Board logo

標題: 大家認為古惑天皇既下場?[積極回應者+5] [打印本頁]
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-29 09:52 PM     標題: 大家認為古惑天皇既下場?[積極回應者+5]

我希望佢冇事!4 f' l" r" l. s
佢都係方便各網友啫!) p% `7 c5 N8 U" t7 C# p0 ^
之前我都有好多套戲響佢度download.# j8 }4 `* n6 z$ E$ X1 O
告得入就俾班仆街開到先例!
( X' T; E( S: j* A9 ~; t1 k8 b" l! j我覺得bt係一個灰色地帶, 唔可能好definite話係侵權或犯法!( B$ W' o2 y* E. H( Z- a4 }. v
班友甘大回嚮甘狼都係感情因素居多!! J4 H1 m! k3 Z8 m5 }2 p
純個人意見! 冇意開戰!亦不打算回應!" q. a. I; ~; i! I1 s% A2 r; S
& D! F% e+ l5 P/ A/ r. y3 A1 M
[ Last edited by 樂壇渣Fit人 on 2005-4-30 at 11:32 AM ]
作者: tony    時間: 2005-4-29 09:58 PM

冇事!
作者: Ricky00893    時間: 2005-4-29 10:02 PM

罰款 $ 5000
作者: dogson009    時間: 2005-4-29 10:03 PM

其實我都唔肯定係咪真有其人=.=
作者: goonejp    時間: 2005-4-29 10:47 PM

法律已死,班友强姦法律
$ u* E* L: _$ q: X2 Uhttp://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/Xsmileys/iconsex----dog.gif( y' p% r$ S7 a2 u  b% J
  u7 V. p5 i6 r
[ Last edited by goonejp on 2005-4-29 at 10:48 PM ]
作者: chickenboy    時間: 2005-4-29 11:03 PM

kill chicken scare monkey.....佢起碼都要守行為
作者: 692004    時間: 2005-4-29 11:09 PM

冇罪釋放
作者: bob64    時間: 2005-4-29 11:10 PM

打靶!!
作者: king_king    時間: 2005-4-29 11:14 PM

小弟覺得會冇事,但會好似m$,要公開道歉.
作者: abc123aa    時間: 2005-4-29 11:15 PM

最好就冇事,否則班所謂的"電影人"就有本地案例
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-29 11:16 PM

我覺得班友成日嘈話侵版權, 但我覺得佢哋自己做就冇問題!
( H: P5 t/ x/ ]8 K1 w- o根本bt係灰色地域!我覺得即係未係犯法!甘邊有理由入佢罪?
2 M- C6 [/ e$ L1 Q7 _/ @"老鼠愛大米"甘, 人人爭黎唱, 講真, 佢哋甘正義, 自動自覺交返版權費俾個原創者囉! 咪又係食個灰色地帶話國語版冇版權邊個鍾意就攞黎唱!) m5 z" ~8 D1 T5 @+ @4 d' h( Q
講開又講!首歌根本唔好聽(我唔識欣賞啦!)啲詞直接係好, 但太老土了!啲人而家老土當冧歌!
% Q8 x+ i* @) l8 t: s香港人有啲真係好似中咗毒甘!!!
作者: EV4886    時間: 2005-4-29 11:18 PM

美國咁講版權法都吾敢告BT,香港海關想扮勁想做世界法治一哥,輸.....輸硬.(除非又請人大釋法)
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-29 11:26 PM

重有就係, 佢而家唔係只係針對"公開"既人, 連攞黎睇既人都想造佢哋!
9 @" V# M) P- {* x: J5 r  D8 f根本就荒天下之大謬!. X/ H4 D: Q1 m  \. d8 H* y  Z
不知所謂!
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-29 11:27 PM

重有就係, 佢而家唔係只係針對"公開"既人, 連攞黎睇既人都想造佢哋!' C. T, |1 H! T4 Q0 y
根本就荒天下之大謬!% R  r4 o5 ]4 X
不知所謂!
作者: nkt1000    時間: 2005-4-29 11:36 PM

希望古惑天皇兄會冇事吧!!!
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-29 11:47 PM

我希望佢冇事之餘,仲可以挫一挫班契弟既銳氣!
作者: 短毛    時間: 2005-4-29 11:48 PM

大家可以睇o下有關法律條文. 裏面*好似*講明*非牟利性*的侵犯版權也算是犯法.+ t) R9 P+ ^, c( F

, _. a  ?0 i9 g* a+ M佢放種子俾人下載, 明顯地有動機讓其他人下載.* C3 t1 ]. Z# A+ `" K2 O$ l2 S

# ]7 \9 B  ?+ r現在好似有人做錯事(非法盜版)但好多人都覺得沒有大不了.
6 }9 j' m5 B8 A/ {  s7 l" u
! E  l/ E- U( }沒有意思偏幫那一方, 只希望大家可以討論一下.# U% h% G: m" m. H/ f" s9 S

