vivienna

Originally posted by hiroraymond at 2005-5-28 07:22 PM:
; e! g1 f: L, b侵犯版權
# ~% h! {" C" n2 E1 |3 E1 U無線新聞透...

4 y* Q, _! c8 B% v. k) y的而且確係反法﹐有好多法律好多人道唔知架啦。0 \- I( H0 d( _, U7 Z- [
我地o係大學試過同個法律lecturer有過大辯論﹐intellectual properties,copyright & patents都有好多難解既地方﹐o係年青人既睇法﹐burn碟,back-up CD or DVD, 全部通通都好似係無問題既﹐但全部都係反法既。就算你開鋪頭播歌都要比royalty。% L. r7 R' F0 ^+ X  C

% O, L' ]+ c8 z+ m$ V5 O總言知﹐一句講曬﹐D野唔係你創作既﹐你就唔可以掂﹐你買CD係買隻CD﹐唔係D歌。7 M$ d& F# z; J5 W
: R5 h* N$ o5 n
你唔係個一個創作人﹐你唔會明白。。。但合法同合理係兩樣野。

vivienna

Originally posted by 28083003 at 2005-5-30 10:54 AM:- z3 [/ f; o' z. j* j8 Z
如果係咁  B/ W; W5 f# X( z. s4 e+ w
果D disco咪等收???$ U  T$ b! i8 H; ~
播歌...

( j, L* s4 A3 ]- [' MDisco唔洗執粒﹐餐廳都唔洗﹐HMV都唔洗﹐因為大部份通通都比左版權費播歌。IFPI係會評估下你播歌對你既商業效益有幾多同埋對業解損失同獲益有幾多﹐然後決定收幾多royalty。唔好以為未收過就永遠都唔洗收禍﹐因為我舅父係開印度餐管既﹐距話當年開鋪播印度音樂﹐有IFPI D人黎餐管度巡查﹐然後就開始收喇。6 ?; x4 p  U- H
/ y  v3 J( W  {: f
版權費唔會足以令你既生意去到執粒既地步既﹐業界唔係想拎你著數﹐而係幫D創作者增取利益姐。

vivienna

Originally posted by pokemons at 2005-5-30 11:10 AM:
% s3 {" B3 ~! |6 }/ F用嚟做手機鈴聲都犯法，死啦~~

9 v1 _2 C6 B9 u5 O; b. w
你地唔洗驚甘多禍﹐如果你係合法下DOWNLOAD鈴聲既﹐應該唔會有事禍﹐因為SUNDAY果D SERVICE PROVIDER全部都比曬錢出黎架喇。

vivienna

Originally posted by yutik at 2005-5-31 01:13 AM:3 b# a: L2 j4 W0 u8 K2 s0 r
如果係咁, 係法律上, mp3發明黎係咪等於無用?!

( F5 A; h3 S5 k/ ?  I, Z* ?1 Y
正如GRETZKY所講﹐今時今日既法律係需要大改夾﹐完全唔UPDATED﹐灰色地帶多過阿爺既白髮。6 {& M% A6 W6 w- d1 G( F5 I
mp3機係用黎play compressed music file﹐你可以自壇自唱﹐然後錄落部MP3機度﹐無講笑﹐我LECTURER就係甘同我講。