
By Irene Tham

MORE than 500 people in Singapore have allegedly downloaded Oscar-winning film Dallas Buyers Club illegally over the Internet, and now they may have to face the music.

United States company Dallas Buyers Club LLC, which owns the film rights, wants compensation.

Acting on its behalf in Singapore - as part of its global campaign - is local law firm Samuel Seow Law Corporation.

The film studio has apparently identified more than 500 Singapore Internet protocol (IP) addresses, from subscribers of the three major Internet service providers (ISPs) - Singtel, StarHub and M1 - where the movie was downloaded illegally.

Over the weekend, the law firm reportedly started sending letters to Internet users here asking for a written offer of damages and costs within three days of receiving the letter.

It is not known how many have responded to the letter.

The 2013 film is based on the true story of an American's quest to treat HIV in the mid-1980s. It won three Academy Awards, including Best Actor for Matthew McConaughey and Best Supporting Actor for Jared Leto.

Intellectual property lawyer Cyril Chua of ATMD Bird & Bird said the film studio may sue a few individuals here to scare people into paying the settlement fee, which is not made public.

Lawyer Bryan Tan, a technology partner at Pinsent Masons MPillay, said those who received the letters of demand should seek legal advice. "There are penalties for infringers if this goes all the way," he said.

Lawyer Samuel Seow reportedly said its client, Dallas Buyers Club, "fully intends to protect and defend their copyright in the movie and shall take all necessary actions to protect the same".

The Straits Times understands that the film company had asked for subscriber details from the ISPs last year, but failed.

It then made a "pre-action discovery" application at the High Court earlier this year to force the ISPs to release customer details.

M1 was the first to comply with the court order in January to release the names, IC numbers and addresses of subscribers linked to the IP addresses in question. StarHub, which also received the court order, said it is in the process of complying with it.

Singtel said it has yet to receive a court order.

MyRepublic and ViewQwest said they did not receive any request for subscriber details.

Dallas Buyers Club is also going after about 4,700 Internet users in Australia, after securing a landmark court judgment yesterday that compels ISPs there to hand over customer details.

In the US, more than 1,000 users are being sued.

Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 11, 2015, 01:59:06 PM
Related discussions on the Dallas Buyers Club (DBC)

Received threatening letter for downloading movie. Need advice...

Round 2+1 (Sep 2015 to (a) 2020 or (b) once DBC/SSLC decided to leave Singapore alone - whichever earlier): Crowdfunding for DBC-SG (all remaining affected subscribers)

Round 2 (July-Aug 2015): Crowdfunding for DBC-SG (for Singtel, Starhub & M1)

Round 1 (Apr-May 2015): Crowdfunding for DBC-SG

DBC-SG Crowdfunding Campaigns:

Reddit: Someone received a letter from a law firm for downloading a movie

Reddit: Dallas Buyers Club downloads: M1 passed customer details to law firm on court order

Start crowdfunding and countersue the dallas club (Inactive)

[DBC] Centralised Discussion/Voting Platform (Inactive)

Members affacted by Dallas Buyers Club Movi (Inactive)

Dallas Buyers Club case: Uphill task to sue users, say lawyers (inactive)

(DBC) Popcorn Time Users Who Watched 'Dallas Buyers Club' Targeted By Hollywood (inactive)

░░░░░THE BEST SOLUTION to the 'Dallas Buyers Club' illegal DL/Sharing LEGAL THREAT PROBLEM░░░░░  (inactive)

Hollywood Goes After Illegal Downloaders In Singapore

Hollywood film Dallas Buyers Club goes after illegal downloaders in S'pore

Telcos reveal the names of those who download

Facebook: Say NO to Speculative Invoicing in Australia

Petitioning Shadow Minister for Communications & Broadband Malcolm Turnbull MP and 1 other: Reject Dallas Buyers Club application for ISP Customer information

In Australia: Dallas Buyers Club Threatening Letters

In Australia: Dallas Buyers Club LLC Vs. Crowdfunding

Title: Verification Process for the private DBC-SG Support Group
Post by: greentara on April 11, 2015, 02:21:48 PM
1. There is a separate section within this forum that is ONLY open to the 500+ people (Affected Parties or AP) who have received the letter from Samuel Seow Law Corp. "PRIVATE: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore Support Group":,13.0.html

2. However if you are not one of the 500+ people but have useful & constructive information or suggestions for them, you may post it here or any of the related DBC related threads in HWZ.

3. Newly registered users who wish to be included in the DBC-SG Private Support Group would need to be verified first and I will be personally doing this verification.

To verify that are indeed one of the 500+ people (or family members / relatives) who have received the letter, you need to prepare these materials:

4. Assemble the above materials 3(a) to 3(e) into a single .ZIP file [Filename format: Name(ForumUsername).zip] and email it to me at ( for verification and approval into the private DBC-SG Support Group (,13.0.html). Note that if you have sent incomplete materials, you are still required to resent 3(a) to 3(e) into a single .ZIP file in your subsequent email, rather than in bits and pieces.

5. 13 July 2015 Update: Till now, verified affected parties (less than 45) are NOT required to pay a single cent to benefit from the 1st and 2nd crowdfunds. Having spoke to the IP defense lawyer, I was advised by him that this scheme is not sustainable especially in view that it is highly probable that majority of the 500+ subscribers have yet to receive the demand letter. Moving forward, this is the updated plan, there is a fee of USD150. However,
if the subscriber is a full-time student or is unemployed, then you may contribute only USD9 (with supporting documentation such as Student ID & CPF recent 15 months transaction records). The fee enables:

When you make your contribution, you may click on the 'Hide my name on the campaign page' checkbox at the bottom of the page and your name will be hidden from the public.

By default, the Indiegogo platform sends me an email whenever there is a new contribution with your name and thus I will be able to activate your private forum membership within the next 24 hours.

For the record, 100% of the crowd funds go to the IP defense lawyer and I am only a pro-bono administrator of the crowd funds.
Public accounting of the DBC-SG crowd funds can be found in this thread:


Dr. Green.

NB1: Partial address includes (a) Blk number (b) Street address and (c) Postal code - you may blur out your unit number

NB2: Partial NRIC/EP/WP/DP number includes just the last 5 digits of your NRIC/EP/WP/DP number - you may blur out other information such as birth date, blood type, photo, etc.
Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 12, 2015, 11:05:51 AM
Accessible only to AP:,38.msg141.html#msg141

Accessible only to AP:,39.0.html
Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 14, 2015, 07:30:47 PM
UK: Lords debate how to STOP ACS LAWs "Legal Blackmail"

UK: ACS LAW and Tilly Bailey Irvine "New entrants to the hall of infamy"

AU: Should ISPs Be Compelled To Hand Over Customer Data? - SciTech Culture
Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 15, 2015, 04:31:25 PM
Channel NewsAsia Documentary (25mins) relating to Copyright Trolls, Speculative Invoicing, Torrent, Peer-to-Peer file sharing and more


( (
Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 17, 2015, 01:30:13 PM
《狮城有约》节目重温 4月16日


Dallas Buyers Club related from 13:05 to 24:14 (11 mins):

( (
Title: Specification for DBC-SG Support Group Crowdfunding Campaign
Post by: greentara on April 17, 2015, 09:37:21 PM
Specification for DBC-SG Support Group [DBC-SG] Crowdfunding Campaign (v2.0, July 2015)

A. Voltage Pictures ("Voltage"), an American film production house, has, through a local subsidiary Dallas Buyers Club ("DBC") and its solicitors Samuel Seow Law Corporation ("SSLC") sent letters of demand ("LODs") to many customers of local ISP M1, Singtel & Starhub [1,2].

B. The LODs alleged that the recipients (the "Affected Parties" or AP) have downloaded a movie, also called Dallas Buyers Club (the "Movie"), using BitTorrent ("BT") in an illegal manner, an open source P2P file sharing software. There are also others (the "To-be Affected Parties" or tbAP) that have yet to receive the letters as intel suggests that SSLC sent out the letters in batches.

C. There are several types [3] of Crowdfunding (i) Reward-based, (ii) Equity, (iii) Debt-based, (iv) Litigation and (v) Charity. The DBC-SG Crowdfunding Campaign is designed to be a variant of Reward-based + Litigation. The Perks/Rewards is outlined in (Section L).

D. The objectives of our DBC-SG Crowdfunding Campaign are:
To relieve the distress of both the AP and To-be AP. Relieving of distress of the AP & tbAP is through the availability of this Support Group and

E. A large part of the funds raised from the DBC-SG crowdfunding campaign shall be used to cover the costs in achieving the objectives see Section D. In terms of priority, achieving D.i & D.iv are highest priority, followed by D.ii and/or D.iii - largely depending on amount raised.

F. Only verified Affected Parties shall be the beneficiaries of the fund. Our verification process is outline here:,37.msg138.html#msg138

G. Additionally, verified Affected Parties shall be required to:

H. 3-hour basic Computer Forensics, IT security & Intellectual Property Workshop:
[We are open to sponsorship opportunities from Training Providers (to conduct the workshop) & Venue owners. Feel free to explore full-sponsorship, partial-sponsorship possibilities with us]

I. There is a possibility of excess funds. Excess is defined as additional contributions above the Perk value. For example, if the Perk value is $49 and someone selected this Perk and contributed $100, the excess is therefore $59.

In the event that there is an excess funds, these options shall be open for public voting among the fund contributors:

J. Funds contributors may choose to be publicly acknowledged and the three means are: (a) by name, (b) by online forum name, or (c) anonymous.

K. Crowdfunding Campaign is on the Indiegogo platform.

L. The Indiegogo related 'Perks' for the funds contributors are:

M. Delivery Timeline & Condition
There is a condition attached to P2, P4 & P6: P2, P4 & P6. The condition is such that these perks are only available to those without an interest in DBC LLC, ie. neither DBC related entities nor DBC appointed firms. Funders found to be associated with DBC LLC shall be barred from these perks with no refund.

O. The web link to the Crowdfunding Campaign is

Title: FAQ for DBC-SG Crowdfunding Campaign
Post by: greentara on April 18, 2015, 08:18:47 AM
FAQ for DBC-SG Crowdfunding Campaign (v2.0, July 2015)

Q1. What are all these Copyright Trolls, Speculative Invoicing, DBC business all about?
A1: Check out an excellent online video documentary "Between the Lines" from CNA,

Q2: What is the background of this DBC-SG?
A2: See,37.msg136.html#msg136

Q3: What is the website to the Crowdfunding Campaign?

Q4: Tell me more about the DBC-SG Support Group
A4: The DBC-SG Support Group was established on 11 April 2015 to provide assistance and support to the 500+ affected parties (less than 10% are verified).A private support platform was also established on 12 April 2015 where DBC related data/info/intel are shared among the verified affected parties

Q5: How can we contact you for more information?
A5: You may write to ipresearch70(at)
You may also drop by our online Chat platform,

Q6: Who are involved in this project?
A6: An Exco team was initiated on 16 April 2015 as it became apparent that we need a team to support the Group in order for this effort to be sustainable. Exco team as at 28 April 2015:
Q7: How can you be sure that the beneficiaries of the funds go to the Affected Parties?
A7: The verification process is outlined here:,37.msg138.html#msg138

Q8: Based on the media reports, there are several hundreds of IP addresses that were deemed to be associated with the download of the Dallas Buyers Club movie, so why not let the Singapore Laws deal with it?
A8: "(a) National sovereignty - DBC/SSLC have set vague/arbitrary level(s) of compensation, which should be decided by the Court - not foreign companies. Some have brought up statutory backstops. However, it should be noted that these backstops DO NOT OPERATE IN A LEGAL VACUUM. They depend on case law that CANNOT BE UNIFORMLY APPLIED ACROSS DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. Therefore, the efficacy of these statutory backstop(s) are UNKNOWN AND UNTESTED, especially because, apart from ODEX 10 years ago, this is a NOVEL LEGAL SITUATION.
(b) Privacy - the High Court should be discouraged from granting leave for pre-action discovery(ies) involving so many parties and so much highly private/personal information. This is one of the key goals - we should, whether affected or not, make a clear stand on this matter."

