Trading on another's success: Mr. Bean.

I noticed something surprising to me, yesterday. In Redhill, there is a shop selling soy milk products entitled: Mr. Bean. That should seem familiar to all who read this, but not because of this shop's success, but because of the origin of the name.

Is it right for a shop to name itself after an internationally recognized comic brand? Everyone the world over knows Mr. Bean: he is a character of universal fame, created by Rowan Atkinson. Yet, here, in sleepy Redhill, we have a shop boasting the same name. Curiously, they have a registered trademark symbol attached to the word Mr. Bean. So, if true, they have successfully registered someone else's name as their own. I puzzle at this. Did no-one in the trademarks and registry office notice that the name was the same as a famous, already existing one?

It gives a poor impression of Singapore's respect for copyrights and foreign trademarks, if a famous comic character can have its name stolen, locally, like this, with the official approval of the trademarks office. It gives the impression that, locally, any theft of identity and goodwill will be allowed, if only the right registry fees are paid.

Mr. Bean, to billions of people, is not a soy bean shop. Mr. Bean is a comic character. Yet, in using his name, the shop has won instant familiarity. Anyone seeing it will instantly feel that it is a familiar brand. They have, in effect, polejumped their way to being a household word, by stealing someone else's household word.

A more carefully regulated environment would not allow such an act of imitation. A more careful registry of trademarks office would have turned them down, for the very reason that they are obviously trading on someone else's name and reputation.

I wonder what the owners of Mr. Bean, the comic franchise would do if they learnt that a Singaporean company has taken their identity? Would they sue? Would the Mr. Bean shop go down burdened by massive legal costs? In a way, I would be happy to see it be so - for there is nothing worse, for a creator, than to see their creation used and abused by others.

I saw the Mr. Bean shop and I was thirsty - but I didn't go in for a drink. All I thought was: "That is so wrong." I rather hope that that is the thought of the majority and that they take a step back and consider what it means for a company to build its reputation on the fame of another. Does that seem a right thing to do?

Every time someone starts a company, it is an opportunity to be creative, to do something new - to build something that wasn't there before. This particular company, however, took the opportunity to capitalize on someone else's success, to build their brand by cannibalizing another. That, in some countries, would be seen as a crime of sorts. The question is: why is it not in Singapore, the squeakiest clean state of all?

Perhaps someone should ask them to change their name. Try something honest - virtually anything else will do. If they do so, I might even have a drink there - but I won't until the day they are not called Mr. Bean.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and four months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and nine months, and Tiarnan, twenty-six months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind, niño, gênio criança, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Odex, Pacific Net and Gamesmart

Once upon a time there was a company called Gamesmart that hung out at Orchard MRT (train station). They were an ambitious company that wanted to make "A LOT OF MONEY". They sold computer games and the like. These were expensive to buy from the suppliers - but then they had a BIG IDEA.

What was the BIG IDEA? To copy the games illegally from the suppliers - and then sell the fake games as if they were real goods. This is called counterfeiting - and it is also copyright infringement. According to net sources (including one at a ChannelNewsAsia forum) - the goods stolen in this way included Sony Playstation 2 titles.

Anyway, for a time, all was well. Gamesmart raked in the money and the Gamesmart boys were as happy as happy could be. But then, came a BAD DAY. The police raided their store and all their world fell apart. Two Gamesmart employees served jail sentences, as a result (ChannelNewsAsia forum, source).

Now, why am I talking to you about Gamesmart? Who are they? Well, the oddest of odd things is that Gamesmart has two key directors in common with Odex Pte Ltd. This is a most ironic circumstance for Odex is now pursuing a case against thousands of Singaporeans for copyright violations. Yet, hang on a minute, is that not hypocritical when the two key directors in both companies are the SAME MEN?

If you doubt this, please go to: http://www.nowhere.per.sg/local/gamesmart.pdf

Here you will find the ACRA records (Singapore government accounting body), for Gamesmart. You will note that Sing Xin Yang and Go Wei Ho Peter are directors of Gamesmart. As noted and shown in my previous posts on Odex they are also the two key players in Odex.

Now, Odex is seeking up to $5,000 from each person who downloaded Japanese anime cartoons such as Gundam Seed and Inuyasha, without payment, on the internet. They are seeking compensation for copyright infringement. There is nothing truly controversial about that: copyright is copyright and infringement is infringement - however, what has now become clear - and which was not clear when I posted on them before, is that the people behind Odex have, historically, been involved with a company that was itself charged with copyright violations and the manufacture of counterfeit goods - and was convicted.

All this leads us to a new understanding of the Odex, Pacific Net/Starhub/Singtel/Singnet situation. Whether or not Go or Sing were themselves instrumental in the Gamesmart violation, they were directors of Gamesmart, which was convicted of such violations. Therefore their stand now, against thousands of others who have infringed copyright on titles in which they have business interests, is truly hypocritical. In a moral sense, it seems doubtful that those who have themselves been involved in the infringement of copyright can take much of a stand on another case, in which their own rights are infringed.

