sggirls infringe copyright law..today paper...trouble liao..
-
Think not.Originally posted by Ray2:wah all the jargonists come out liao.
so meaning sgForums will close shop or not? -
*yawnz*
-
email: [email protected]
password: sgforums -
Internet website hosts risk sabotage on content
[Extracted from ST Forum on 12 Sept 2005]
I refer to the report 'Website hosting racy photos broke copyright law' (ST Sept
.
It correctly stated that 'the ruling was a landmark decision that had far-reaching implications for other websites that allow users to post content such as pictures, ring-tones and text.'
In fact, the implication is so strong that if not handled correctly, it may lead to a total shutdown of all such websites that are based in Singapore.
I am one of many who hosts sites that fall under such category. It is a world-ranked top 20 hobby-based fishing forum that specifically 'allows users to post content such as pictures and text'.
The site can be found at www.fishingkaki.com. It gets thousands of posting every week with hundreds of pictures. As such, there is now a clear and present fear that I may be sued any day now.
While it is true that a host can control what is posted in his site, it is reactive control, not pre-emptive. That means the control is only partial as there is no way one can anticipate accurately beforehand what material will be posted.
The host can only react after, not before, suspicious materials appear on the site.
According to the report, the host Sggirls reacted by removing the photos after they were posted, but it was still sued for it.
The question is, what can the hosts do to avoid being sued, short of shutting down their sites?
It was advised that 'hosts have to continuously check what is on their website or face repercussions.' But Sggirls checked its site. It found suspicious materials and removed them. But this did not help the host.
The above scenario is applicable to obviously illegal materials. It was stated that 'a host is ultimately responsible and must ensure that content does not infringe copyright or is libellous or obscene, even if posted by other people'.
How can a host decide what material is illegal? Are there any references for hosts to call upon to make a decision? Who defines what materials are allowed and what are not?
If there are no clear guidelines, it can be technically said that all materials are potentially illegal. As such, it seems to support the argument that all hosts should shut down their sites to avoid legal suits.
In the case of Sggirls, that fact that the photos were protected by copyright laws is clear. Would the result of the lawsuit be the same if there were no copyright warnings on the photos?
In a case where this is not obvious, will the benefit of the doubt be given to the hosts? Or are the hosts expected to search every site (there are millions of them) to find out whether the photos can be used legally?
The example of 'a newspaper that prints a libellous report and then insists that it was merely reporting what a certain person had said has no defence under the law' is not applicable in this case.
First, a newspaper does the 'printing' while a forum-based internet host does not. It provides instead 'a service that allows the public to print' their comments and opinions as they see fit.
The similarity is more akin to a service-provider. A phone company (eg Starhub, SingTel and M1) provides such services as well, but they are unable to regulate how a subscriber uses them.
If one were to make a libellous remark over the phone that uses the SingTel network, will one then have a case to sue SingTel? Surely not.
Second, the newspaper itself did the reporting, most probably by its own staff, and someone needs to type out the report.
Forum-based internet hosts do no such things. They write no article, report no comments and they do not even need to press a single button for a report to go on cyberspace.
The same cannot be said of a newspaper. As such, it is reasonable that a newspaper has to be responsible for the articles it prints, because it is in control of the final product. A forum-based internet host has no such control.
Regardless of the technicalities of the law, unless a practical solution is found, a person can sabotage any host and then sue him and win.
It is easy for someone to post copyright materials on hundreds of Singapore-based sites and then proceed to sue the hosts for copyright infringements.
I had started my website with the intention of promoting fishing as a healthy family-oriented hobby with environmental conservation in mind. It was also done to keep a part of our legacy of Temasek, the sleepy fishing village.
In the light of the court ruling, I'm seriously considering if it is worth the risks.
John Hooi -
Can someone enlighten whether changing the company to Jeyel Media (UK) Limited will enable sgGirls to evade Singapore law?
-
Originally posted by F Takumi:
Firstly, you have to see if Singapore law has any agreement with the UK courts over copyrighted materials posted from Singapore,which in itself is hard to prove.Secondly,if the physical location of the site is not even in Singapore, I don't see how the authorities can build a case.
Can someone enlighten whether changing the company to [b]Jeyel Media (UK) Limited will enable sgGirls to evade Singapore law?[/b]
It's like I post a picture of a tank on a Scottish website owned by an Italian admin, and imagine if the owner of the pic manages to get the Italian courts sue me for violating a copyright law which I am not even subject to,being a Singaporean.
Perhaps someone would like to enlighten us? -
The fact that girls' pictures continue to appear on the website without their consent is proof.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Firstly, you have to see if Singapore law has any agreement with the UK courts over copyrighted materials posted from Singapore,which in itself is hard to prove.Secondly,if the physical location of the site is not even in Singapore, I don't see how the authorities can build a case.
It's like I post a picture of a tank on a Scottish website owned by an Italian admin, and imagine if the owner of the pic manages to get the Italian courts sue me for violating a copyright law which I am not even subject to,being a Singaporean.
Perhaps someone would like to enlighten us? -
does not mean its right..
besides .. all the pics are being to look the same ...
Same cute post, same cute face, same rebonded hair...
Super bored until I prefer to see
-
For a moment I thought you're going to say all of them CMIOriginally posted by mistyblue:does not mean its right..
besides .. all the pics are being to look the same ...
Same cute post, same cute face, same rebonded hair...
Super bored until I prefer to see
-
Where's the Ox Head? Horse Face and Ox Head are inseparable.Originally posted by mistyblue:does not mean its right..
besides .. all the pics are being to look the same ...
Same cute post, same cute face, same rebonded hair...
Super bored until I prefer to see -
Yes without consent.But I think it's out of our hands now.Originally posted by F Takumi:The fact that girls' pictures continue to appear on the website without their consent is proof.