Q9: What is the target amount set for the crowdfunding campaign?
A9: The minimum is now set to $500 as per Indiegogo platform minimum amount. Higher amount raised will enable the team will aid the community in different ways.

Q10: Aid the community in what different ways?
A10: Depending on the amount raised, we would be able to help the community in the follow ways:

Q11: How will the funds raised be used to support the DBC-SG Support Group?
A11: To relieve the distress of both the AP and To-be AP. Relieving of distress of the AP & tbAP is through the availability of this Support Group and

Q12: I want to contribute but I have financial constraints. Can I contribute in-kind?
A12: It is the thought that counts and thank-you for your kind thoughts. You may contribute in-kind. One suggestion is to make a prayer in your own faith for all the stakeholders involved in the DBC-SG Support Group. Singapore is a multi-religion society. Any prayer in any faith is welcome, be it by a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Buddhist, Taoist, ... every prayer counts.

Q13: What if you run away with the fund raised?
A13: One should live this life creating virtuous actions and refrain from non-virtuous actions. I have no plan to create non-virtuous action by running away with the money. Moreover, integrity is a value that I cherished a lot and it it is most irrational of me to destroy my integrity by running away with the funds raised be it $20,000 or $20 million.
Remember David Rasif (,47.0.html) - a high profile and competent ex-lawyer in Singapore, he cheated his clients of over S$10million.,47.0.html
Many of these criminals do not understand this, while they can run away with lots of money and probably never get caught in this life; these criminals will still have to answer for their crimes in the next life. For atheists who are laughing at me now, keep on laughing because the distress and torment that people like Rasif have inflicted on their immediate family members during the first few months is probably unbearable.

Q14: Will the accounting of the funds be made public or private?
A14: It will be made public through this website:
Additional tools may be introduced as we progress.

Q15: After reading the FAQ, while I am financially able to contribute $2 to the crowdfunding campaign, I am still unsure that the fund raised will benefit the verified Affected Parties within the DBC-SG Support Group.
A15: I understand, thank-you for your consideration and you may contribute in-kind.

Q16: Is there any safeguard in place to ensure that the appointed lawyer will not over charged?
A16: I will review the bills with selected DBC-SG Support Group Exco team.

Singapore, (2015), "Singapore Statutes Online - 63 - Copyright Act", Retrieved April 14, 2015, from;ident=3b65c903-dd82-467d-ab99-9fcc1ef79a33;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22e20124e1-6616-4dc5-865f-c83553293ed3%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0
TSIH. (2012), "The Speculative Invoicing Handbook, Second Edition", Retrieved April 14, 2015, from
Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 19, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
We have set up an Exco for the "DBC-SG Support Group" and is currently on a Recruitment Drive.

1. Positions are opened for nomination / self-nomination (via PM or public) but you will need to reference (via PM or public) your past postings / contributions (in HWZ or elsewhere) to support your nomination.

2. JD for each position is largely defined by yourself - let us know what you can contribute.

3. Affected Parties may also nominate themselves and need NOT inform any of the Exco team members that you are an Affected Party.

4. There shall be no physical meet-up nor exchange of telephone numbers.

5. All Exco interactions shall be virtual, secure and anonymous on a separate platform. More info on this platform at a later stage.

6. The list of Exco team members may be published in HWZ BUT we will leave it to the Exco members whether the team is to be anonymously make known to the public.

7. The Chairwoman has the additional power to retire any Exco team member.

8. Those interested and qualify may apply to us here support(at)

Recruitment for Researchers [Unlimited Vacanies]

Job Description:  Researchers shall be involved in the  identification and gathering of  global data, information and  intelligence relating to Voltage  Entertainment and Dallas Buyers Club  and their Speculative Invoicing  World Wars.

R1. Most important: Deemed to be trustworthy & reliable individual  by the DBC-SG Support Group Exco team (past postings in HWZ is one  indicator, among others)
R2.  Pass the pre-application test which involved the reporting of at  least 2 novel  pieces of data, info or intelligence (eg. the reporting  of #1 from 'Charlie')
R3. Good internet search skills is essential
R4. Access to various commercial databases (eg. Lawnet, Sciencedirect, ...) is advantageous but optional

Additional information:
A1. Researchers shall be compensated in the following way(s):

A2. Those interested should only apply AFTER you have completed R2 (in the above).
A3. After you have completed R2, you may send me an email (with R2 deliverables), ipresearch(at)
A4. Most of whom are not accepted would probably be due to R1 due to  their prior HWZ limited postings. However, you may build your online  credibility further through regular (constructive) posting in this  thread or other DBC related HWZ threads.

#1: Voltage Pictures (Nicolas Chartier) & TCYK, LLC, Dismissed in TN – Go Back To TX[/B] (updated 18 Apr 2014) (
Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 19, 2015, 11:23:53 AM
1. In preparation of the crowdfunding campaign for Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (DBC-SG) where the primary beneficiaries of the funds raised are the 500+ people who have received or will be receiving the letter from SSLC.

2. Specification for DBC-SG Support Group: [DBC-SG] Crowdfunding Campaign:,37.msg162.html#msg162 (,37.msg162.html#msg162)

3. Recruitment Drive for DBC-SG Crowdfunding Associates:
Contact me if you are willing and have time to contribute in any of the above role (even 1 min is good enough for me).

4. FAQ for DBC-SG Crowdfunding Campaign:,37.msg163.html#msg163 (,37.msg163.html#msg163)

5. The earliest this campaign will be launched is next week 22-26 Apr. Latest by 27Apr-3May.

Low crime doesn't mean no crime. IP Hub doesn't mean Speculative Invoicing.
Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 20, 2015, 03:28:08 PM
Urgent Request #1

1. I need the 24 Affected  Parties (from the HWZ Poll) who have indicated that they have received the letter from SSLC to contact me -  those who are already verified can ignore this request.

2. Note that if you think you may be receiving the letter but has not, pls  refrain from contacting me as far as this request is concerned - do  so if and only if you have the letter.

Request #2

The team is working on a crowdfunding Press Kit and will be ready in several times time.

Target audience would be 80% from Singapore and 20% the rest of the world for now. Planned indiegogo perks will cover all these groups: DBC-SG, DBC-DK, DBC-US, DBC-AU, and DBC-Others, BittorrentCopyrightTrolls-World... United We Stand.

We would like to reach out to both the media and social media with the Press Kit and ask if they are able to support us by writing a short piece of article for publication in-sync with our 1st day of Crowdfunding launch.

If you have friends in the:

Would like to co-ordinate the efforts so that the Press is not swamp and deem us as spam.

If you contacts to F1 and/or F2 (preferably their email address) or is willing to contact them, please contact me and I'll organise this accordingly.


Update & Request #3

1. Digital forensics for the IP defence team is in progress. In addition, based on publicly available documents, DBC digital evidence contains more issues than they are willing to admit in public. Perhaps efforts from the DBC-SG Support Group can benefit our Australia friends as well (95% confidence level).

2. For the 77+ M1 users (regardless of whether you have settled with SSLC) who have received the letter, please PM me the exact DBC filename in Section 4 of your letter, eg. "Dallas Buyers Club 2013 BRRIP x264 AC3-RARBG"

3. DO NOT post the filename stated in your letter in public - your filename may be unique and thus identifiable by SSLC.

Request #4: Moderators for 24/7 Crowdfunding Chat Platform

1. For this crowdfunding campaign, it is designed to be global in nature, where fund contributors from overseas will also be welcome.

2. Unlike HWZ forumers and those based in Singapore who may be familiar with this DBC-SG Support Group Crowdfunding Campaign, our overseas friends and family members, in particular from Australia, USA, Denmark and elsewhere may be new to our initiative.

3. An easy to use and anonymous 24/7 chat platform will be made available to support this Crowdfunding campaign. This 24/7 chat platform shall is open and will remain open for months even after the actual Crowdfunding Campaign is over. You may access the anonymous chat platform (you may login as guest if you wish) here: (

4. Therefore, the DBC-SG Support Group Exco team would like to gather several "DBC-SG Crowdfunding Chat Platform" moderators.

Your role (during your spare time, even 5 mins is good enough for me) is as follows:

PM me if you are able to and have spare time (at least 5 mins a day) to be the Crowdfunding Chat Platform moderator.
Title: Re: PUBLIC: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 24, 2015, 11:07:02 AM
Original source (broken link as at Sep 2018):
Cache 1:
Cache 2:
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 30, 2015, 11:08:26 AM
Indiegogo Crowdfunding Campaign:

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 30, 2015, 02:11:44 PM
A compilation of the Media Coverage for the Crowdfunding Campaign is documented in the Fund Raising section, see
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on May 01, 2015, 01:33:58 PM
Dallas Buyers Club case: Threatening subscribers won't stop piracy
Published on May 1, 2015 7:46 AM
By Harish Pillay And Ang Peng Hwa, For The Straits Times

THE current case of Internet users being hounded for allegedly downloading the Dallas Buyers Club movie is an example of a shotgun approach to legal tactics that can only backfire.

We, at the Internet Society, believe that the current case presents a good chance to reflect on some developments for future improvements in the protection of intellectual property rights in a world of sharing, streaming and downloading, where innocent Internet users can continue to use the Internet without fear.

To be clear, we agree that illegal downloading of copyrighted material cannot be condoned. Such infringement deprives creators of their just rewards for their creative works.

If creators are not suitably incentivised to create content for the rest of us, we would soon be left watching only videos of cute kittens and baby antics.

The Dallas Buyers Club case, however, raises alarm about the threatened penalties for infringement. We advise that these tactics will not be effective for three reasons.


WHENEVER such letters demand details from multiple subscribers, the court should play a supervisory role. In Australia, a court allowed disclosure of subscriber details, but required letters to be issued under supervision of the court.

In Singapore, we have a similar court process for the disclosure of subscriber details known as preaction discovery. In a 2004 case, Justice Belinda Ang ruled "the court had a duty to ensure that any application for pre-action discovery was not frivolous or speculative and that the applicant was not on a fishing expedition".

The courts already require a supervising solicitor to be present when injunctions or search orders are issued - to ensure that orders are properly carried out.

In a wide action such as this, involving the details of a substantial number of individuals, the courts and other regulatory bodies such as the Law Society can take an active role in ensuring that this information does not fall into the wrong hands and is not wrongly exposed. This will especially protect the personal details and privacy of innocent Internet users.

Some commentators have queried whether three days given in the letters was sufficient time for a lay person to respond, and whether lawyers were permitted to allege the commission of criminal offences or to threaten criminal proceedings. The letters viewed by members of the Internet Society had hinted at the possibility of criminal sanction as a result of sections 136(3) and 136(3A) of the Copyright Act. We hope that the Law Society will advise whether it is appropriate to do so when the letters do not present facts that show these alleged criminal offences.


FROM reading a sample of letters sent to subscribers, we note that the copyright owners have been unable to ascertain whether the subscriber is the person committing the acts of infringement, or whether the acts complained of were of downloading, sharing or both.

The distinction is crucial. Where the acts complained of include sharing, then the prevailing view is that Section 136(3) might come into play. However, when the act is merely downloading, the position is less clear, even though it might constitute infringement.

Even more critical is the difference between a subscriber and an infringer. A subscriber of an Internet service may not be an infringer; it could be his friend who was allowed to use his network on the understanding that no illegal activities were to be carried out, or someone unknown who obtained access through an unsecured Wi-Fi network.

