PM & MM sue FEER on Martyr
-
actually.Originally posted by DailyFreeGames.com:wow, nice article, in fact it drove me to watch the video singapore rebel... hehe... i think i am going to download it and put it in my blog and websites, dun think they can sue me i got my server hosted overseas.
they can.
-
Originally posted by Steph84:the trial will be hold here cos LKY n LHL has most reputation in sg... i think thats y will be in sg
but.... if FEER dun appear, wad can they do?
esp if FEER has no properties here at all. How can they do to FEER? fight in hK? -
i think dey wont b stupid to be in sporeOriginally posted by Steph84:maybe they have well-thought out defences already
or if they have nothing in sg, have no need to be in sg, they have nothing to lose later kana detain -
So who's getting into trouble here?Originally posted by scabstermooch:eh dun go and repeat the aleged defamatory material here leh...you'll get ppl into trouble...also it is an infringement of copyright.
It is also not an infringement of copyright as he has quoted the source. -
If the Lees fight in HK and lose; then they declare bankrupt?Originally posted by Chelzea: fight in hK? -
If not for the lawsuit, maybe only 100 people would have read the article. Free publicity for FEER. I would not have read it for one. Now I thinking of subscribing to FEER.
-
As I mentioned above, quoting the source is no defence to infringement of copyright, certainly not in this case.Originally posted by Rock^Star:So who's getting into trouble here?
It is also not an infringement of copyright as he has quoted the source.
And the 'people' i mentioned will probably be whoever owns this site, and the original poster. Provided, of course, the comments were defamatory. Of course, this is UK law. Still, the law of defamation in Sg is quite similar so i think I am accurate. -
Obviously..............oh well, do a search on the political threads in here and still say the same?Originally posted by scabstermooch:As I mentioned above, quoting the source is no defence to infringement of copyright, certainly not in this case.
And the 'people' i mentioned will probably be whoever owns this site, and the original poster. Provided, of course, the comments were defamatory. Of course, this is UK law. Still, the law of defamation in Sg is quite similar so i think I am accurate.
I'm not sure about UK law but I'm positive that in order for the article's circulation to be ceased, an injunction has to be ordered first. Secondly, "infringement of copyright"? Whose copyright? FEER? I don't see why FEER would want to sue since they wrote the article with an intention to circulate.
Pardon me but ur posts smack of cowardice and smells of brainwash -
Ri----ght.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Obviously..............oh well, do a search on the political threads in here and still say the same?
I'm not sure about UK law but I'm positive that in order for the article's circulation to be ceased, an injunction has to be ordered first. Secondly, "infringement of copyright"? Whose copyright? FEER? I don't see why FEER would want to sue since they wrote the article with an intention to circulate.
Pardon me but ur posts smack of cowardice and smells of brainwash
Article's circulation cease....injunction..etc etc --> What has that got to do with me? And how is that relevent?
I never said FEER would sue. Whether or not they would sue is another matter altogether. My pt is they probably have grounds to sue.
I am saying that there has probably been an infringement of copyright here and that there is no defence of 'acknowledgement'.
The copyright would belong to either the author or the magazine or maybe both depending on situation.
Why does my post reek of brainwash and cowardice. I was merely warning the poster and the forum about what I think are questionable practices. -
wah so serious... n i thought it was just a joke...
there is no copyright infringiment here lah... all sources are quoted what...
and brainwash what... i dont see an idea that he is trying to push... -
What copyright infringements are there when u obviously have quoted the source? Have you done reports in you secondary school before? Did your teacher tell you to always quote your sources?
geez.
somebody sue me, I've just infringed on copyright laws of the Oxford Advanced Learner's english dictionary. -
How can it be defamatory when no judgement has been made?
Or did I miss something that changed to cause a judge to be irrelevant in deciding what is defamatory? -
no.. you missed the point that FEER actually has to come to Singapore to be ruled to have made defamatory remarks, pay for damages, and make public apologies. Otherwise, they'd probably face some consequences for making defamatory remakrs, that has yet to be determined, but decided so.
-
Dude you dun understand... I do not know where people get the idea that quote source = complete defense to copyright infringement.Originally posted by Shotgun:What copyright infringements are there when u obviously have quoted the source? Have you done reports in you secondary school before? Did your teacher tell you to always quote your sources?
geez.
somebody sue me, I've just infringed on copyright laws of the Oxford Advanced Learner's english dictionary.
That is unequivocally a myth. You are confusing plagiarism for copyright infringement. In any case, this is not the same as a academic assignment.
It is one thing to refer to an idea or a report, as in "It has been asserted by AAA that XXX is YYY." That is Ok. But it is clearly copyright infringement if you copy huge chunks of other peoples work, whether or not you have acknowledged the source.
Whatever, take from this what you will. -
That is why the article is allegedly defamatory mah. In any case, this is Singapore. The government could easily punish the parent company if it comes to the crunch.Originally posted by LazerLordz:How can it be defamatory when no judgement has been made?
Or did I miss something that changed to cause a judge to be irrelevant in deciding what is defamatory? 
