2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)

[greentara]

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.

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/tech/agc-steps-in-as-studios-seek-illegal-downloaders


August 2016:

Plaintiff:
FATHERS & DAUGHTERS NEVADA, LLC
(SEOW THENG BENG SAMUEL / SOH XING LONG, RON ALVIN)
(SAMUEL SEOW LAW CORPORATION)

Defendants:
1. M1 CONNECT PTE LTD
(CHAN KWOK CHUAN JASON / NICHOLAS ONG WEI LUN)(AMICA LAW LLC)
2. M1 LIMITED
(CHAN KWOK CHUAN JASON / NICHOLAS ONG WEI LUN) (AMICA LAW LLC)
_________________

Plaintiff:
FATHERS & DAUGHTERS NEVADA, LLC
(SEOW THENG BENG SAMUEL / SOH XING LONG, RON ALVIN)
(SAMUEL SEOW LAW CORPORATION)

Defendants:
1. SINGAPORE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (UNREPRESENTED)
2. SINGNET PTE LTD (UNREPRESENTED)
3. SINGTEL MOBILE SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (UNREPRESENTED)
_________________

Plaintiff
FATHERS & DAUGHTERS NEVADA, LLC
(SEOW THENG BENG SAMUEL / SOH XING LONG, RON ALVIN)(SAMUEL SEOW LAW CORPORATION)

Defendants:
1. STARHUB CABLE VISION LTD (Lim Yee Ming)(KELVIN CHIA PARTNERSHIP)
2. STARHUB INTERNET PTE LTD (Lim Yee Ming)(KELVIN CHIA PARTNERSHIP)
3. STARHUB LTD (Lim Yee Ming)(KELVIN CHIA PARTNERSHIP)⁠⁠⁠⁠

[greentara]

>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, http://amzn.to/2bojOMw
(b) BitTorrent Specification (Basic): https://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification
(c) BitTorrent Enhancement Proposals (Advanced): http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0000.html


Foxtrot c/o Dr. Green

[greentara]

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)
President
Internet Society (Singapore Chapter)

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/dont-punish-innocent-internet-users

[greentara]

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.

Source: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case

[greentara]

Judge: Vague IP-Address Evidence is Not Enough to Expose BitTorrent ‘Pirates’
BY ERNESTO ON OCTOBER 4, 2016

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.

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/judge-vague-ip-address-evidence-not-enough-expose-bittorrent-pirates-161004/
PDF of case: https://torrentfreak.com/images/ipdenied1.pdf

[greentara]

Copyright Troll Backs Down When Faced With Exposure
BY ANDY ON NOVEMBER 9, 2016

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.

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-troll-backs-down-when-faced-with-exposure-161109/
PDF: https://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/letter-to-troll-david-lowe-oct2016_01017wa.pdf

[greentara]

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."

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case

[greentara]

... 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): http://dishonest.biz/forum/index.php/topic,37.msg137.html#msg137

[greentara]

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.

Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/police-investigating-entertainment-lawyer-after-ex-staff-allege-physical-and-verbal





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.

Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/entertainment-lawyer-samuel-seow-charged-assaulting-threatening-3-employees-including

[greentara]

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. 

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/entertainment-lawyer-samuel-seow-charged-with-offences-including-assault-and

[ainat]

Lawyer Samuel Seow admits to using force on 2 female employees
Wan Ting Koh | 27 July 2020

SINGAPORE — In a space of a few minutes, entertainment lawyer Samuel Seow Theng Beng assaulted his niece and poked an executive in his firm over work matters.

Seow, 47, had been upset that his niece, who worked at Seow’s firm as a lawyer, had not answered a question by him. Both incidents occurred on 17 April 2018.

The owner of Samuel Seow Law Corporation, Beam Artistes and Samuel Seow Corporate pleaded guilty on Monday (27 July) to one charge each of using force with the intent to cause annoyance to Rachel Kang, a 21-year-old artiste and events executive at Beam Artistes, and voluntarily causing hurt to Brenda Kong, his 26-year-old niece who was a lawyer at Seow’s law firm.

Another two charges of a similar nature will be taken into consideration when Seow is sentenced.

Reports of Seow’s assault on the two women first emerged in 2018, with a 30-minute audio recording of a quarrel between Seow and his niece going viral online.

In 26 April last year, two videos were uploaded online, one of which was footage taken from a closed-circuit television camera in Seow’s office capturing the incident.

The CCTV footage was played in court on Monday, while Seow bowed his head down and folded his arms.

Kang filed a police report on 12 May 2018, alleging that Seow had physically abused her on a number of occasions since 26 March that year during her period of employment.

On 17 April 2018, at about 5.47pm, Kang was about to leave the office at 79 South Bridge Road to prepare for a company event when Seow scolded her for leaving with her work incomplete.

In anger, Seow poked Kang’s forehead twice forcefully with his finger. He also pushed a file that Kang was holding, causing the woman to stagger backwards.

Kong, who was present in the office, witnessed the act and left her phone on voice recording mode in case something similar happened to her.

Minutes after the first incident, Seow asked aloud the whereabouts of an associate director but Kong did not respond as she was unsure. She then walked to the photocopy machine at about 5.54pm.

When Seow saw Kong, he repeated his question and his niece replied that the associate director had a meeting from 4pm to 5pm, but that she did not know where he went thereafter.

Angered, Seow asked Kong why she had not replied him earlier and Kong said she didn’t know the associate director’s whereabouts. Unsatisfied with the answer, Seow walked towards her and repeated his question.

Kong raised her arm across her chest to protect herself when Seow approached her, and accidentally touched his chest. The contact prompted Seow to charge at Kong.

“He shouted ‘Brenda!’, before repeatedly saying ‘you beat me, you beat me, you dare to beat me’,” said Deputy Public Prosecutor Kumaresan Gohulabalan.

A scuffle ensued, with Seow pushing Kong back. A staff member attempted to restrain Seow but Seow broke free and rained slaps on Kong’s cheeks and head. Kong retaliated while at least three other employees attempted to intervene. At one point, Seow pushed Kong until she fell.

When another female employee tried to pull Seow away, Seow hit her on her arm shouting, “You stop it!” before confronting Kong again. Kong eventually managed to leave the office after Seow was restrained by a male employee.

Kong sought medical attention and was found with tenderness over her cheek, scalp, neck, arm, together with bruises and abrasions.

DPP Kumaresan told the court that it was seeking for the court to hold a Newton hearing to determine when Seow had been suffering from a psychiatric illness, adjustment disorder, and if it was causally linked to his offence. He noted that the psychiatrists from the defence and prosecution disagreed as to whether Seow was suffering from the psychiatric disorder at the time of the offence.

Seow is represented by lawyer Choo Si Sen, who told the court that the defence was seeking a mandatory treatment order report to access Seow’s suitability for the sentencing option, where an offender will undergo psychiatric treatment.

Choo did not object to a Newton hearing.

The case has been fixed for a pre-trial conference on 13 August.

Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/lawyer-samuel-seow-admits-to-using-force-on-2-female-employees-070653570.html

[ainat]

Final (27 Oct 2020) updates on the fully discharged crowd funds: http://dishonest.biz/forum/index.php/topic,51.msg465.html#msg465

[ainat]

High Court throws out Hollywood movie piracy case
Irene Tham | Apr 20, 2017

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."

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case