There is no legal precedent to suggest subscribers are liable merely for acts committed on their Internet accounts. In fact, it flies against the exceptions in the Electronic Transactions Act and the Copyright Act, which give exemption from civil and criminal liability to network service providers who merely provide technical means to access Internet content to persons they do not have control over.

The liability of intermediaries is an important concept of the Internet in properly allocating liability and it is crucial to clearly demarcate that subscribers who are not infringers should not be automatically liable for infringing acts of others.


ACCESS to good content is one area where copyright owners need to do better. Singapore is a tiny and troublesome market for content owners because of our censorship system. But with the Internet reducing the costs of distribution and customisation, there is no good reason for content owners to restrict distribution of contents to Singapore. If Singaporeans have easy and cheap access to premium content streamed at HD quality, few would want to consume a low-quality copy. And with the Asean Economic Community becoming a reality by the end of the year, might it not make sense to look at distributing content to all 10 markets based on the censorship standards of Singapore? Already, movie studios based in Singapore have found a welcoming market in China because the Chinese feel our censorship standards are comparable to theirs.

Internet users, especially the younger ones, are used to the idea of FREE. Free games, free chats, free contents. More effort needs to be expended to educate Internet users that content is not cheap to produce. And good-quality content is even more expensive to produce. If they want to continue to enjoy access to great content, they must play their part to sustain the ecosystem that produces the content they want.

Education is also key not only in reducing copyright infringement, but also in empowering Internet users to know their rights. Three days is insufficient to seek the necessary legal and other advice to respond. Cases like this are rare and more knowledge of legal rights could level the playing field.

Challenge to IP owners

FINALLY, the Internet Society would like to restate our stand that we fully respect and support protection of intellectual property (IP) rights. It is arguable that the Internet would not have come into being and flourish without a strong system protecting intellectual property.

But the Internet is also a very powerful and fast disruptor of existing business, production and distribution models. Incumbents who are seeing their market share and profits eroded because of the Internet should not seek to hold on by using shotgun approaches. Instead, they will benefit the most if they embrace the innovation and disruption by taking on the competition head-on.

So, the Internet Society's challenge to all intellectual property owners out there is this: Stop spending your shareholders' precious investment on legal actions which will not actually advance your interests, but merely stifle the widespread Internet use that could build your future business.

Instead, build a more solid business by using the money on more research and development to better understand your customers' needs and figure out a way to delight them using the technologies of today and the future.

[email protected]
Harish Pillay is the president and Professor Ang Peng Hwa is the vice-president of the Internet Society Singapore Chapter -

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on May 18, 2015, 01:12:04 PM
Straits Times ( 18 May 2015


Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 20, 2015, 12:34:28 PM
A verified advanced warning letter from Singtel alerting affected subscribers information that was passed to SSLC and that they may be hearing from SSLC.

Well done, Singtel for demonstrating excellent Customer Service. M1 and Starhub should reflect on this and possibly learn from it!

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 22, 2015, 09:54:43 AM

Source 1:
Source 2:
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 22, 2015, 10:15:53 AM

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 22, 2015, 05:19:08 PM
Official DBC-SG Support Group Facebook page

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 23, 2015, 01:40:32 PM

Source 1:
Source 2:
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 23, 2015, 10:16:46 PM
Google News: Dallas Buyers Club

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: coolbloke on June 25, 2015, 01:37:14 AM
thanks for all the work you have done so far
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 29, 2015, 03:08:51 PM

Antonelli, J. (2013). Torrent Wars: Copyright trolls, legitimate IP rights, and the need for new rules vetting evidence and to amend the Copyright Act. Intellectual Property, Illinois State Bar Association Newsletter, October 2013, vol. 53, no.1.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 30, 2015, 11:03:23 AM


Singapore industry group raps Dallas Buyers Club lawyers for bullying
Internet Society's Singapore chapter files complaint against lawyers representing Dallas Buyers Club LLC over its bullying tactics in the illegal download lawsuit.

By Eileen Yu for By The Way | June 23, 2015 -- 07:39 GMT

The Singapore outfit of non-profit industry group, Internet Society (ISOC), has filed a complaint against local lawyers representing Dallas Buyers Club LLC over what it describes as bullying tactics in the film studio's illegal download lawsuit.

The complaint, targeting Samuel Seow Law's litigation and dispute resolution practice group, argued that the lawyers had resorted to threats of criminal proceedings, which breached the Law Society of Singapore's code of ethics. ISOC's Singapore President Harish Pillay said the complaint letter was handed to the law society last week, reported local newspaper Today.

Pillay said the law firm adopted "bad bullying tactics" in its initial demand letters sent in April to subscribers of local telco M1, detailing fines of up to S$50,000 or jail term in copyright infringement acts and demanding written offers of damages and costs.

"These words make people panic, especially those who are not legally trained," he said in the report. "They are blaming people of alleged transgression without proof... Those who are a bit naive will settle [without seeking legal help]."

M1, along with Singapore's two other telcos Singtel and StarHub, were ordered by the local high court to hand over information about customers alleged to have downloaded illegal copies of the movie Dallas Buyers Club.

In a May blog post, ISOC described the move as "a shotgun approach to legal tactics that can only backfire". Stressing that while it did not condone illegal downloading of copyrighted content, it called for improvements in the protection of intellectual property rights where "innocent" online users should be able to access the web "without fear".

Samuel Seow Law said in the Today report that it was unaware of the complaint filed by ISOC, and further noted that subsequent letters to subscribers of Singtel and StarHub were worded differently.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 30, 2015, 01:26:07 PM
Source: (
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 30, 2015, 07:32:13 PM
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on July 15, 2015, 09:58:10 AM
Round 2 of the DBC-SG Crowdfunding Campaign has started. (
Duration: 12 July to 10 Aug 2015

Details in a different thread:

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on July 15, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
My receiving-end censorship experience within the Whirlpool forum is most interesting. It is almost as if the moderators are working for either (i) DBC LLC or (ii) the lawfirm appointed by DBC in Australia!!

Below is an excerpt from two of my recent postings and a response from a curious forummer 'Mauro'. All our postings vanished in the cyberspace within several minutes, before my screen capture :)

Anyway, if Mauro or other Whirlpool forummers reach this thread, this is my response to your comment:

1. A summary of DBC LLC vs. Singapore can be found in this 3 minutes video:

2. Mauro, as you have pointed out: 'iiNet lawyers failed to cross examine...'. Lawyers are not cyber forensic experts. Even forensic experts are of different grade, recall DBC LLC appointed 'forensic expert' Daniel Macek? see

The DBC LLC cyber forensic evidence is seemingly valid but it is not. The basis of concluding that DBC LLC cyber forensic evidence to be invalid is an expert opinion of a DBC-SG Support Group Exco team member -  a competent and qualified digital forensic analyst and is ready to be the expert witness for the IP defense team in Singapore either (a) with the IP defense lawyer that we have appointed, and/or (b) for Singapore-based subscribers who are going to self-represent and challenge DBC LLC in the Singapore courts:

3. Fellow Whirlpool forumers, if you want to know more, you can either

4. FYI, there are at least 2 threads in a Singapore based forum that are also discussing about the DBC LLC vs. Singapore:

5. Adios Whirlpool forum and may you Whirlpool moderators be well and happy.

Dr. Green
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on July 15, 2015, 12:47:55 PM
Two excellent postings from Whirlpool discussion forum (applicable to DBC LLC vs. Singapore as well):

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on July 17, 2015, 08:57:45 AM
Another similar (but weaker) Speculative Invoicing case in the United Kingdom: TCYK LLC vs United Kingdom.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on August 08, 2015, 12:52:35 PM
'Pay $5k for illegal download of movie'
8 August 2015 Irene Tham Tech Editor 

At least three local Internet users accused of downloading the film Dallas Buyers Club illegally have received letters demanding they pay $5,000 to the Hollywood studio that produced it.

Samuel Seow Law Corporation, which represents Voltage Pictures, sent the letters to the three after they wrote back in response to letters it sent out earlier this year. The Straits Times understands that the latest letters could also have been sent out to others who responded.

The first batch of demand letters went out in early April to 77 M1 Internet subscribers. Another batch was sent to hundreds of Singtel and StarHub users in June. Singtel subscriber Louis Lim, 42, who received the letter said he was told to pay $5,000 - even though he claims he did not download the movie.

"If I'm guilty as claimed, I'm sure the firm would have sued me in court and not merely told me to pay up," the events management consultant said.

He received his first letter from the law firm on June 21.

He replied in an e-mail stating that he did not download the movie but had rented out a room on his premises to four tenants.

Late last month, he received a second letter asking for details of the tenants as well as a "settlement sum" of $5,000 to avoid a protracted litigation.

One user who spoke to The Straits Times but did not want to be named said he had written back to make an offer of less than $1,000. This was rejected and the lawyers told him to pay $5,000, which he called "exhorbitant".

The Law Ministry told The Straits Times that it has received two complaints and 26 queries - for the first time in five years - about "speculative invoicing".

Speculative invoicing - a common practice in the United States and Britain - is the practice of rights holders sending letters to alleged intellectual property (IP) pirates to demand that they pay up to avoid being taken to court.

Law Minister K. Shanmugam clarified in Parliament in April that the act of sending a letter of demand "is not wrongful by itself unless it contravenes a lawyer's professional obligations". For instance, lawyers are not allowed to use threats of criminal proceedings to further civil claims.

Meanwhile, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore has advised Internet users to question the accuracy of the investigations carried out by copyright owners, and ask for more evidence if they feel they had been wrongly accused.

It has also recommended the price of a DVD of the movie in question as a possible settlement sum.

Market observers suggested that the hefty price tag of $5,000 is meant to deter future infringement, but some lawyers disagreed with the approach.

Mr Lau Kok Keng, IP lawyer at Rajah & Tann Singapore, said: "In the absence of proof of actual incurrence of damages and reasonable expenses, it would be difficult for the rights owner to justify requiring an infringer to pay damages of $5,000 just for downloading a single movie title."

When asked about the latest set of demand letters sent to Internet users, Mr Samuel Seow, managing director of Samuel Seow Law Corp, said: "We negotiate settlements on an individual basis with infringers, depending on various factors."

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on August 14, 2015, 09:58:36 PM
Australian court curbs penalties for illegal downloaders of the film Dallas Buyers Club
14 August 2015

SYDNEY (Reuters) - An Australian court on Friday forced makers of the film Dallas Buyers Club to cap penalties for illegal downloaders, a ruling welcomed by Internet companies as a "knockout blow" to the controversial tactic of threatening pirates into paying fines.

The ruling puts Australia at odds with the United States, Britain, Canada and Germany where content owners have been allowed to send letters to suspected illegal downloaders demanding thousands of dollars to drop legal action, a measure known as "speculative invoicing".

In a lawsuit seen as a test of whether the practice will be allowed in Australia, where a third of adults admit to stealing online, the studio behind the triple Oscar winner, Voltage Pictures, wanted iiNet and five smaller Internet companies to hand over the addresses of 4,276 suspected offenders.

But in an unexpected setback, the Federal Court refused their request, saying it would only make the Internet companies hand over customer details if the producers promised to charge only the cost of buying a copy of the film.

The judge also ordered the Hollywood producers pay a A$600,000 (S$617,350) bond to ensure they keep the promise.

"It's probably a knockout blow for anyone who thinks they can successfully get into the speculative invoicing business in Australia," said Mr John Stanton, chief executive of the Internet industry group the Communications Alliance.

"It's hard to see how that type of activity can be viable in Australia if rights holders are confined to seeking damages equivalent to the purchase of the item in question and a contribution to legal costs."

Dr Michael Fraser, a professor of law at University of Technology Sydney and chairman of the Australian Copyright Council, said he expected the producers to pay the bond and charge the smaller fines since "they're out to make a point".

"It won't defeat piracy by itself but it shows a rights owner taking proceedings to protect their rights as they're entitled to do."