-
again..
-
Allegedly defamatory is like saying this I could be rich if I strike TOTO today.Originally posted by scabstermooch:That is why the article is allegedly defamatory mah. In any case, this is Singapore. The government could easily punish the parent company if it comes to the crunch.
Totally absurd and out of whack. -
Really? I didn't know that, you a lawyer?Originally posted by Ito_^:actually.
they can.
Anyway, I'm just going to do it anyway, screw them! -
Originally posted by scabstermooch:
Ri----ght.
Article's circulation cease....injunction..etc etc --> What has that got to do with me? And how is that relevent?Well dude, if there is an infringement of copyright as what u claimed, then the next logical action that may be taken is an injunction to halt all replicated publications right?
I never said FEER would sue. Whether or not they would sue is another matter altogether. My pt is they probably have grounds to sue.
So if most probably FEER would not sue, what's the issue here? An infringement of copyright as u claimed, with a very high chance of no legal action taken in my opinion, does not matter. We have the right to post what we want and say what we want in sgforums.
I am saying that there has probably been an infringement of copyright here and that there is no defence of 'acknowledgement'.
The copyright would belong to either the author or the magazine or maybe both depending on situation.
Why does my post reek of brainwash and cowardice. I was merely warning the poster and the forum about what I think are questionable practices.
Cowardice because u think that the govt can actually do something about the politics we discuss in this forum. Brainwash not so much as u doing it but more like u as a product of our Singapore/PAP system. -
Oh btw, are there any national reports on the libel case? Straits Times didn't report it. Why huh? Oh yah, they don't want the masses to see the article and evaluate how true it is.
-
If FEER decides to counter the formidable fire power of the father and son team, I recommend the Super Soaker Max Infusion Flash Flood, the best water pistol on the planet.
• Air-powered water blaster features 2 water tanks and a patented Constant Pressure System (CPS) ensures that last drop of water blasts out with as much power as the first
• Hit targets up to 35’ away with 2 powerful blasting modes
• Blast 'em once with a constant stream of water or blast 'em twice by pulling back the trigger for the ultimate Flash Flood
• Empty the upper tank all at once and soak your opponents with a massive water explosion
• The quick-fill cap allows for fast-and-easy refills -
Why need a water pistol if all you need to do is just go back indoors (i.e HK)Originally posted by googoomuck:If FEER decides to counter the formidable fire power of the father and son team, I recommend the Super Soaker Max Infusion Flash Flood, the best water pistol on the planet.
• Air-powered water blaster features 2 water tanks and a patented Constant Pressure System (CPS) ensures that last drop of water blasts out with as much power as the first
• Hit targets up to 35’ away with 2 powerful blasting modes
• Blast 'em once with a constant stream of water or blast 'em twice by pulling back the trigger for the ultimate Flash Flood
• Empty the upper tank all at once and soak your opponents with a massive water explosion
• The quick-fill cap allows for fast-and-easy refills -
1) There is imo an infringement of copyright. But again, I did not mention anything about suing. I was merely stating my opinion; like "it is cold today". You, however, seem to take exception to that. It is as though you cannot accept that someone might think there is very likely copyright infringement here. Very very odd behaviour - very sensitive and very defensive.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Ri----ght.
Article's circulation cease....injunction..etc etc --> What has that got to do with me? And how is that relevent?
1) Well dude, if there is an infringement of copyright as what u claimed, then the next logical action that may be taken is an injunction to halt all replicated publications right?
I never said FEER would sue. Whether or not they would sue is another matter altogether. My pt is they probably have grounds to sue.
2) So if most probably FEER would not sue, what's the issue here? An infringement of copyright as u claimed, with a very high chance of no legal action taken in my opinion, does not matter. We have the right to post what we want and say what we want in sgforums.
I am saying that there has probably been an infringement of copyright here and that there is no defence of 'acknowledgement'.
The copyright would belong to either the author or the magazine or maybe both depending on situation.
Why does my post reek of brainwash and cowardice. I was merely warning the poster and the forum about what I think are questionable practices.
3) Cowardice because u think that the govt can actually do something about the politics we discuss in this forum. Brainwash not so much as u doing it but more like u as a product of our Singapore/PAP system.
2) I never said anything about how proabable it is that FEER would sue. I said that the decision is another matter altogether. I have never said "you cannot post because it is illegal". I merely gave warning that it is probably copyright infringement
3) To give pointers in good faith = cowardice and brainwash? If so, mea cupla. Though I have to say, I find your assertion to be very very odd.
TBH, I never meant for the copyright issue to become a focus here; this is a thread about the suit against FEER. I pointed out the copyright issue in good faith so that the parties concerned would be able to make an informed decision. I also corrected what appeared to be a widespread myth concerning defences to copyright infringement. I do not think I can be faulted on either or both counts. -
Alright case closed as far as I am concerned. U have your points of view. Let's get back to topic.
-
worst to worst
they'd probably ban the circulation of Feer in Singapore? if Feer chose not to come to Singapore to defend the suit..