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!/ ?1 L/ s) T  s. J  e; g; V$ e; ^
佢都係方便各網友啫!
0 ^% i2 e1 A- D' q4 w5 m' A& z/ |之前我都有好多套戲響佢度download.
  r& A& O0 X8 y; S" H( ]告得入就俾班仆街開到先例!( ?$ E' h2 u0 [
我覺得bt係一個灰色地帶, 唔可能好definite話係侵權或犯法!
' F; f- `2 h$ X7 N1 @6 U% m$ {班友甘大回嚮甘狼都係感情因素居多!
$ @2 k! j. N* Z" R& |3 S純個人意見! 冇意開戰!亦不打算回應!! m& J" C, u6 g9 D8 O$ o' q

) N, H5 w0 M: J2 l3 i- l[ 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 7 O9 `6 n4 o- I1 J7 Q6 H
http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/Xsmileys/iconsex----dog.gif
$ I9 F* o6 c6 \4 s/ C. X) ?0 S
* b$ A! w0 t( a, [7 D" n: ?* o/ L[ 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!
6 z- }% A% [% c) B- Q" x7 f% U7 H6 ]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?/ w9 Z! S* S5 ?+ c5 o
"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!
3 n6 B0 l9 Z* N2 ~3 c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!
& s6 `+ I% E; ?  `4 n5 ^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!
  N2 Y: U* N/ j7 e' y根本就荒天下之大謬!& i6 _% L- }, A4 R4 x1 H4 E
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!
! U6 b: C3 A/ l; {根本就荒天下之大謬!5 @* m% a- O4 b7 e- V
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- q6 G: P1 i" A. e
5 R2 ^( i/ `, v5 m9 Y: R
佢放種子俾人下載, 明顯地有動機讓其他人下載.
4 B8 U, S/ t5 [) s! G
) b# s1 G8 r, v- \8 n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.
0 s6 h! T+ ^3 o3 `; a
1 }' g/ _2 M$ E% C8 X! U; X& b. H沒有意思偏幫那一方, 只希望大家可以討論一下.! p# V5 S  U7 ^; i
: c$ l( G, i( f
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' |- ?; D! p; j0 w' f$ F/ d1 w
要坐牢, 但政府財赤, 還要出錢養一個失業的人
3 Q7 p0 H2 `' W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:* E1 P. U9 K$ z* d# t2 o
大家可以睇o下有關法律條文. 裏面*好 ...
& d9 S, j# b* M9 y4 rvcd鋪通常一有新返既碟就對住大街大行黎播!
4 W0 A$ ?6 b( l9 [然後啲人睇睇下入去買咗!
; p( z9 X: C, j" `& N, m6 P7 ~  `既牟利又侵權!7 {* Z9 C# W/ ?
但亦大行其道.....
& T; P7 S# E0 q唉! 唔係話甘就唔代表bt係唔犯法定係點......, p* J% S/ G, G% m  [( N) Y
只係香港政府係多重標準!
* i7 v3 A0 t2 u/ D/ l同埋bt冇先例, 始終係灰色地帶!" \( c7 V% H% [: v% t
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.....) \, [! F8 }' m. ~
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)/ H( k- u- _9 ]
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:
" f6 i, f2 A' N) c0 L% j大家可以睇o下有關法律條文. 裏面*好 ...
8 H8 Y" o$ J8 z/ [( j- ^I agree you points that it could be illegal
2 d; D0 l+ h7 U$ }( r* `& Tbut that is still a "gray area"
% a+ W2 {5 r2 H% k8 i/ i+ J) @. qwhoever win, it still makes us to feel that the result is unfair
8 s; ?+ ~/ [' `4 o/ U( U* h5 W' Q& \' w. q) L& a6 G4 r% j3 s
anyway, I want to say that is( c- K7 Z  q$ G4 t
who is supposed to be protected by laws
! A3 \/ T8 _7 l: @creators?
* o& }+ B2 ?3 kbut I think now they just only protect big companies but not the movies market
$ S9 E+ F& \# P4 C3 v9 A% N) Olet's them copy others ideas and produce lots of boring movies (not all) to earn our money.5 }# q/ ~# }; E5 X
when we are cheated by some shops, we can sue those* L6 b* i' C1 Q. \% K' y/ ]
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:
- I& p  M$ M' [+ ?9 i* S其實我都唔肯定係咪真有其人=.=
) h0 }1 e6 L8 J: Z) W" u2 Q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:2 A' _# M0 q. w5 S# i2 w7 }3 K

3 [# E1 B/ E- e$ J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* l: Q* D6 G, y  A8 U
唔係喎!7 W1 W0 S3 N& M
古惑天皇響--- 嗰度好出名係大佬黎喎!
' t3 y! U9 a+ X7 z我以前都成日去download佢放出黎啲戲!% ^( U, T7 Z, F8 D2 s; K
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!
# ~2 E, I; d* p- |% N1 o! {7 M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3 p, D6 m! ]) J
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!!!5 g$ a- a4 C! L1 ^1 d' r
dun say nowadays movie is bad or not, downloan it is giving its face.......' k; ~" _  b& P2 k6 V9 q
if so bad, dun download la, right?
: @  f5 o# b4 g- D' _3 Mi am dun shouting on all using bt guys, because i am also this guy^^6 w" A& M7 C- n) P4 ^3 W) e: K
but 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 correct
' ?, j$ N8 `; S3 e! tno need $$$ and need $, how to consider also no need $ is much more benfit la
  _  i* e# b3 m9 V9 M$ xso what i always think is that, in this modern and high tech society
. Z. G- m2 z( h& susing bt or winmx this kind of high tech should be graduately to take over buying CD or going to cinema.........! }% `6 m4 e: l  C
why not develop this to takeover now condition? even need $$$ 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 !!!
  k& |8 f  a' A& O7 v1 ^5 Y! fso, 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 `1 A3 n5 L佢又唔係殺人放火~~~
8 ~( K0 ^1 M9 h6 Y  {9 \  ?- E政府想比下馬威0的人~~
! I' R5 G; y5 D7 G$ i錢就一定罰
) I) o, Z; L! d5 J: l+ c未必要坐牢~~
作者: HansChan    時間: 2005-4-30 01:31 PM

如果真係判佢有罪,
% o+ ^6 f  C0 d7 L$ e: l+ m- ]唔知佢會唔會上訴呢?
$ p/ l& O0 D0 |/ E6 o3 F" \3 f+ ~& I佢又失業既, 會唔會冇錢上訴呢?
! P( ~" M* v+ S$ D9 d5 b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:
. q' O9 f1 C4 ]: A& _( Y告得入我切!!!
9 M! E0 f2 m/ k1 ~$ Z. g
我當初都估告唔入,1 O" f/ h. a% I. g; v2 D# r
不過我老豆提醒我,政府咁多大狀,, o# x1 U3 z8 e4 f: k/ Q
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
4 B! M8 j0 s/ M- o* Z9 |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:% w$ j' i$ W0 |( f6 _- [
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)
3 U( f  e' K1 N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/bbs7/) Powered by Discuz! 7.0.0