The court ruling bans Dallas Buyers Club producers from charging the Internet customers damages for the number of times each illegal downloader let someone else download the film from them, and for other content that downloaders might have stolen.

The court did not disclose the amount the producers sought from each suspected pirate except to say it was "substantial"and "plainly speculative invoicing".

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on August 17, 2015, 02:52:20 PM
What now after the Dallas Buyers Club pirate claim is rejected as ‘surreal’?
August 17, 2015 12:25PM

THE makers of Dallas Buyers Club have been dealt a blow in their attempt to extract payment from people alleged to have downloaded illegal copies of the movie.

Voltage Pictures, which owns Dallas Buyers Club, has been trying to identify over 4,700 iiNet subscribers who it alleges downloaded illicit copies of the movie. Earlier this year, the Federal Court agreed that iiNet should hand over subscriber details, but warned that any letter sent to account holders must first be approved by the court to protect consumers from abuse of the legal system.

In a win for consumer protection, the Federal Court has now rejected Voltage’s draft letters, criticising Voltage’s attempts to avoid explaining what fee it would demand.

Voltage had told the Court it would ask account holders for a settlement figure that included:

The Court accepted that Voltage could ask for the costs of a single copy of the film and an appropriately proportioned fee to recover its legal costs so far.

But Justice Nye Perram rejected Voltage’s attempts to multiply these fees, potentially thousands of times, for every other user in the BitTorrent swarm. His Honour also rejected Voltage’s attempt to claim money for other infringements consumers may have admitted to.

Ultimately, Justice Perram refused to allow Voltage to send the letters in their current form. Voltage will still be allowed to send letters in the future, but only if it promises to limit the damages it is seeking to a more reasonable amount. It will have to back this promise up with a $600,000 bond payment to the court.

Consumers who have illicitly downloaded Dallas Buyers Club could still be liable for damages, but the figures requested are more likely to be closer to a hundred dollars than a few thousand. The exact amounts Voltage are prepared to settle for remain confidential for now.

The court fights back against ‘speculative invoicing’

The judge was keen to protect consumers from so-called “speculative invoicing”, where copyright owners send offers to settle claims for grossly disproportionate amounts. These demands can be extortionate: the letters typically threaten consumers with an expensive lawsuit if they don’t pay up.

Voltage Pictures has already been heavily criticised internationally for its speculative invoicing practices. It has filed massive copyright infringement suits in the US — including one naming nearly 25,000 defendants for infringing copyright in its previous film, The Hurt Locker.

The goal of these lawsuits is not necessarily to actually prove infringement in court, but to convince defendants to settle out of court, usually for sums of more than US$2,000.

The United States’ system is open to this kind of copyright trolling, because under US law, copyright owners do not have to prove that they have actually suffered any loss from the infringement. They can ask the court to award any amount from US$750 up to US$150,000.

In Australia, unlike in the US, copyright owners are only entitled to an amount that is proportionate to the fee a consumer should have paid. Only in cases of flagrant copyright infringement are courts allowed to award higher damages to either punish consumers or deter others from infringing.

Speculative invoicing pressures consumers to settle for amounts that can be wildly disproportionate to the harm they have caused. It’s an unfair practice that abuses the legal system.

It also causes real problems for consumers who are wrongly accused and face the difficult choice between an expensive legal battle or simply paying up to make the problem go away.

People, not criminals

For years now, we have seen some copyright owners demand exorbitant sums of money for downloads of music or movie files that would have cost A$30 or less to legitimately purchase or hire.

In this case, Justice Perram refused to allow copyright owners to demand substantial sums of money based on completely imaginary scenarios where users would negotiate a licence to share the movie over BitTorrent. His Honour called this “so surreal as to not be taken seriously”, and said any claims for payment must be firmly grounded in reality.

In this decision, we see internet users being treated as actual people instead of assumed criminals. This is important. So long as users are painted as faceless pirates, it is easy to justify the excessive fees demanded by copyright plaintiffs. A more realistic vision of users as ordinary consumers means that copyright payments must be more realistic too.

Looking ahead to reform

This case sets an important precedent for the future. Australian ISPs are close to agreeing to a new Industry Code that will make it easier for copyright owners to track down alleged copyright infringers.

This decision means Australian courts will be careful to scrutinise future claims made by copyright owners seeking to identify internet users associated with infringing downloads. It means consumers are protected from extortionate demands made by copyright owners.

Hopefully, the decision will help copyright owners focus on finding ways to offer Australians with quick, convenient, and reasonably priced ways to pay for content, rather than seeking to make money through litigation.

Even Voltage admit that copyright infringement is less about consumers and more about outdated distribution models. In an interview on Triple J earlier this year, Michael Wickstrom, Vice President of royalties and music administration at Voltage Pictures, said:

[…] the problem starts with the US distributors, because they purchase it for the US and everything else is driven around the US release date. I feel that if all the distributors were granted a day and date release, this would not be happening.

When we can have realistic release dates, I don’t think that the piracy numbers will be as much.

Time and again, Australians have shown they are willing to pay for reasonably priced and accessible content. Copyright owners who try to extort money from downloaders are going about this the wrong way.

This article originally appeared on the Conversation, where Kylie Pappalardo and Suzannah Wood also contributed.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on September 29, 2015, 10:37:28 AM

1. Round 3 (September 2015) has started. Here we go again >-(

2.  For those affected and need to know some updates from those victims who are in the Round 1 and Round 2, you may read the summarised postings here: (

3. Victims in this Round 3 may choose to be part of our DBC-SG Private Support Group by:
(a) Following the steps outlined in this posting: (
(b) Note that the step 5 and 5(ii) within the dbcver link is mandatory now

4. If you need real-time help, refer to DBC-SG Support Group Chat: (

5. For victims (and now beneficiaries) of the DBC-SG Round 1 (April 2015) and Round 2 (June 2015) who are currently in the DBC-SG Private Support Group, please note that I have asked those affected in Round 3 but is going to DIY to reach out to you by posting in this thread (which is 'DBC-SG Public Support Group'). You are strongly encourage to reply them in private, ie. via the "Private Message" feature in this forum as SSLC scouts may drop by once in a while.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on September 29, 2015, 11:08:48 AM
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: yunim4991 on September 29, 2015, 08:34:59 PM
Hi everyone,

Can anyone who has benefited from Round 1 & 2 provide me with some advice on what to do next? I have just received the letter yesterday and I have to reply them in 3 days time. Anyone who can advice me on the reply please PM me. 

Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: HWZ Caroline on October 02, 2015, 05:25:01 PM
Yunim4991 and jeff89, please have yourself verified by Dr. Green. Advice is confidential to verified affected parties as this is part of the defence against speculative invoicing.

Kindly follow instructions in this link:
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on October 03, 2015, 06:33:40 PM
"Copyright End User Infringement Workshop: A view from both sides of the fence" held on 11 July 2015

Synopsis: "What happens when innocent end users are accused of copyright infringement? Are the methods of targeting infringers accurate? Are the tactics used by copyright owners ethical? How can we protect both intellectual property and innocent internet users at the same time?

Many of these questions have been raised by the controversial actions of copyright owners (in properties such as the Dallas Buyers Club film) in enforcing their rights against end users that they have accused of infringement.

All these questions and more were covered in the new workshop on Sat 11 July 2015 : “Copyright End User Infringement: a view from both sides of the fence”

The panel of experts came from the fields of technology law, intellectual property and digital forensics, including

This cross-disciplinary panel took the audience through a hypothetical case study that shows both sides of a copyright infringement case."


Seminar Information
Date and Time: 9.30 am – 12.30 pm on Sat 11  July 2015
Venue: Intelli.Asia Group, Level 3, 146 Robinson Road
Admission was Free for ISOC Members and early birds.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: Theshaman on October 14, 2015, 04:44:06 PM
Received the letter and need some advice.. Can anyone help?
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on October 14, 2015, 07:09:21 PM
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on October 14, 2015, 07:14:51 PM
For those who have received the SSLC letter, you have at least 4 options to consider:

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: Nervous123 on October 19, 2015, 10:34:37 PM
The video posted above is great. I recommend it. It certainly gives me a lot of information to understand the whole thing and I am now much calmer and more informed than before.
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: flyingace on October 23, 2015, 01:03:31 AM
I am required to respond very soon... how should i respond?
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on October 23, 2015, 11:56:25 AM
For all 'DBC-SG Round 3 affected subscribers'
 Pls read this important update 1 of 3 in the private DBC-SG Forum: (
 Rdgs, Dr. Green
 Chairwoman, DBC-SG Support Group Exco Team
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on October 28, 2015, 06:02:42 PM
DBC-AU, Source:
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on October 28, 2015, 06:55:39 PM
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: Devilsire on October 28, 2015, 08:24:55 PM

Personally am not involved, but i can feel the "bullies & threatens" against possible uninformed innocents and am curious on how its going.

Just wanted take this opportunity to Dr Green, professionals & everyone involved in providing this support group & useful infos/insights on this issue.
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on November 04, 2015, 10:09:31 PM
Dallas Buyers Club Can’t Interrogate ‘Pirates,’ Judge Rules
BY Ernesto on November 3, 2015

The makers of the Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club are continuing their crackdown on BitTorrent pirates. As part of this effort they have recently asked the court for permission to depose several suspects. However, the court has now denied this request, highlighting the "possibility of abuse."

The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have sued ( thousands of BitTorrent users over the past two years.

Many of these cases end up being settled for an undisclosed amount. This usually happens after the filmmakers obtain the identity of the Internet account holder believed to have pirated the movie.

Not all alleged downloaders are eager to pay up though. In fact, many don’t respond to the settlement letters they receive or claim that someone else must have downloaded the film using their connection.

This presents a problem for the filmmakers, who need to gather additional evidence to prove guilt. In several recent cases they even went through social media profiles of defendants and Google map images of their neighborhoods, for example.

In addition to this info Dallas Buyers Club want to speak to the accused directly so have asked ( the court to grant dozens of depositions. This would help to determine who the true pirates are, they argue.

The request covers five active cases with 61 IP-addresses which have yet to respond or settle.

The court carefully reviewed the request and in an order late last week U.S. District Court Judge Richard Jones denied the depositions.

In his order (pdf (, cache ( the Judge writes that depositions are meant to “discover relevant information” but he doubts that Dallas Buyers Club intends to take any of these cases to trial.

When the filmmakers were allowed to depose people in a previous case it didn’t result in the naming of any defendants.

“All this implies that Plaintiff is not actually interested in bringing these cases to conclusion on their merits and is instead trying to use these proceedings to leverage settlements out of unidentified Doe defendants through the threat of Court order.”


Instead, the depositions may be used as a pressure tool, which would be a clear sign of abuse.

“Numerous other courts have considered the possibility of abusive litigation tactics in addressing similar motions. And this Court is increasingly tired of the slow progress of these cases and increasingly apprehensive of the possibility of abuse,” Judge Jones adds.

The Judge admits that depositions may often be helpful, but notes that Dallas Buyers Club wouldn’t be in any better position if the defendant denies being the primary infringer during the deposition.

The filmmakers already have the name and address of the account holders, and should make their case based on this information, the order concludes.

While there’s no direct accusation the mention of possible abuse and the growing impatience with the many Doe lawsuits is a clear blow for the movie studio.

For their part the accused pirates can chalk up a win as they have been saved from having to go through an ‘interrogation’, a potentially threatening and intimidating process.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on December 17, 2015, 11:24:10 AM
Judge in Dallas Buyers Club case rules that rights holders can NOT sue Australians who illegally download movies for punitive damages
By Rachel Eddie For Daily Mail Australia
Published: 10:30 GMT, 16 December 2015 | Updated: 11:32 GMT, 16 December 2015

Pirates can stream easy tonight after a Federal Court judge blocked Dallas Buyers Club rights holders from suing Australians who allegedly watched Dallas Buyers Club illegally.

