sggirls infringe copyright law..today paper...trouble liao..
-
The whole issue seems unreasonable from a lot of perspective, not the least what you guys have said. Don't you guys think it's too much of the agency? After all when they complaint, the pics was taken down right? So why go all the way, like this? Also the when making the ruling should't this be taken into consideration?
It's like if a forum or site is popular with lots of post, then the owners should be paying the price for others mistake.
At the end of the day who the he** is going to sit around all day looking at all the posted pics to see if it has broken copyright?!?!?! -
Simple, should never have gotten a local company to run the site.Originally posted by StarPuppy:but if Jeyel Tech where got time to go look look at every side?
Who knows,those people also liked SgGirls so much that they close one eye
-
There is a need to reform the Intellectual Property Regime urgently.There is a need of more common sense and a proper application of the idea of fair game in IP lawsuit.
When a picture is place by the originator as part of a publicity campaign, there is no way they can stop people from saving that image.There should be a statute that protects personal usage of the image as long as its not for commercial purpose.
The law needs to be changed.This is not the 80s or the 90s.Media is everywhere and copyright owners must learn to accept the wideranging convergence of technology and the reality that we cannot try to stop the fair usage of pics for pleasure or personal usage. -
True! True!Originally posted by LazerLordz:There is a need to reform the Intellectual Property Regime urgently.There is a need of more common sense and a proper application of the idea of fair game in IP lawsuit.
When a picture is place by the originator as part of a publicity campaign, there is no way they can stop people from saving that image.There should be a statute that protects personal usage of the image as long as its not for commercial purpose.
The law needs to be changed.This is not the 80s or the 90s.Media is everywhere and copyright owners must learn to accept the wideranging convergence of technology and the reality that we cannot try to stop the fair usage of pics for pleasure or personal usage.
If things don't change soon, who knows the next time you take a picture at a crowded place than all the people in the picture around you can also sue
-
what to do? stupid govt with stupid laws......... how dumb can the judge get by saying the host must screen thru everything, not only that but must make sure its not copyrighted(last time i checked there isn't a database of copyrights and even if there is how to conduct a good search of it. Hel* even the patents webbies are hard to navigate)Originally posted by LazerLordz:There is a need to reform the Intellectual Property Regime urgently.There is a need of more common sense and a proper application of the idea of fair game in IP lawsuit.
When a picture is place by the originator as part of a publicity campaign, there is no way they can stop people from saving that image.There should be a statute that protects personal usage of the image as long as its not for commercial purpose.
The law needs to be changed.This is not the 80s or the 90s.Media is everywhere and copyright owners must learn to accept the wideranging convergence of technology and the reality that we cannot try to stop the fair usage of pics for pleasure or personal usage. -
Yes. People can save images on the internet as they like for personal usage as you mentioned but that does not implied that they can repost it in some other website. The law by itself is meant to protect the company products from pirated off the net into someone elses. It also serve to protect against infringement of a person privacy.Originally posted by LazerLordz:There is a need to reform the Intellectual Property Regime urgently.There is a need of more common sense and a proper application of the idea of fair game in IP lawsuit.
When a picture is place by the originator as part of a publicity campaign, there is no way they can stop people from saving that image.There should be a statute that protects personal usage of the image as long as its not for commercial purpose.
The law needs to be changed.This is not the 80s or the 90s.Media is everywhere and copyright owners must learn to accept the wideranging convergence of technology and the reality that we cannot try to stop the fair usage of pics for pleasure or personal usage.
