sggirls infringe copyright law..today paper...trouble liao..
-
wah lao eh. no mah.
ppl's hard-earned marnee wat. -
if fined...have to pay quite a sum...but nw everything is nt conclusive yet...
-
huh. so sad.
when can knw?
den got fund-raising drive anot? -
until the judge gives the verdict loh..if tt dun knw wat company insisted on suing..Originally posted by Hello Kitty:huh. so sad.
when can knw?
den got fund-raising drive anot?
raise funds? i dun know...ask ditzy...
-
y ask ditzy leh???
-
ask OCBC also can.Originally posted by Hello Kitty:y ask ditzy leh??? -
Changed. to
"A quality website by Jeyel Media (UK) Limited. " -
like tat manage to siam liao lo...Originally posted by LazerLordz:Changed. to
"A quality website by Jeyel Media (UK) Limited. " -
fwah. gao zhao. liddat oso can.
-
opps, an unspoken rule.Originally posted by Hello Kitty:no leh. i dun see it anywhere on their t&c.
-
ask F| to act pitiful on national TV??Originally posted by Hello Kitty:den got fund-raising drive anot?
dun count on it!! she'll never agree!! -
I heard as long as the server is in foreign country, cannot be legally liable liaoz.Originally posted by F Bunta:Is UK's IP law different from Singapore's? -
Steady pom pi pi!
-
Sorry to tell you this but still is.Originally posted by Mr Fugue:I heard as long as the server is in foreign country, cannot be legally liable liaoz.
S'pore acceded to the Berne Convention in 1998, whereby every state which has ratified the convention is required to grant the same protection to others in the member states.
In layman terms it means that if I copy the works of say a author in australia, the author can also sue me under singapore law. -
but its in the local law of the person who commits the "offence" right? so there might be a big differenceOriginally posted by lighthand:Sorry to tell you this but still is.
S'pore acceded to the Berne Convention in 1998, whereby every state which has ratified the convention is required to grant the same protection to others in the member states.
In layman terms it means that if I copy the works of say a author in australia, the author can also sue me under singapore law. -
then just shift to some ulu state that doesn't come under this berne convention lah. maybe some far flung african land or pacific island? but still must be connected to the internet in the first place.Originally posted by lighthand:Sorry to tell you this but still is.
S'pore acceded to the Berne Convention in 1998, whereby every state which has ratified the convention is required to grant the same protection to others in the member states.
In layman terms it means that if I copy the works of say a author in australia, the author can also sue me under singapore law. -
British Virgin Islands.Originally posted by Fucking Bitch:then just shift to some ulu state that doesn't come under this berne convention lah. maybe some far flung african land or pacific island? but still must be connected to the internet in the first place. -
Not really. Because S'pore is using "case law" the same as UK and US, even if you are hosting from either country the lawyers there can still quote from cases here in S'pore. It's the same in S'pore whereby till this day "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) 2 QB 484", is still being used.Originally posted by hisoka:but its in the local law of the person who commits the "offence" right? so there might be a big difference
Do not forget it's up to the judge, to decide how to look at the case. -
yupz thats what i meant the judges might be diff due to the cultural differences, maturity of thinking, etc.. i have no facts to back on thiws i'm just raising a possibliity.Originally posted by lighthand:Not really. Because S'pore is using "case law" the same as UK and US, even if you are hosting from either country the lawyers there can still quote from cases here in S'pore. It's the same in S'pore whereby till this day "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) 2 QB 484", is still being used.
Do not forget it's up to the judge, to decide how to look at the case.
btw, since i'm pretty ignorant in law matters( one wonders if the gov should teach the kids law so that we can protect ourself, but thats any\other issue), would they consider a recent judgement by a foriegn judge in the same light as a past judgement? sounds reasonable to take the judgement by a judge from another country more lightly...................... -
For me I don't have a choice (forced to study business law), but it does come in useful in work sometimes.Originally posted by hisoka:yupz thats what i meant the judges might be diff due to the cultural differences, maturity of thinking, etc.. i have no facts to back on thiws i'm just raising a possibliity.
btw, since i'm pretty ignorant in law matters( one wonders if the gov should teach the kids law so that we can protect ourself, but thats any\other issue), would they consider a recent judgement by a foriegn judge in the same light as a past judgement? sounds reasonable to take the judgement by a judge from another country more lightly......................
To answer your question: They do take the judgement by a judge from the past, this is called "precedent". But of course over time certain judgements can be ammended, due to changes in the enviroment. -
I am bewildered by your mention of "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) 2 QB 484".Originally posted by lighthand:Not really. Because S'pore is using "case law" the same as UK and US, even if you are hosting from either country the lawyers there can still quote from cases here in S'pore. It's the same in S'pore whereby till this day "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) 2 QB 484", is still being used.
Do not forget it's up to the judge, to decide how to look at the case.
Some doubts here, isn't that contract law? If so, in what way did it entwine with IP law? -
The British courts are somehow more attuned to contextual application of the law as opposed to singular, narrow findings within tort...IMHO
What's efficiency to one nation is over-extension of the law in another. -
wah all the jargonists come out liao.
so meaning sgForums will close shop or not? -
Yep. It's contract law. Was used as an example of how past cases can affect on current cases.Originally posted by TooFree:I am bewildered by your mention of "Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) 2 QB 484".
Some doubts here, isn't that contract law? If so, in what way did it entwine with IP law?
That's the main worry I have. If the ruling on "sggirls" is a blanket ruling, then won't it make others who might be thinking about providing such services think twice? That would seem to go against the entrepreneur spirit we are promoting? After all the internet is one of the key drivers of entrepreneurship in this day and age.
P.S. all that I have said is just MHO
-
i know about precedence what i meant was if the judgement was precedence vs recent judgement by a foriegn judge in a foreign country which is mroe reliable, as in i believe the foreign judement to be less important in considerations.. nvm i'm getting confusedOriginally posted by lighthand:For me I don't have a choice (forced to study business law), but it does come in useful in work sometimes.
To answer your question: They do take the judgement by a judge from the past, this is called "precedent". But of course over time certain judgements can be ammended, due to changes in the enviroment.