The court battle between Dallas Buyers Club LLC and iiNet is set to be dismissed after Justice Nye Parram on Wednesday made an order to terminate the proceedings by February 11.

An appeal could be brought by U.S. studio Voltage Pictures in that time.

If that is unsuccessful, however, their bid to seek punitive damages from the internet provider’s customers who have torrented the film will be over, CNET reports.

Justice Parram’s ruling on Wednesday rejected their latest bid to seek the identification, contact information and damages from more than 4,700 individuals who they say pirated the 2013 film starring Matthew McConaughey.

The court proceedings against iiNet, as well as Internode, Dodo, Amnet and Adam Internet, were launched in November last year.

The rights holders were in April granted the right to seek damages for copyright infringement from individuals.

But in August Justice Perram rejected their proposed method, and ordered them to only seek damages for the cost of purchasing Dallas Buyers Club.

On Wednesday Justice Perram threw out their ‘wholly unrealistic’ amended proposal and added that ‘some finality must now be brought to these proceedings’.

The court proceedings against iiNet, as well as Internode, Dodo, Amnet and Adam Internet, were launched in November last year in order to learn the identities of more than 4,700 customers who they say illegally downloaded the film (stock image)

If their proposal went ahead, each individual behind a copyright infringement would be fined, slapped with a rental fee, and would need to pay for the costs of obtaining their information through the courts.

It also aimed to charge anyone who uploaded the film to a file-sharing website with a license fee and argued they should pay for a distribution agreement.

In April, David Buckingham, iiNet's Chief Executive Officer, said in a statement that they had been working to ensure their customers 'will be treated fairly and won't be subjected to the bullying that we have seen elsewhere'.

Elsewhere, copyright holders have threatened alleged offenders with legal action, seeking large sums of money.

It is a tactic used with the hopes of clamping down on file-sharing via websites such as BitTorrent.

Mr Buckingham in April said he was very happy with Justice Parram's 'balanced approach to both the studio's and consumers' rights'.

Many Australians are rejoicing, with one person on Twitter writing that the day 'just got better', thanks to the ruling on Wednesday.

Around three years ago, iiNet won a landmark High Court case against a group of Hollywood movie studios which argued the telecommunication company was responsible for the downloading habits of users.

In a unanimous decision, the court held that iiNet could not be found liable because it did not control the sites used by customers.

Daily Mail Australia has contacted Marque Lawyers, representing the U.S. studio, for comment.


Copy of Letter & 'Undertaking Document' sent to Australians and ghosts accused of illegal downloads:
PDF copies:
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on January 08, 2016, 11:01:04 AM
Movie downloads: a shakedown or a theft?
Movie producers have filed dozens of copyright cases in Houston

By L.M. Sixel, Business Writer, Houston Chronicle
December 30, 2015 Updated: December 31, 2015 8:00pm

When Matthew McConaughey won the Academy Award in 2014 for best actor for "Dallas Buyers Club," interest in the small-budget film skyrocketed. But many moviegoers didn't buy a ticket. Instead, they downloaded a copy for free.

"The Cobbler" starring Adam Sandler and "Good Kill" starring Ethan Hawke also racked up downloads. Now the filmmakers have filed lawsuits against the unauthorized downloads, saying they amount to theft of intellectual property.

They and producers of other movies have filed dozens of copyright infringement lawsuits in Houston federal court, seeking damages from plaintiffs identified only as "John Doe" based on Internet Protocol addresses that recorded movie downloads from pirating websites.

Some of the John Does are fighting back, alleging the lawsuits are intended to uncover evidence the plaintiffs don't have and force defendants into settlements. Judges in Houston and elsewhere have disagreed on whether to let the suits go forward.

Keith A. Vogt, an Illinois-based lawyer who filed the lawsuits on behalf of "Dallas Buyers Club," said the lure of getting something for free coupled with the perceived anonymity of the Internet is an irresistible combination for some people.

"It's a serious, serious problem for Hollywood," he said. On Oscar night alone, "Dallas Buyers Club," the story of an HIV-infected electrician in the mid-1980s who found a way to get medicine for himself and others infected with the virus, saw a surge of 200,000 illegal downloads.

But some defendants see the lawsuits as a giant fishing expedition based on shaky evidence. "It's all about intimidation," said Houston lawyer Thomas Ross of the Corso Law Group who is representing "John Doe No. 20" in the case filed by the maker of "The Cobbler," a movie about a magical shoemaker.

The plaintiffs are trying to find someone associated with each IP address and then negotiate a settlement, said Ross. A lawsuit against his client was dropped after Ross challenged a subpoena for Internet records.

Most of the time it's impossible to prove who might have obtained access to the unauthorized movie sites, he said. It could be a neighbor who found a connection through an unsecured WiFi account or from a cafe that offers free Internet access.

Music industry

Movie makers are following in the footsteps of music producers that invoked copyright laws in suits against sites offering free music and the consumers who downloaded the tunes.

Since then, legislation has shifted more responsibility to consumers by shielding liability of the Internet portals that host the pirated movies, music and other media. Most of the web pirating sites are outside the United States anyway, beyond the reach of U.S. law.

"People think if it's on the Internet, it's in the public domain," said Amanda Greenspon, a lawyer who specializes in trademarks and copyrights with Munck Wilson Mandala. But that's not true because movies, like music, are covered by copyright laws.

It's considered theft

Some movie downloaders assume that their saving $10 on a movie ticket doesn't affect big production companies, Greenspon said, but it's theft.

And Vogt said makers of "Dallas Buyers Club" took a substantial investment risk by telling an important story that might not do well at the box office. The cast and crew agreed to take a cut in their usual pay rates, he added.

It affects not only the cast and producers, he said, but the hair and makeup staff, the costume designers and sound engineers. They all get a share of the residuals - money that moviemakers earn on subsequent releases of their films.

For 2015 through Tuesday, 70 copyright lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of Texas, according to an analysis by Androvett Legal Media. For all of 2014, there were 38 such suits. In 2015, 40 of the suits alone were filed by Vogt for illegal downloads.

According to Androvett, the Houston district is the only one in Texas with such a spike, though there a handful of districts nationwide with similar patterns.

Vogt said he's been focusing his efforts on Houston because he has good local counsel.

Beginning in early 2014, the "Dallas Buyers Club" filed 20 lawsuits. Some of the individual lawsuits included dozens of "John Does" whom plaintiffs alleged downloaded the movie without paying for it.

There are ways to download the film legitimately. For example, it is available on iTunes for $7.99.

In its quest to obtain the identity of those downloading its movie for free, "Dallas Buyers Club" requested court orders to force Internet Service Providers to disclose the information.

The cases were farmed out to several federal judges in Houston, and some are permitting a search for Internet addresses. Several "John Does" have settled, according to dismissal notices filed by "Dallas Buyers Club."

Vogt wouldn't say how much he is seeking in settlements, but said he offers to work with the defendants in assessing and collecting payment.

Sometimes children download movies without their parents' permission, he said. Other times, Internet addresses are traced to companies because employees are watching the movies while at work.

One of the "John Does" named in a Vogt lawsuit is Jim Denison of Magnolia, who represented himself.

The Houston Chronicle could not reach him for comment, but Denison argued in court filings that "Dallas Buyers Club" failed to take reasonable steps to stop the downloading of unauthorized copies because it did not demand that Internet Service Providers or John Does remove the movie from their servers or computers. Nor did the movie identify actual infringers but relied instead on "the most likely infringer" based on whose name is on the Internet account, he argued.

"Dallas Buyers Club" has "simply collected public IP addresses, identified who paid for the Internet service (ISP subscriber), and then sued them in an effort to obtain a settlement for thousands of dollars," Denison said in his response to the lawsuit.

In April, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon dismissed Denison's case along with several others.

Some of the other cases, however, ran into more immediate obstacles. U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes quickly shut down the inquiry from "Dallas Buyers Club" in 2014, 10 days after receiving the initial complaint.

Hughes criticized the effort for relying "on the trite fictions of John Does" when asked to identify the people it has sued. Instead of providing some context as to who they might be, the movie "listed the Internet addresses for each person in block text - impenetrable by anyone save for a fourteen-year-old with designs to use them," according to Hughes' final opinion issued in 2014.

And if "Dallas Buyers Club" wants to file more lawsuits, Hughes directed they be assigned to him.

'Good Kill' order

Hughes also signed an order in November dismissing all 10 John Doe cases filed by the maker of "Good Kill," the 2014 drama of an Air Force drone pilot who ponders the ethics of dropping bombs on war zones overseas from his comfortable post in the United States.

Some courts view the efforts to find Internet users through John Doe lawsuits as extortion, especially when viewers have downloaded pornographic movies that would be embarrassing if word got out, said Louis Bonham, an intellectual property lawyer for Osha Liang.

But other courts allow searches of Internet Protocol addresses, said Bonham, who is a frequent guest lecturer on copyright issues at the University of Texas at Austin for the architecture, business and fine arts schools.

'Luck of the draw'

"It's the luck of the draw," he said, referring to the chance of a suit's success resting with the judge who happens to get it.

Other cases are going forward with federal judges giving the makers of the "The Cobbler" and "Good Kill" the right to obtain Internet addresses.

In August, U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett consolidated 26 separate lawsuits -involving 532 separate John Does - into one. The case was brought by Cobbler Nevada, owner of "The Cobbler" movie, which tells the tale of a shoemaker, played by Sandler, who finds a magical sewing machine that allows him to step into the lives of his customers.

Ross, who represents one of the John Does in that case, said he never got a financial offer from Vogt to settle the dispute. But that didn't really surprise him.

People get nervous when they're threatened with copyright infringement and many agree to settle even though the plaintiff may have no more evidence than an account number linked to a person or company that is paying for the Internet service, said Ross.

"What they're counting on is that it's cheaper to make it go away than hire a lawyer and fight it."

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on January 15, 2016, 01:04:08 PM
2016 Updates

1. Back in 2nd quarter of 2015, we asserted that the DBC LLC forensic evidence against the affected parties was invalid.

Subsequently, various Bittorrent experiments were conducted and documented by Foxtrot's team to further back the assertion. The findings revealed that not only DBC LLC forensic evidence is invalid, in fact, many other Bittorrent trolling cases are also invalid as well. All these findings and documentation may be used as expert witness evidence if that day comes be it in Singapore or elsewhere in the world.

Those who need these findings and documentation may contact us at ( with the subject header "Invalidation of Bittorrent forensic evidence".

2. The 2016 balance sheet for the crowdfunding campaign vs expenses to date can be found in this public link:

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on January 15, 2016, 08:14:43 PM
I am required to respond very soon... how should i respond?

Info. within the Private DBC-SG Support Group:,45.0.html
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on February 10, 2016, 10:10:24 PM
DBC gave up chasing ghosts in Australia!

DBC gives up on iiNet piracy case

Dallas Buyers Club Gives Up Chasing Pirates in Australia

Pirates rest easy (for now): 'Dallas Buyers Club' court case is over

Dallas Buyers Club abandons piracy court case

Dallas Buyers Club has dropped its piracy case against iiNet

Dallas Buyers Club abandons fight against Aussie pirates

Dallas Buyers Club hangs up its boots in iiNet court case

The Dallas Buyers Club case has been abandoned but illegal downloaders may still face trouble

Owners of Oscar-winning film drop landmark case against Australian internet pirates

Dallas Buyers Club: Australian judge refuses to unmask 4,726 alleged movie pirates

Dallas Buyers Club piracy case finally dropped after two-year legal battle

Game Over……Pirates and ISP's One, Dallas Buyers Club Nil…….But will there be a rematch? The final word on the Dallas Buyers Club piracy Case

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on May 17, 2016, 12:08:10 PM
Lawyers in Dallas Buyers Club action face punishment
By Koh Swee Fang Valerie, valeriekohsf(at)
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.”