0 Q) d0 A; T& R" w  c' M5 \* A還有報紙中提到一百萬人下載某一部戲, 損失幾億元, 那個記者一定沒有讀經濟的, 沒有成本下需求當然大. 叫人$60買張飛都無咁多人睇啦~
作者: lijinwei    時間: 2005-4-29 11:51 PM

想罰錢, 但因他失業, 身家不多
) a- |! A2 D8 f/ `1 V3 |要坐牢, 但政府財赤, 還要出錢養一個失業的人
& l6 P" k5 K: s罰少少錢, 守行為並留案底算了吧
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-29 11:58 PM

Originally posted by 短毛 at 2005-4-29 11:48 PM:  P; z* U, K. u1 k
大家可以睇o下有關法律條文. 裏面*好 ...
7 ], ^3 @8 e5 o5 O3 Wvcd鋪通常一有新返既碟就對住大街大行黎播!
4 [( Y0 y, i( L4 Y3 }  ?然後啲人睇睇下入去買咗!- z) [* o. j8 u* M
既牟利又侵權!
, ^+ M8 q- ^% w/ M4 x, o但亦大行其道.....
/ |$ H6 m6 G, Z5 @" L( g0 Y& l) r$ W唉! 唔係話甘就唔代表bt係唔犯法定係點......, x; J7 n( f! T$ @% ]( H' F( B
只係香港政府係多重標準!
1 _/ B8 K* u6 c: b& r1 |9 G; T同埋bt冇先例, 始終係灰色地帶!) S" h' o8 C1 K2 Y: |% j3 d
難聽到嘔既老鼠愛大米國語版俾啲人大搖大擺攞黎唱到臭晒又冇事.....
; O6 n0 ]4 d; G8 E所以話, 香港政府都係仆街黎! 鍾意點就點!正仆街!
作者: EV4886    時間: 2005-4-30 12:08 AM

無得告 la~~~全世界都冇先例又冇法証參考,香港e班2打6法官點識判,陳嘉上點都惡吾過哥倫比亞或Dream Work掛,e家個個都想睇香港點死.
作者: 史艷文2    時間: 2005-4-30 01:00 AM

雖然我唔用BT,因我中意租碟用電視睇(畫面大)/ i0 L7 J7 P5 P% z6 w0 ^8 j
但我都希望佢無事,因太多垃圾戲,D濕9電影人係到瀨地硬!
作者: F.king    時間: 2005-4-30 07:08 AM

Originally posted by 短毛 at 2005-4-29 11:48 PM:
3 H2 C% `% j; ~* J5 K& m大家可以睇o下有關法律條文. 裏面*好 ...
& B0 @- d  U. M2 N' R# A/ g/ uI agree you points that it could be illegal
8 z/ X+ c) A  mbut that is still a "gray area"8 e- X' o& s! u8 M
whoever win, it still makes us to feel that the result is unfair
& X1 n  Y/ v; y, U! a1 T. [, x/ B/ v) l! c# p6 @
anyway, I want to say that is- O; l: Y( r2 k5 V6 _
who is supposed to be protected by laws
6 Z# L2 s( @7 s1 S* m1 T& ocreators?
2 X$ V/ U' e1 L% m, {$ i* d1 cbut I think now they just only protect big companies but not the movies market
4 W: c/ w, R9 S' X( D* s8 A! [( ylet's them copy others ideas and produce lots of boring movies (not all) to earn our money." q# X+ Y4 P/ D' a
when we are cheated by some shops, we can sue those: U: d$ V* F4 y- i
Why nothing protects consumers to choose a movies???
作者: junob04    時間: 2005-4-30 08:41 AM

Originally posted by dogson009 at 2005-4-29 10:03 PM:
! f* O3 z  W" m/ t8 L+ R' a其實我都唔肯定係咪真有其人=.=
# {3 r( [" O1 v8 U. i我都咁話,可能其實係班差佬為左想"空"我地,作個人出黎,做戲!!
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-30 09:58 AM

Originally posted by junob04 at 2005-4-30 08:41 AM:
0 ^8 X  K" O: n( ^0 D" i
) b- M) w2 q4 U. p* i我都咁話,可能其實係班差佬為左想"空"我地,作個人出黎,做戲!!
! V  V# @2 H7 m
唔係喎!
* K# H! H( w, f古惑天皇響--- 嗰度好出名係大佬黎喎!3 k/ \4 N  r2 L1 s% M# l
我以前都成日去download佢放出黎啲戲!. D) M' |4 W7 f% Y( X3 B
佢真係好有熱誠嗰隻, 由舊到你諗唔起既戲到新到岩岩上畫既戲佢都有!
" a! {; B4 U: h0 ]& T5 y就係因為佢出名所以班pk先捕佢!
作者: 大家樂1234    時間: 2005-4-30 12:27 PM