You know how laws are erected. It is by the constitution that is elected by the people. Well, I do agree that it is indeed a grey area to distinguish between what copyright materials are . But do note that since the host company provide such an avenue for people to share photos, they are liable to screen through the content posted by people. If not, don't offer such service at all.Originally posted by hisoka:what to do? stupid govt with stupid laws......... how dumb can the judge get by saying the host must screen thru everything, not only that but must make sure its not copyrighted(last time i checked there isn't a database of copyrights and even if there is how to conduct a good search of it. Hel* even the patents webbies are hard to navigate)
-
nay its all depends on how you put the onus, on the owner of the host or the person doing the act. an analogue would be you provide a knive for pple to cook and prepare food why should you be responsible for making sure the person doesn't kill other pple with it. firstly it isn't in your means to do so, secondly its the person's responsibility you are not a babysitter. and of course the main thing is that such a servie is desireable or at least acceptable as a need for pple but there is a limit to how much can be done to safeguard the usage. your idea of if you cant screen don't offer sounds nice and simplistic however it's pretty unreasonable if you think it through.Originally posted by TooFree:You know how law is erected. It is by the constitution that is elected by the people. Well, I do agree that it is indeed a grey area to distinguish between what copyright materials are . But do note that since the host company provide such an avenue for people to share photos, they are liable to screen through the content posted by people. If not, don't offer such service at all.
regarding the law is erected part i have aprob with it esp in singapore where we don't have a choice(wont go thru it here not the place and theres no point) -
I disagree. If the law is not the way it is, it would be almost impossible for people to protect their intellectual property rights, or their reputation. All anyone has to do is to claim that someone else posted the material or said the words.Originally posted by LazerLordz:There is a need to reform the Intellectual Property Regime urgently.There is a need of more common sense and a proper application of the idea of fair game in IP lawsuit.
When a picture is place by the originator as part of a publicity campaign, there is no way they can stop people from saving that image.There should be a statute that protects personal usage of the image as long as its not for commercial purpose.
The law needs to be changed.This is not the 80s or the 90s.Media is everywhere and copyright owners must learn to accept the wideranging convergence of technology and the reality that we cannot try to stop the fair usage of pics for pleasure or personal usage.
In any case, i am not sure that those pictures have not been used for a commercial purpose. After all, the website is peppered with ads. -
Just to clarify.... technically speaking, the owner of a photo is the person who takes it, not the subject in the photo. So if you take a photo of some chio schoolgirl on the streets, you haven't done anything wrong legally, so long as it's not pornographic or supposedly 'undesirable'.Originally posted by lighthand:True! True!
If things don't change soon, who knows the next time you take a picture at a crowded place than all the people in the picture around you can also sue
Of course, if you do want to take the pic of some chio schoolgirl for goodness' sake ask for her permission first.... Legally correct is not always the same as morally correct, and this is one of the instances where that is the case. -
Let me tell you why your analogue does not stand through 3 examples.Originally posted by hisoka:nay its all depends on how you put the onus, on the owner of the host or the person doing the act. an analogue would be you provide a knive for pple to cook and prepare food why should you be responsible for making sure the person doesn't kill other pple with it. firstly it isn't in your means to do so, secondly its the person's responsibility you are not a babysitter. and of course the main thing is that such a servie is desireable or at least acceptable as a need for pple but there is a limit to how much can be done to safeguard the usage. your idea of if you cant screen don't offer sounds nice and simplistic however it's pretty unreasonable if you think it through.
regarding the law is erected part i have aprob with it esp in singapore where we don't have a choice(wont go thru it here not the place and theres no point)
1. Man -> Xggirls Company
2. Man -> Newspaper Company
3. Man <- Knife Company
The basis of law is to protect people and also to upkeep the business ethics. If the two company in 1 & 2 want to get into play, they must obey the rules of the game. The knife company in this case is not liable for any offence because the service they provide is generally for "good consumption." One may also argue that in example 1 & 2 could also providing "good consumption", but note here that they are actually opening up their services. An another argument is that knife company is also providing a service. Hence the man is this part play an important role, in example 1 & 2, the man post photos or articles because the companies in 1 & 2 provide such a service hence upon providing such services they are liable under law. Whereas in 3, the man buy knife from knife company for his own consumption while the knife company indeed provide a service to man but the company existence is for providing "good consumption".