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on May 17, 2016, 01:10:43 PM
Lawyers in Dallas Buyers Club action face punishment
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.


Truth be told... similar threats* persisted in the letters that were sent to the affected Starhub & Singtel subscribers.

* Source (password protected 7z file):
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 14, 2016, 11:21:16 PM
Latest DBC-SG Updates
 For many of you who have received the latest threat of a possible 'Writ of Summons', you may check your email* for information on you might want to handle this situation.
 * Sent to only those within the DBC-SG Private Support Group
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 23, 2016, 04:56:59 PM
Dallas Buyers Club Face Court Sanctions Over Piracy “Extortion” Tactics
By Ernesto on June 22, 2016

The makers of the Oscar-winning movie Dallas Buyers Club are facing monetary sanctions for the dubious tactics used in their ongoing crackdown on BitTorrent pirates. In California, a local resident is arguing that the filmmakers lack any evidence other than an IP-address, while requesting a monetary penalty of $36,000 for their "extortion" tactics.

The makers of Dallas Buyers Club have sued thousands of BitTorrent users over the past few years.

Many of these cases end up being settled for an undisclosed amount. This usually happens after the filmmakers obtain the identity of the Internet account holder believed to have pirated the movie.

Not all alleged downloaders are eager to pay up though. In fact, many don’t respond to the settlement letters they receive or claim that someone else must have downloaded the film using their connection.

This is also true for the case Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) filed against California resident Michael Amhari.

Earlier this year the filmmakers claimed that Amhari downloaded a pirated copy of the movie after he was linked to a “pirating” IP-address. Dallas Buyers Club’s attorney demanded a settlement of $10,000 and warned that “the price would go up” if he didn’t pay up soon enough.

Amhari, however, denied the allegations and explained that he lived in an apartment residence at San Diego State University with an open Wi-Fi connection. Nevertheless, the movie studio pursued its claim and increased the settlement demand to $14,000.

He continued to deny any involvement and even agreed to take a polygraph test to prove it, as DBC suggested. However, the filmmakers later retracted this offer and moved for a default judgment instead.

This judgment was set aside earlier this month and now the alleged “pirate” is pushing back in court.

Through his lawyer, Amhari is now asking for the case to be dismissed due to lack of evidence, as well as an award of attorney fees and monetary sanctions for DBC’s abuse tactics in these and other cases.

“Plaintiff has utilized extortion tactics by progressively demanding more money from defendant on each successive conversation with defense counsel and through emails, based on plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees,” attorney Clay Renick writes.

In his argument (pdf (, cache (, Renick cites DBC’s own words, as they previously admitted that “Ahmari may not be the actual infringer as he shared a student apartment with other individuals.”

Despite this knowledge, they continued their case against Amhari.

“Despite the warning from the Court, Plaintiff moved forward to aggressively and maliciously name defendant in a manner that constitutes libel against defendant,” Amhari’s attorney writes.

As a result of the allegations, the accused pirate had to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees. According to the defense lawyer, however, it is clear that DBC doesn’t have any evidence linking his client to the actual download.

“It is uncontroverted that the sole basis of plaintiff’s lawsuit was that defendant was a subscriber to the IP address of which a movie was supposedly downloaded,” Renick writes.

“Plaintiff seems to believe that conflating a subscriber’s IP address to being the actual infringer should shield him from liability for those libelous statements and unethical actions to extort money from defendant,” the attorney adds.

Based on the lack of evidence, Amhari is asking the court to dismiss the case. In addition, he is requesting $12,000 in attorney fees and a monetary penalty of $36,000 for the coercive tactics used in this and other cases.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on June 29, 2016, 10:37:36 PM
Two Judges Punch Holes In Copyright Trolls' Claims That An IP Address Is The Same Thing As A Person
by Tim Cushing
Tue, Jun 28th 2016 3:44pm

Fight Copyright Trolls has tracked down two more court decisions that reach an obvious conclusion: an IP address is not a person. In both cases, the normal trolling tactics were used: legal threats against alleged infringers, based on nothing more than IP addresses. In the first case, New Jersey Judge Kevin McNulty disagreed with Malibu Media's request for default judgment, pointing out that the limited info it was working with could not rule out a successful defense being raised by the accused infringer.

As Raul of FCT puts it, it is simply not enough for Malibu Media to obtain an IP address and then bring a claim against any household member with a penis. The judge writes [PDF (, cache (]:

   […] the Defendant’s connection to the alleged infringement is based solely on an IP address. The IP address here, as the Plaintiff concedes, is actually held by the Defendant’s spouse. (Compl. ¶ 25) In the Amended Complaint, Malibu Media is not certain that the infringer is Defendant, but rather pleads “discovery will likely show that Defendant is the infringer.” (Id. ¶ 27) In fact, the infringer could be another person altogether, such as a family member or, as Malibu Media itself concedes, “sometimes, the infringer is another person who the subscriber has authorized to use the subscriber’s Internet.” (Id. ¶ 28) Or, it could be that the infringer is someone using the subscriber’s Internet via a wireless router that is not password protected. While it is possible that the infringer is Defendant, Malibu Media has not proved that Fodge actually caused or is responsible for the alleged infringement.

Beyond that, the court has issues with the copyright claims in general. While Malibu Media claimed 23 titles were infringed by Fodge, the court points out that only 16 of them were registered before the alleged infringement. An unregistered copyright is not fatal to infringement claims, but it does limit the plaintiff's claims to actual damages. It also undercuts Malibu's infringement assertions, as it is much more difficult to prove ownership without a registration.

The second order [PDF (, cache (], issued by Oregon Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman contains something a bit more unexpected.

   What is surprising (and I believe unprecedented) is that the judge sua sponte dismissed Count 1 of direct copyright infringement. Many defense attorneys have tried in the past to knock out direct infringement claims and they have never, to my knowledge, been successful. This is because the claim has to merely be plausible which a very, very low threshold. I think this is the first time that a federal judge took it upon herself to examine such a claim, find it not plausible and dismiss it without prejudice.

The dismissal is prompted by the usual troll reliance on IP addresses being treated as people. Judge Beckerman doesn't see it that way:

   The only facts Plaintiff pleads in support of its allegation that Gonzales is the infringer, is that he is the subscriber of the IP address used to download or distribute the movie, and that he was sent notices of infringing activity to which he did not respond. That is not enough. Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts tying Gonzales to the infringing conduct. While it is possible that the subscriber is also the person who downloaded the movie, it is also possible that a family member, a resident of the household, or an unknown person engaged in the infringing conduct.

What Cobbler Nevada, LLC was trying to do was raise weak allegations first, then work its way backward to establishing Gonzales as being the actual infringing party. The judge notes that this tactic runs afoul of legal precedent.

   Twombly and Iqbal do not allow Plaintiff to guess at who is liable, and attempt to confirm liability through discovery. “Plausible” does not mean certain, but it does mean “likely,” and Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support its allegation that Gonzales is the likely infringer here.

In fact, as Raul notes in the FCT post, the odds of Gonzales being the infringer are much lower than in other infringement cases -- something Cobbler Nevada knew when pursuing this lawsuit. Footnote 4 of the order makes it clear that the copyright troll knew it had a long list of potential infringers on its hand, but simply chose to go after the name linked to the IP address.

   Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged at oral argument that the IP address linked to the infringing conduct serves an adult foster care home operated by Gonzales. Any resident or guest of that home could be the infringer.

It's one thing if a troll simply shrugs and hopes the court will let it connect the dots between the IP address it obtained and the person it's registered to. It's quite another when a single IP address is host to multiple possible infringers, but the plaintiff chooses instead to focus on the person paying for the connection -- or, if they lack a penis -- the closest household member in possession of one.

The court also dismisses with prejudice Cobbler Nevada's indirect infringement claim, logically pointing out that it takes far more to prove this than simply pointing out that the alleged infringer failed to kick everyone else off the network.

Both of these decisions are useful additions to the casework against copyright trolls' awful business model. Hopefully these will result in more swift dismissals of "an IP address is a person" lawsuits while discouraging further adventures in speculative invoicing.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on August 17, 2016, 08:23:58 AM
AGC steps in as studios seek illegal downloaders
17 August 2016 | Irene Tham, Tech Editor

The Hollywood studio which previously went after Singapore residents who had illegally downloaded the film Dallas Buyers Club has now set its sights on those who had done the same for another movie.

But the authorities here are stepping in to ensure "no abuse of process". The movie in question this time is Fathers & Daughters, a 2015 movie which stars Russell Crowe.

Voltage Pictures, which is represented by local law firm Samuel Seow Law Corp, had sought last year to get Singapore telcos to release the details of Singapore subscribers found to have illegally downloaded Dallas Buyers Club.

Now Voltage Pictures and another Hollywood studio, QOTD Film Investment, which produced Queen Of The Desert, starring Nicole Kidman, are seeking the details of those who had downloaded the two movies without permission. Voltage is acting through Fathers & Daughters Nevada LLC in this case, with the same Singapore law firm representing the studios.

The Straits Times (ST) understands that the two studios have identified more than 500 Singapore Internet protocol (IP) addresses through which the two movies were allegedly downloaded. The IP addresses were used by Singtel, StarHub and M1 subscribers.

Yesterday, a pre-trial conference was held in the High Court, with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) represented at the hearing.

An AGC spokesman told ST it is considering intervening in the various originating summonses filed this time around by the law firm to ensure that there is no abuse of process. For instance, lawyers cannot breach ethical guidelines by carrying a threat of criminal proceedings in their letter of demand.

On Monday, the AGC sent a letter to Samuel Seow Law Corp to clarify the studios' intentions, particularly the amount of damages they are seeking and how they arrived at the amount.

A spokesman for the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore said it has reviewed the positions taken in jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, Britain and the United States. The courts in these places had imposed certain safeguards before granting the request for subscriber details to be released, she said.

"While content owners have the right to enforce their intellectual property rights, this should be done in a way that builds legitimacy and respect for the entire process, and is not susceptible to allegations of abuse," she said.


August 2016:






Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on August 18, 2016, 10:29:57 AM
>Hi Dr Green,
>I am a member of the Dallas Buyers Club support group. I read that Foxtrot had done tests that show that the forensic >evidence collected by DBC is invalid. Can you please send me information on that?
>I'm just interested in how they did it.
>Thanks and best regards,

1. The forensic evidence against DBC LLC is currently a trade secret which shall be disclosed (via a competent expert forensic witness) under these circumstances:

(a) An affected subscriber takes DBC LLC to the court and/or when
(b) DBC LLC / SSLC takes one of the affected subscriber to the court.

2. However, you may find some useful information within these materials:

(a) Shinder, D. L., & Cross, M. (2008). Scene of the Cybercrime*, Second Edition (2nd edition). Burlington, MA: Syngress,
(b) BitTorrent Specification (Basic):

(c) BitTorrent Enhancement Proposals (Advanced):

Foxtrot c/o Dr. Green

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on September 21, 2016, 05:14:25 AM
Don't punish innocent Internet users
PUBLISHED AUG 20, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT

The Internet Society (Singapore Chapter) views with concern and interest the various news reports that the rights owners of two Hollywood movies - Queen Of The Desert and Fathers And Daughters - have started legal proceedings against illegal downloaders here and are seeking pretrial disclosure of Internet protocol (IP) addresses.

While we do not condone copyright infringement, we are concerned that a potentially large number of lawsuits may be filed on the basis of IP addresses sought.

Recent cases from other jurisdictions have ruled that IP addresses do not sufficiently identify which individuals committed copyright infringement.

It is entirely plausible that some of the IP addresses may belong to innocent home or business owners who were not aware that their IP addresses were used or who may have not secured their networks sufficiently at the material time.

We question the fairness of subjecting them to the stress and cost in time and money of defending themselves against legal claims.