Look at this more deeply. I have shown that there is a proven connection between Odex and AVPAS - the Anti-Video Piracy Association of Singapore - in a previous post. How would those Japanese Anime Producers feel if they learnt that Odex, who they have clearly entrusted with the AVPAS work (since they are the administrative contact for AVPAS) - and were appointed by them to pursue this copyright case in Singapore - had, themselves, a history of copyright theft/violation through the past business history of their trusted appointees? (That is those appointees were directors of a company that was convicted of counterfeiting).

This is a very worrying development, not just for this case - but for the whole issue of copyright protection here in Singapore. From all these connections of the Odex directors to Gamesmart and AVPAS, it is clear that the guardians of copyright for anime here, in Singapore, AVPAS, have a link to the Odex directors, who themselves have a link to a company convicted of counterfeiting/copyright violations. Thus the old latin question arises: "Who guards the guards themselves?"

However, IP (intellectual property) must be strongly protected if there is to be any IP to protect. So, this situation does not detract from the need to protect from IP. It also does not make illegal downloading of anime or anything else legally right, either. Yet, it does point out the need to fully understand the situation. Who is it who complains of copyright theft? Have they ever done so themselves? If so, is it not hypocritical to then cry "thief" when another steals from them?

There is a moral solution here. Everyone who stole from Odex could pay a fine. Yes. But then Odex should pay Sony Playstation the same quantum for EVERY TITLE COPY THEY FORGED. By this, I mean that if there are 3,000 downloaders who have to pay 5,000 dollars each...then, unfortunate though it is for those individuals, the law might require them to pay. Yet, given the history of the situation, it would seem moral if the Odex directors also paid Sony the same sum for every copy made. If they made 10,000 copies then they should pay 5,000 dollars to Sony for every instance of violation. That would be both just - and funny.

However, it won't happen, because though they share the same key directors, Odex and Gamesmart are separate entities in law and cannot be pursued for the actions of each other. Yet, as a thought experiment, it has a certain satisfactory moral bite to it.

Let us see how the courts untangle this mess - for truly it is vastly more complex and subtle than at first, it seemed. Perhaps there are even more secrets lurking out there to be discovered.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, and Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Odex, Pacific Net, Singapore: a quote

I have received a number of comments some of which are published in the post below, regarding the Odex, Pacific Net case.

I have only published a few of the comments because many of them appear to be from people angry at the case - and, you can just guess what the tone of them is like.

It would help those commenters to note the words of a Pacific Net spokesman, published yesterday in the Straits Times, concerning the case:

"Pacific Net respects the rights of intellectual property owners and at the same time, also believes in protecting the privacy of all our subscribers."

This is an indication, contrary to what some commenters thought, that part of Pacific Net's argument would have been the protection of privacy. The full details of the argument are, however, protected by the Court, here, in Singapore.

Beyond privacy issues, however, Judge Lau was also concerned that Odex should not be the one to file the suit. He would have preferred a direct suit from the Japanese anime studio itself. This is a bit strange, however, since Odex own the rights to these Japanese anime cartoons, here - and the Japanese studio gave Odex permission to pursue the case - on their behalf. It seems, to me, like a case of a Judge finding a way to ensure that his own viewpoint prevails, by discovering a technicality he can use to support his view. The fact is, copyright was infringed on numerous occasions. The fact is Odex own the local rights. The fact is Odex are pursuing the case on behalf of the Japanese anime studio. It would seem, therefore, a straightforward matter, for me, anyway, to accept their proxy action - and find in favour of the holder of the local rights. Yet, the law is a strange realm - and often does strange things. Perhaps this is one of them.

It will be interesting to see how this copyright case is eventually resolved. Will Odex actually sue downloaders? Will the downloaders pay? Will this action reduce copyright violations here, in Singapore? I will report if anything interesting happens, ultimately.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, and his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, and Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, Chemistry, Science, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Does Singapore value copyright?

Intellectual property and its particular example, copyright, have made news recently, in Singapore. At stake, is the whole idea of ownership of a created work - and the rewards that go with having created it.

As you may know, copyright sometimes gets a rough time, in parts of Asia. China is famous for its businessmen who ignore copyright and intellectual property laws and just copy, or take, intellectual property without authorization or payment. Yet, there is another kind of copyright violation that its perpetrators may not even consider to be in the same arena: the illegal internet download.

Downloading material off the internet is so prevalent and so common the world over, that most young people give it no thought at all: indeed, the typical youngster seems to think it is their right to download whatever they please, whenever they please. This attitude, however, either ignores the notion of intellectual property and copyright - or is founded on an unawareness of it.

Recently, an anime (Japanese cartoon) distributor in Singapore, called Odex, has decided to stand up for its intellectual property rights and sue violators. In the past two years, they have suffered from a decline in sales of 60 to 70 %. They attribute this to a simultaneous rise in illegal downloads of their anime films, off the internet. Quite simply, they contend, young people are no longer buying their cartoons - they are stealing them off the internet. This is destroying their business model. Odex distribute such popular Japanese anime cartoons as Gundam Seed and Inuyasha, usually via VCD/DVD in retail outlets.