希望佢無事
0 z- B9 y. P2 l) @# D一有先例以後就死嚕
作者: jason williams    時間: 2005-4-30 12:36 PM

honestly, i also use bt, but i know my action is totally incorrect!!!
0 H* c7 u4 s4 \, z/ F( Kdun say nowadays movie is bad or not, downloan it is giving its face.......
+ f2 `( I3 t* n+ T# B) `if so bad, dun download la, right?
4 q7 t9 z( w$ j! xi am dun shouting on all using bt guys, because i am also this guy^^
$ l9 S7 o7 ], K+ ^& t9 b; Ibut for the fact and 對事 to say, dl by bt really harm the company a lot, there is no excuse for using bt is a legal way and correct5 a$ p/ n' k0 ~  R2 v7 w& b. B
no need $$$ and need $, how to consider also no need $ is much more benfit la
6 U4 B1 Y7 E3 j7 k3 kso what i always think is that, in this modern and high tech society) j* A9 g" [- p0 B; L2 i  C0 n
using bt or winmx this kind of high tech should be graduately to take over buying CD or going to cinema.........
( v# c0 }8 s- C, D% `why not develop this to takeover now condition? even need $$$ to dl, i think ppl would also accept (but sure the price should be lower as much more ppl would dl to overcome the production cost) BT really a very great invention !!!
/ t4 m- |* K5 Q% T. u& qso, even they catch him or us, i only can say he or us are unlucky, but not incorrect way for them to do and custom also doing what they should do, so dun fxxking them la^^
作者: coolyiceman    時間: 2005-4-30 12:45 PM

罰款,冇留案底!3 M& q8 d4 T: d/ y& j8 M* E
佢又唔係殺人放火~~~
9 M" N6 Y, F+ k# D' e9 p9 b/ V/ l政府想比下馬威0的人~~9 n% B3 L, k# f0 \9 c" Y
錢就一定罰
: n" P! U/ n! V3 w未必要坐牢~~
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-30 01:31 PM

如果真係判佢有罪,+ u) G, g4 g# s# N+ y: [% s
唔知佢會唔會上訴呢?" Q7 F, @7 |5 e( g5 Q
佢又失業既, 會唔會冇錢上訴呢?
- c1 E; O- ~# J. o3 Z/ J到時有冇人幫佢呢?!
作者: EV4886    時間: 2005-4-30 04:17 PM

最後同佢針掂,叫佢認左網上盜竊及行為不檢算數,網上盜竊就口頭警告(因知前有案例參考,條友網上盜竊人十幾萬地武器都係比口頭警告),而行為不檢就因初犯罰款HK$1000不留案底,咁大家都孝好落台d...
作者: @bcc@    時間: 2005-4-30 05:39 PM

冇事!!!!!:cool:
作者: 小虫    時間: 2005-4-30 06:05 PM

法官班報法令要幾個保鑣護送佢返屋企^_^
作者: 老鬼X    時間: 2005-5-1 01:54 PM

無奈！一定搞死佢　
作者: markmk    時間: 2005-5-3 04:29 AM

一定坐牢......殺雞警猴...仲要大字標題咁話俾bt友聽..
作者: 人人人人人    時間: 2005-5-3 06:09 PM

唉...試問有幾多人未用過BT??政府係都要搞呢D咁o既野, 多少都感到無奈
作者: ilovefuckingyou    時間: 2005-5-4 01:47 AM

告得入我切!!!
作者: bonzi1983    時間: 2005-5-4 05:40 AM

I think 古惑天皇 is immoral, but not illegal....so he is not guilty according to the law
作者: karenmoe    時間: 2005-5-5 01:14 AM

Originally posted by ilove---you at 2005-5-4 01:47 AM:
: _& L3 Y! v# S; v告得入我切!!!
/ a8 i) P! b' u2 Y. i
我當初都估告唔入,
6 x* K: S4 A- c( x5 ]( L$ @7 A) m不過我老豆提醒我,政府咁多大狀,, h$ x# d, ]: d  U( K$ h% ]0 T
真係告唔入就唔會告啦.....
作者: timho1027    時間: 2005-5-5 03:34 AM

海關做戲給美國電影業睇
* k/ M2 z- E$ \1 b# j& D( s我希望佢冇事
作者: wolfevil    時間: 2005-5-5 10:08 PM

會有罪, 不過冇圖利and第一次, 最大可能會守行為
作者: 阿細    時間: 2005-5-5 10:54 PM

Originally posted by EV4886 at 2005-4-29 11:18 PM:
- Z2 B& o+ ]" I9 ]9 C美國咁講版權法都吾敢告BT,香港海關想扮勁想做世界法治一哥,輸.....輸硬.(除非又請人大釋法)
# J5 {' Y  b$ j' a, h
因為美國人權大過天...所以唔敢告用bt d人ja...香港海關想扮勁...就唔見得係la..大家都用緊份內事...
作者: kwajc    時間: 2005-5-6 08:58 AM

香港海關想做一場大龍鳳俾電影業d人睇......講真香港有成幾廿萬人用bt download野....拉晒番去邊到有咁多錢養呢班人呀!!!



歡迎光臨 娛樂滿紛 26FUN (http://26fun.com/bbs/) Powered by Discuz! 7.0.0