We are pleased that the Attorney-General's Chambers has indicated that it will oversee the process to prevent abuse ("AGC steps in as studios seek illegal downloaders"; Wednesday).

We note also that our previous complaint to the Law Society regarding letters of demand sent to alleged downloaders of the movie Dallas Buyers Club resulted in the Law Society finding that the letters sent by the law firm did infringe the Law Society's ethical standard, by threatening criminal proceedings, fines and prison time against people who they accused of pirating that film.

The Law Society's findings imposed a penalty of $10,000 or reprimand upon the law firm.

Since the acts of those lawyers in question were adjudged to have crossed acceptable boundaries, we have asked the Law Society to advise on the status of the alleged infringers.

A clear determination by the Law Society may help delineate the boundaries of acceptable conduct by lawyers and law firms here.

Finally, while the rights holders appear to be preparing to sue individuals, we suggest using the blocking provisions that were added to the Singapore Copyright Act last year. They are a self-help remedy to stop massively infringing sites, and will avoid mistakenly targeting innocent Internet users.

In conclusion, while we support the rights of copyright owners, we urge caution so that innocent Internet users are not adversely affected by their actions.

Ang Peng Hwa (Professor)
Internet Society (Singapore Chapter)

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on September 21, 2016, 05:17:15 AM
Authorities move to ensure illegal downloaders get fair process
Tan Weizhen | Published: 3:55 PM, September 20, 2016

SINGAPORE — In a first, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) are applying to the courts to intervene in proceedings involving rights owners of two movies going after illegal downloaders here, to ensure a fair process. If allowed, they want to put in safeguards and conditions to avoid “allegations of abuse”, they said in a joint statement on Tuesday (Sept 20).

For example, in some countries, conditions are imposed on the letters of demand issued to subscribers, to ensure that the content is phrased in a way that does not cause undue alarm.

Last month, TODAY reported that the owners of the movies, Queen of the Desert and Fathers & Daughters, had started legal proceedings to go after those who illegally downloaded the movies here, the second such case here. Film studio Voltage Pictures, which produced Fathers & Daughters, had also gone after illegal downloaders of Dallas Buyers Club, which it produced, last year. Queen of the Desert is produced by QOTD. Both are represented by Samuel Seow Law Corporation (SSLC), which acted for Voltage Pictures in the Dallas Buyers Club case, and had drawn complaints over how two of its former lawyers had handled the proceedings. 

In the statement, IPOS and AGC said: “(We) are of the view that whilst content owners have the right to enforce their intellectual property, this should be done in a way that builds legitimacy and respect for the entire process, and is not susceptible to allegations of abuse.”

Abusive practices include “speculative invoicing”, also known as “copyright trolling”, where a party pursues quick settlements from alleged copyright infringers, by launching legal action against them and taking advantage of their reluctance to pursue their rights fully before the courts, said IPOS.

Adding that they had reviewed the positions taken in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US in similar cases, IPOS and AGC said: “We will be asking the courts to consider imposing similar safeguards and conditions, if we are allowed to intervene.” IPOS said it was inappropriate to comment on the precise safeguards and conditions being sought at this point. But it noted that in the Australian case involving the producers of Dallas Buyers Club and Internet service provider iiNet, the court ordered that the draft of the letters to be sent to iiNet’s subscribers be submitted to the court for its consideration.

In April last year, SSLC succeeded in getting the court to compel telcos to give up details of their customers who purportedly downloaded the movie Dallas Buyers Club, and filed civil claims against these customers.

But two months later, the Internet Society (Singapore) filed a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc), alleging that Mr Robert Raj Joseph and Mr Lee Heng Eam, who were with SSLC then, had issued letters threatening criminal proceedings against the alleged downloaders, to advance the civil claims. This goes against the LawSoc’s Practice Directions and Rulings Guide, which 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”. In May, LawSoc said it was taking action against two lawyers over their conduct in dealing with illegal downloaders of Dallas Buyers Club, without naming the lawyers.

Intellectual property lawyers who spoke to TODAY welcomed it as a move to ensure a fair process.

Mr Jason Chan, director of Amica Law, said: “If the court makes certain orders arising from the positions taken by AGC and IPOS ... future rights owners will definitely have to be aware of what happened in this case here.”

Mr Bryan Tan of Pinsent Masons, who became president of the Internet Society (Singapore) last month, agreed, noting that the latest case with Queen of the Desert and Fathers & Daughters has a similar modus operandi as the Dallas Buyers Club case.

Other safeguards that could be introduced in such proceedings include setting a limit on the amount of damages that could be claimed, said the lawyers.

A pre-trial conference on the Queen of the Desert and Fathers & Daughters case was held on Tuesday morning, during which the deadlines for the parties — Samuel Seow Law Corporation and M1, Singtel and StarHub — to exchange information were set, as well as directions for the progress of the case.

TODAY understands that the case will likely be heard again in November.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on November 14, 2016, 11:48:45 AM
Judge: Vague IP-Address Evidence is Not Enough to Expose BitTorrent ‘Pirates’

A California federal court has thrown up a roadblock for filmmakers who want to obtain the personal details of an alleged BitTorrent pirate. The judge refused to issue a subpoena, twice, because it's not clear if the rightsholder obtained the geolocation details at the time of the infringement or after the fact.

While relatively underreported, many U.S. district courts are still swamped with lawsuits against alleged film pirates.

The copyright holders who initiate these cases generally rely on an IP address as evidence. This information is collected from BitTorrent swarms and linked to a geographical location using geolocation tools.

With this information in hand, they then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, forcing Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holder.

In most cases, courts sign off on these subpoenas quite easily, but in a recent case California Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin decided to ask for further clarification and additional evidence.

The case in question was filed by Criminal Productions, the makers of the 2016 movie Criminal, who are linked to the well-known pirate chasers Nu Image and Millennium Films.

The movie makers filed a complaint against a “John Doe” and list an IP-address that, according to a geolocation lookup, is linked to a location in San Diego County.

Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin, however, is not ready to issue a subpoena based on that information alone. Specifically, he notes that the complaint lacks details on when the geolocation effort was performed.

If the copyright holder looked up the IP-address information after the infringements the location and ISP info may not be accurate at all, as the assignment may have changed.

“It is most likely that the subscriber is a residential user and the IP address assigned by the ISP is ‘dynamic’. Consequently, it matters when the geolocation was performed,” Judge Dembin writes (pdf).

“If performed in temporal proximity to the offending downloads, the geolocation may be probative of the physical location of the subscriber. If not, less so, potentially to the point of irrelevance,” he adds.

This clarification is indeed important but has never been made before in court, as far as we know (see update).

In the original request, Criminal Productions only writes that the geolocation data was obtained prior to filing the lawsuit, but it’s not clear whether that was at the time of the infringements, which took place several months ago.

“This is not good enough. As much as four months may have passed between the alleged infringement and the geolocation,” Judge Dembin writes.

“Plaintiff must provide the date that geolocation occurred and, if performed closer to the filing date, must provide further support and argument regarding the probative value of the geolocation.”

Based on the missing information the motion for discovery was denied, meaning that Criminal Productions didn’t get the subpoena they were after.

A few days after this denial the filmmakers submitted an amended request providing additional information. However, it was still unclear when the geolocation information was actually obtained, so the Judge denied it again yesterday (pdf).

The issue raised in this case is interesting from an accuracy standpoint. Copyright holders in these cases always link an IP-address to a location and ISP, if only to show that the case was filed in the right district. However, they usually don’t say when this geolocation data was obtained.

ISPs do of course keep a log of the IP-address assignment changes. However, the right jurisdiction has to be established before a subpoena is issued.

Judge Dembin therefore suggests that rightsholders should get the information at the time of the infringement, which may be easier said than done. Geolocation databases are far from perfect and most are not updated instantly.

This is something the residents of a Kansas farm know all too well, as their house is the default location of 600 million IP-addresses, which causes them quite a bit of trouble.

Just last month EFF released a whitepaper urging courts to take caution when processing IP-address information. Whether Judge Dembin has read this is unknown, but his actions are definitely in line with the paper’s findings.

Update: SJD informed us that the timing issue was first raised in an April order. It will be interesting to see if other judges will bring it up as well.

PDF of case:
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on November 14, 2016, 11:53:53 AM
Copyright Troll Backs Down When Faced With Exposure

Companies that make money from threatening alleged file-sharers are known for their bullying tactics but those who are prepared to fight back can enjoy success. A letter sent by a defense lawyer to the copyright trolls behind the movie London Has Fallen provides an excellent and highly entertaining example.

After inflicting more than a decade of misery on alleged file-sharers, rightsholders and their online tracking partners are continuing their quest to turn piracy into profit.

Letters continue to land in mailboxes all over the world, informing people they are pirates and that a lawsuit will follow if a cash settlement isn’t paid. Thousands of people are intimidated by these threats and choose to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to make the problem disappear. Others fight back and when they do, interesting things can happen.

James Collins is one of the countless individuals targeted by the trolls behind the movie London Has Fallen (LHF Productions). Like in many similar cases, LHF accuse Collins of downloading and sharing their movie illegally using BitTorrent. Collins is adamant that he did neither.

In a letter obtained by the troll watchers over at DieTrollDie, Collins’ lawyer J. Christopher Lynch informs LHF lawyer David A. Lowe of this stance in no uncertain terms.

“As Mr. Collins told you in his letter dated October 6, 2016, he is innocent. Mr. Collins was asleep on the date at the time the Amended Complaint accuses him of being ‘observed infringing’,” Lynch writes.

“Likewise, Mr. Collins has no secondary liability because he never aided, directed, facilitated, benefitted from, or shared in the proceeds of any violations of the law by anyone.”

Of course, defenses similar to this one are extremely commonplace. Defendants often deny all knowledge of the alleged infringement but are left trying to prove a negative. The trolls, on the other hand, point to the supposed “forensic quality” evidence that they’ve compiled, that will be produced at trial, should a settlement not be forthcoming.

However, many trolls are like vampires. Not only do they go straight for the throat, they’re also terrified that the cold light of day will be shone directly on their operations and their sometimes shadowy overseas partners. This point isn’t lost on Lynch in his defense of Mr Collins.

In his letter, Lynch calls on LHF’s lawyer to voluntarily dismiss the case against his client, within five business days. Should that go ahead, Lynch says he will seek no fees or costs, but his confident tone suggests a joker up his sleeve.

“We are optimistic that your client and its foreign representatives will see the wisdom of dismissing Mr. Collins. We recognize this requires ‘taking our word’ that Mr. Collins is wholly innocent, but, believe me, he is, just like he told you he is,” he writes.

“We know your client’s foreign representatives do not like taking someone’s word, but this is a good case to trust Mr. Collins, who is wholly innocent, or me, a member of the bar, who is telling you he is wholly innocent. Going forward is tantamount to saying Mr. Collins and I are lying to you, which, of course, we are not, since Mr. Collins is wholly innocent.”

So who are the “foreign representatives” and why are they so important? Well, they’re the ones doing the IP address tracking, monitoring the infringements and compiling the evidence. Well known in trolling circles, notorious companies such as Guardaley, MaverickEye and Crystal Bay Corporation are all in the mix.

The location of these outfits raises issues. Lynch points out that in an earlier case it was discovered that the foreign companies had no properly licensed investigating U.S. witnesses, even though they were “engaged in the business of detecting, discovering, or revealing . . . evidence to be used before a court.” In his letter, Lynch says that he doubts that anyone involved in this case is properly licensed either.

“Your client’s foreign representatives could have complied with Washington law by hiring a licensed investigator to corroborate the foreign investigation in real time, since the purported location of the entrapped IP addresses is known,” he writes.

“But your client’s representatives chose not to invest in compliance with Washington law, and are taking a chance that somehow the foreign witness to the ‘observed infringing’ can testify, and that somehow the entrapped ‘blip’ of the movie in question will be sufficient evidence of U.S. copyright infringement.”