To be able to sue the illegal downloaders, Odex first had to find out who they were. To do this, they took the local internet service providers Singtel (government telco), Starhub and Pacific Net, to court. The first two judgements came in against the ISPs, forcing them to reveal the names of about a 1,000 downloaders each: Singtel has done so, Starhub is still mulling over an appeal. The interesting one is Pacific Net - or PacNet. The judge in that case - who was different from the other two - came down in Pacific Net's favour citing the importance of internet privacy, and blocking Odex's petition to secure the names of 1,000 illegal internet anime downloaders.

The fact that a Singapore court came down against the intellectual property owner, in a copyright violation case, is itself very interesting (and more of that later) - but what really intrigues and appals me, in equal measures is the reaction to Odex's case, in the online forums, in word of mouth - and in other forms of feedback to Odex, itself. There has been outrage all over the internet, that Odex would actually seek to protect its copyright - violators and sympathizers have been pouring vitriol against Odex in forum, after forum. There have even, reports in the Straits Times state, been DEATH THREATS against Odex.

Just reflect on that for a moment. The general feeling among young internet downloaders is that Odex, which owns the sole rights to distribute these Japanese anime cartoons in this part of the world, should not be allowed to protect its intellectual property. Indeed, the mass of internet users are angry that Odex should be doing so - to the point of issuing death threats against them. I find that really, really disturbing - and you should, too.

What exactly is Odex protecting? The right for the creator of a work to be compensated when someone else enjoys the use of it. I don't think that should be a controversial issue. If there were no rewards for creating works, in any media, exactly how many such works would be available for public distribution? Almost none at all. Without a fair financial return on the time, money and effort put into creating an artistic or other work (and all three facets are involved in most creations), then there would be no significant creative activity that wasn't entirely private. There would be no worldwide market for films, books, music, art, and the like. The entertainment world, as we know it, just would not exist. Is that a better world than the one we have? Few would think so - yet that is the world the outraged internet voices are arguing for. They are crying out for a world in which creators, producers and owners of creative works are NOT rewarded for doing so. In such a world, there would be no Japanese anime cartoons to be bought in the shops or even downloaded for "free" on the internet - for no-one would spend millions of dollars making them, when they could never recoup the money invested. The protesters against Odex are baying for a world without art, a world without culture, a world of utter boredom.

No. People should not be demanding a relaxation of copyright laws. People should not be demanding that the internet should be a free for all. People should, instead be demanding a strengthening of copyright laws. People should be demanding huge penalties for all who breach them. Why do I say this? Well, in a world in which copyright is strong and well-protected, creators feel secure in releasing their works to the public. They are rewarded well for it - and more works will follow. A world of strong copyright protection is a world with a burgeoning, vital culture - to the benefit of all, except the freeloaders who would wish to steal a work, rather than pay a reasonable sum for it.

Odex is seeking $5,000 Singapore dollars from each and every illegal downloader. They are not seeking a penalty for each individual copyright violation, as I understand it (though, really, they should). That is about $3,285 US dollars a head.

As a writer, myself, and as someone who understands the work that every creative work embodies (sometimes a lifetime's work in a single opus), I really hope Odex wins all its cases against illegal downloaders. Any case against copyright theft can only serve to strengthen copyright and protect the rights of all who create, in any way, and in any medium, anywhere.

What really worries me about this case, though, is that the Singaporean judge in the Pacific Net case did not understand this. Either he did not understand this - or did not care about it. He placed "internet privacy" above "copyright protection". That is equivalent, in the physical world, to putting the rights of shoplifters not to be identified (so that, hey, they can shoplift again, anonymously, no shop knowing who they are), above the rights of shopowners not to be stolen from. It doesn't make sense. Privacy is an important issue - but you cannot and should not use a right to privacy to hide a criminal, of any breed. A thief is a thief, whether they steal a car or a film - it is still theft. A court has no place coming down on the side of the thief, against the owner of the property that was stolen. That really doesn't make any sense.

Generally speaking, lawyers don't create anything. Therefore, perhaps, this particular lawyer does not understand the issues around creating a work - and being compensated for the use of that creative work. It is not an issue that he would feel strongly about because it is not an issue ever likely to concern him. Well, it should. The whole of human society is built on the works of intellectual property holders - be it copyrights or patents. We all, together, have a collective responsibility to ensure that intellectual property is protected and its owners properly compensated. If we do not do this, there won't be any intellectual property to protect - and then we will all suffer. In a sense, therefore, those who steal intellectual property, strike against us all - for they are striking against those on whom all the richness of society is built. We shouldn't stand for it. But first we must understand the issue. Once we understand that issue - and I hope to have done something to help, there - there should be no excuse for not protecting intellectual property with the same vigour that we protect physical property. If this issue doesn't mean much to you, put the words "my house" or "my car" in the place of Japanese anime cartoons - and see just how happy you feel about someone stealing it.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)