If I can't win you, I'm going to confuse you. Joking...
By the way, if I am not wrong, there are certain measures undertaken to differentiate what are copyrighted materials. I believe any website that intent to upload photos on their own website are required to print their own website name as a safeguard for pirates. A measure though not foolproof. -
Originally posted by Kermadec:Does all this mean FI will lose her job?
I am just curious here. Can anyone clarify is this FI fulltime job or what?Originally posted by FireIce:din know u all so concern abt me sia
but hor, sggirls is NOMB all along........... -
omg... if sgforum kenna also, siao liao~ i'll faint man
-
Why?Originally posted by FireIce:oh great
sgforums wun be so laggy anymore! -
now everything under the sg-network is in one server mahOriginally posted by sbst275:Why?
if sggirls byebye liao then we have more space loh
then less laggy loh
woohoo! -
I seeOriginally posted by FireIce:now everything under the sg-network is in one server mah
if sggirls byebye liao then we have more space loh
then less laggy loh
woohoo!
-
We could just spin off sgforums from sggirls and let CenturionMBT run the bulletin boards. Hopefully, all flame posts will be deleted within 72 hours of posting with him at the helm. Maybe it could even go PHP and people like Airbus330captain can post proper polls in their own subforums.
-
The main issue here should be if there was intent by the service provider, to encourage, exhort or in any way show tort in their action.
Take for example the case of "sggirls": due to the large volume of information transfered, it would be crazy to vet all the information. Hence when copyright information is detected by the owner and brought to the attention of the provider, the provider should remove the said information. Once that has been done it would seem to have solve the problem rite?
Do not forget that what has transpired, happened online sooo... if we trace it all the way back would't it be the inventors of the internet be responsible?
If such rulings are made with no exception, it would desuade others to have such services. -
really confusedOriginally posted by TooFree:Let me tell you why your analogue does not stand through 3 examples.
1. Man -> Xggirls Company
2. Man -> Newspaper Company
3. Man <- Knife Company
The basis of law is to protect people and also to upkeep the business ethics. If the two company in 1 & 2 want to get into play, they must obey the rules of the game. The knife company in this case is not liable for any offence because the service they provide is generally for "good consumption." One may also argue that in example 1 & 2 could also providing "good consumption", but note here that they are actually opening up their services. An another argument is that knife company is also providing a service. Hence the man is this part play an important role, in example 1 & 2, the man post photos or articles because the companies in 1 & 2 provide such a service hence upon providing such services they are liable under law. Whereas in 3, the man buy knife from knife company for his own consumption while the knife company indeed provide a service to man but the company existence is for providing "good consumption".
If I can't win you, I'm going to confuse you. Joking...
By the way, if I am not wrong, there are certain measures undertaken to differentiate what are copyrighted materials. I believe any website that intent to upload photos on their own website are required to print their own website name as a safeguard for pirates. A measure though not foolproof. anyway there is ultility and priovding of good service in the photo hosting also
are there measure to differentiate? the webby one dunno lah like got alot never put one + as you said not fool proof also even if got put. and then the screening is what method? manual screenin is rather dumb and impractical, the law shouldn't dictate unreasonable or "undoable" things -
.........so forced.Originally posted by FireIce:now everything under the sg-network is in one server mah
if sggirls byebye liao then we have more space loh
then less laggy loh
woohoo! -
so wat's the latest news?
if lealli close dem, will refund dos pee members anot?
heng ah. me neber go renew. -
tsk, tsk, tsk.......Originally posted by Hello Kitty:so wat's the latest news?
if lealli close dem, will refund dos pee members anot?
heng ah. me neber go renew. -
huh??? y leh???Originally posted by Mr Fugue:tsk, tsk, tsk....... -
''goods sold are not refundable.''Originally posted by Hello Kitty:huh??? y leh??? -
no leh. i dun see it anywhere on their t&c.
-
mai niao lah hello kitty.