The ‘blip’ referenced by Lynch refers to a momentary transfer of a small part of the movie in question. In an earlier case, the foreign investigators were unable to identify which portion of the copyright work this ‘blip’ related to, something which led to a judgment in favor of the defendant.

What follows next is an impressive teardown of the foreign investigators, including apparently fictitious witnesses and people operating under dual identities, one of whom (Darren M. Griffen) appears in more than 600 other federal cases against file-sharers. Lynch’s investigation suggests an organized smoke-and-mirrors operation, one that he’ll expose before the court, if that is necessary.

“The bottom line is that Mr. Collins is wholly innocent. My firm would not have taken his case if he were not innocent. Mr. Collins will prevail if your client chooses to go forward, and Mr. Collins will seek defense attorneys’ fees for the litigation expenses that could have been avoided by believing him,” Lynch writes.

“Or, choose not to believe him (and me) and we will return the favor – adopting the posture that your client’s representatives are also liars. We will seek the truth about ‘Darren M. Griffin’ and his 42 declarations to the [Western District of Washington] and 600 more to federal courts across the country.”

As noted by DieTrollDie, that threat proved too much for LHF Productions. The company dismissed the case against Mr Collins in preference to being put under the microscope. There are probably very good reasons for that and ones that other recipients of threatening letters should consider exploring.

The whole letter can be found here (pdf). It’s a particularly entertaining read and contains valuable lessons on how not to be intimidated by trolls.


Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 27, 2017, 07:45:11 AM
High Court throws out Hollywood movie piracy case
APR 20, 2017 |  Irene Tham Senior Tech Correspondent

Studios wanted to compel telcos to give details of Net users who allegedly downloaded 2 films

Internet users in Singapore have scored a landmark victory against tactics used by copyright holders fighting alleged piracy.

The Singapore High Court has thrown out applications from two Hollywood studios to compel local telcos to release the details of Internet subscribers who allegedly downloaded two movies: Fathers & Daughters and Queen Of The Desert.

The oral decision delivered at a closed-door hearing on Monday was on the grounds of "insufficient evidence", the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) told The Straits Times yesterday.

In a rare move, the AGC intervened in civil applications made in the High Court in July last year by Samuel Seow Law Corp (SSLC), the local law firm that represents the two studios.

Queen Of The Desert, which stars Nicole Kidman, is produced by QOTD Film Investment.

Fathers & Daughters, a 2015 movie starring Russell Crowe, is produced by Voltage Pictures - the same studio that went after Internet users here in 2015 for illegally downloading the movie Dallas Buyers Club.

SSLC represented Voltage at the time, and was able to get Singtel, StarHub and M1 to turn over the names, NRIC numbers and addresses of alleged illegal downloaders. Hundreds of letters were sent out with users told to pay $5,000. The Straits Times understands that a handful of Internet users settled for an undisclosed sum.

Last year, SSLC again served papers on Singtel, StarHub and M1 to get details of alleged pirates of Fathers & Daughters and Queen Of The Desert, with a list of over 500 offending Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

The AGC and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (Ipos) said they highlighted to the court that SSLC did not submit "sufficient evidence" to show a link between the IP addresses and alleged illegal downloaders. It was on such grounds that the case was dismissed.

Intellectual property lawyer Cyril Chua of Robinson LLC said: "Many people may be sharing the same Wi-Fi connection. It doesn't mean that the registrant of the line is downloading."

On the other hand, Mr Lau Kok Keng, an IP lawyer at Rajah & Tann Singapore, said requiring the rights owner to link the IP address to the actual infringer is akin to "putting the cart before the horse" - copyright holders need to know who the account holder is to ascertain if he is the actual pirate.

"So it could mean that individuals who illegally download copyright content will be able to get off scot-free because their identities will never be known, short of being caught in the act," said Mr Lau.

Lawyers close to the case said the landmark decision signals a push for copyright holders to enforce their copyright via other means. For instance, the amended Copyright Act that took effect in December 2014 lets content owners seek a High Court order to get telcos to block piracy websites. Before the revised law, they could not compel telcos to block pirated content.

The AGC and Ipos said they had intervened to prevent "an abuse of the process of the court".

In 2015, complaints were made against two SSLC lawyers for breaching ethical guidelines by using threats of criminal litigation in demand letters over the alleged piracy of Dallas Buyers Club.

Mr Samuel Seow, managing director of SSLC, said: "Despite the difficulties, where instructed, we shall press on to find more concrete and substantial evidence which will satisfy the court because it is important to send out the message that the works of copyright holders should be properly protected and enforced accordingly."

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on April 27, 2017, 07:47:02 AM
... The AGC and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (Ipos) said they highlighted to the court that SSLC did not submit "sufficient evidence" to show a link between the IP addresses and alleged illegal downloaders. It was on such grounds that the case was dismissed.


Source (11 April 2015):,37.msg137.html#msg137
Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on May 17, 2018, 05:39:15 PM
Police investigating entertainment lawyer after ex-staff allege physical and verbal assaults  
By Kelly Ng | 15 May, 2018

SINGAPORE — A police report has been filed against high profile lawyer Samuel Seow by a former employee alleging physical and verbal assaults on multiple occasions.

Mr Seow, 45, the managing director of Samuel Seow Law Corporation, is well-known in the local entertainment scene for defending celebrities in legal cases. He also runs artiste management firm Beam Artistes.

According to the report filed on Saturday (May 12) and seen by TODAY, Mr Seow had allegedly grabbed and pushed the former Beam Artistes employee to the ground, flung a metal stapler at her, splashed cold water on her, or threatened to “take a knife and kill her” – among other allegations – on at least three occasions over March and April.

Mr Seow declined comment when contacted by TODAY.

The former employee, who is in her late teens, also claimed that there was a fourth incident on April 17 allegedly involving an employee from Mr Seow’s law firm who reportedly got into a dispute with him “over some work-related issues”.

An audio file of the alleged incident, which is making its rounds online, recorded a commotion lasting over 10 minutes at Samuel Seow Law Corporation. Several parties were also heard urging him to “cool down” in the recording.

A secretary who tried to intervene was also allegedly shoved to the ground by Mr Seow, said the police report.

TODAY understands that the law firm employee, who has since left the company, had sought medical attention after the incident.

The police confirmed on Tuesday (May 15) that investigations are ongoing. Some witnesses have been asked to provide their statements over the past two days, TODAY has learnt.

Former employees TODAY contacted confirmed the alleged incidents, but did not want to elaborate for fear of reprisal.

Mr Seow founded Samuel Seow Law Corporation in 2005. He had previously represented former actress Michelle Saram when she was sued by her Taiwanese management agency for breach of contract in 2001, and assisted singer-songwriter Tanya Chua in her court case against her former music publisher Music & Movement for the rights to her songs.

In 2015, his firm was engaged by the producers of several Hollywood films — including Dallas Buyers Club, Fathers & Daughters, and Queen of the Desert — to go after Internet users here for illegally downloading the movies. In a landmark decision last year, the High Court dismissed their applications on grounds that the law firm did not submit “sufficient evidence” to show a link between the IP addresses and alleged illegal downloaders.

Mr Seow’s artiste management company Beam Artistes, whose roster includes actor Paul Foster, also organises annual beauty pageant Manhunt Singapore.


Entertainment lawyer Samuel Seow charged with assaulting, threatening 3 employees including niece
Friday 7 June 2019 | Louisa Tang

SINGAPORE — High-profile entertainment lawyer Samuel Seow was charged in court on Friday (June 7) with allegedly assaulting and threatening three of his law firm’s employees at their office on two separate occasions last year.

Mr Seow, 46, faces one charge of voluntarily causing hurt, two charges of using criminal force on a person, and one charge under the Protection from Harassment Act.

He is the managing director of Samuel Seow Law Corporation, and is well-known in the local entertainment scene for representing celebrities including former actress Michelle Saram and singer-songwriter Tanya Chua in legal cases.

He also runs artiste management firm Beam Artistes, which organises annual beauty pageant Manhunt Singapore.

According to court documents, on April 3 last year at about 8pm, he allegedly told his niece Rachel Kang: “I will take a knife and kill you.”

Ms Kang had previously worked for him.

About two weeks later, on April 17 at around 6pm, he allegedly grabbed the arms of an associate at his firm, Ms Brenda Kong’s, pushed her against a table and slapped her left cheek several times.

She has since left the firm.

He is also said to have poked Ms Kang’s forehead with his finger, and pushed another employee, Ms Serene Tan, to the ground. It is not known if Ms Tan is still at the firm.

Two videos of the incident were leaked online in April, showing him beating and chasing a female staff member around the office about a year ago.

Following the video leak, he made a police report and released a statement, saying he hoped to find closure and move on with his life.

He also admitted that there was “an issue” in his office last year, and said he would leave it to the police to investigate.

Mr Seow, who was dressed in a suit on Friday and appeared downcast, is represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Chooi Jing Yen from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP. He will next appear in court on July 5.

If convicted of causing hurt, he could be jailed up to two years and/or fined up to S$5,000.

If convicted of using criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation, he could be jailed up to three months and/or fined up to S$1,500.

If convicted of causing distress to a person, he could be jailed up to six months and/or fined up to S$5,000.

Last year, a 30-minute-long audio clip of the alleged incident made its rounds online. It purportedly captured the sound of Mr Seow in a dispute with a former employee, whom he revealed was his niece.

In an interview after the clip was leaked and his niece had filed a police report, Mr Seow said she was the one who had shoved him first, and he had then slapped her for being rude.

But over a week later, both of them withdrew police reports they had made against each other.

Title: Re: 2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)
Post by: greentara on November 21, 2019, 08:18:51 PM
Lawyer Samuel Seow charged with assault, harassment following leaked video
Jun 7, 2019 | Shaffiq Alkhatib, Court Correspondent

SINGAPORE - Entertainment lawyer Samuel Seow Theng Beng was charged on Friday (June 7) with offences including the assault of a woman and the use of criminal force on another two.

He allegedly assaulted Ms Brenda Kong Shin Ying by grabbing her arms, pushing her against a table and slapping her left cheek several times in a South Bridge Road office on April 17 last year.

Seow, 46, is also accused of using criminal force on two other women and harassing one of them.

He is said to have intentionally poked Ms Rachel Kang Pei Shan’s forehead with his finger and pushed Ms Serene Tan Tzuu Yen to the ground that day.

In a separate incident on April 3 last year, Seow allegedly threatened Ms Kang by telling her: “I will take a knife and kill you.”

Court documents did not state Seow’s relationship with these three women. However, he had stated on social media that Brenda is his niece.

Seow is a shareholder at Samuel Seow Law Corporation and director of more than 10 firms, including talent agency Beam Artistes.

Videos posted on YouTube show Mr Samuel Seow beating and chasing after a female member of his staff.

He first made headlines last year after an audio recording, purportedly between him and a woman, was uploaded online and went viral.

A police report was also made in which a woman accused Seow of grabbing and pushing her, among other things.

But she withdrew the report in May last year and he withdrew his complaint to the police at the same time.

In a press conference that month, Seow said the matter was a family dispute, and that he had acted in his capacity as an uncle and not as an employer.

He had written on Facebook: “People can say what they want without any care for the truth. There are some very irresponsible and despicable people out there who will take some perverse delight in causing this.

“I am sorry to my family and friends for the worry this will cause. I am OK. Those who know me will know the truth.”

However, two videos of a dispute between Seow and a woman in an office were posted online this year and they also went viral.

He made a police report and on April 26, released a statement hitting out at the people whom he said were “constantly and conscientiously” seeking to cause damage to him.

Seow is represented by lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam and his case has been adjourned to July 5.

If convicted of assault, he can be jailed for up to two years and fined up to $5,000.