﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 世上最狗的行為</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142</link>
	<description>以前的事，無人記念；將來的事，後來的人也不追憶。</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:35:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coffee Paulo</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-268665</link>
		<dc:creator>Coffee Paulo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-268665</guid>
		<description>個排太忙都無留意過呢單料。我第一眼就認得係似岳敏君作品，仲諗住係林狗搵佢來畫，但估唔到原來係咁回事。

創作動機呢樣野只有作者至知，可以拗天光，不過林狗個人之解釋，同樣令人失望。

就舉個簡單例子，美國年年有十幾部大片，無耐就會有一套「搞乜鬼」電影出現，擺明同原片開玩笑。&quot;Parody&quot; 呢種惡搞行為雖然有主至有次，但動機清晰，再創作並無抵觸原創，所以未聽過有人因為拍「搞乜鬼」而被控告(當然，亦有可能製作人要向原創人提出請求或付部份版權費也不定)。

至於林狗，如果佢擺明居馬去踩岳敏君，話佢來來去去得一個樣，重複又重複，「求其」幾個大笑面就賺你幾百萬，咁我會話佢有Guts。但居然話common，所以攞來「參考」，我都覺得佢答得求其，抄得更求其。

然後你亦可以理解為，佢就係要表達個種求其，所以求其咁答，求其咁抄。咁就可以拗天光喇...... :twisted: 

至於我個人認為，岳敏君作為一位受追捧o既當代中國畫家，有錢之後加上名牌效應，作品有無深度已經唔再重要。一如Andy Warhol玩Pop Art一樣，幾張名人相片轉顏色就可以賣錢，都算得上係求其。但你吹得佢脹，學似大劉用一億買佢幅毛澤東，有錢就有深度(家底個隻)。

可惜，林狗為左慳錢唔搵佢畫，我覺得至係cheap囉。Crossover呢家野，好平常。再唔係Barter幅畫返來做慈善拍賣，咪大家高興。可惜，林狗無咁做，呢個係第二個失望。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>個排太忙都無留意過呢單料。我第一眼就認得係似岳敏君作品，仲諗住係林狗搵佢來畫，但估唔到原來係咁回事。</p>
<p>創作動機呢樣野只有作者至知，可以拗天光，不過林狗個人之解釋，同樣令人失望。</p>
<p>就舉個簡單例子，美國年年有十幾部大片，無耐就會有一套「搞乜鬼」電影出現，擺明同原片開玩笑。&#8221;Parody&#8221; 呢種惡搞行為雖然有主至有次，但動機清晰，再創作並無抵觸原創，所以未聽過有人因為拍「搞乜鬼」而被控告(當然，亦有可能製作人要向原創人提出請求或付部份版權費也不定)。</p>
<p>至於林狗，如果佢擺明居馬去踩岳敏君，話佢來來去去得一個樣，重複又重複，「求其」幾個大笑面就賺你幾百萬，咁我會話佢有Guts。但居然話common，所以攞來「參考」，我都覺得佢答得求其，抄得更求其。</p>
<p>然後你亦可以理解為，佢就係要表達個種求其，所以求其咁答，求其咁抄。咁就可以拗天光喇&#8230;&#8230; <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_twisted.gif' alt=':twisted:' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>至於我個人認為，岳敏君作為一位受追捧o既當代中國畫家，有錢之後加上名牌效應，作品有無深度已經唔再重要。一如Andy Warhol玩Pop Art一樣，幾張名人相片轉顏色就可以賣錢，都算得上係求其。但你吹得佢脹，學似大劉用一億買佢幅毛澤東，有錢就有深度(家底個隻)。</p>
<p>可惜，林狗為左慳錢唔搵佢畫，我覺得至係cheap囉。Crossover呢家野，好平常。再唔係Barter幅畫返來做慈善拍賣，咪大家高興。可惜，林狗無咁做，呢個係第二個失望。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 喵爸</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-267765</link>
		<dc:creator>喵爸</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-267765</guid>
		<description>曾在他某個Blog中見他說很欣賞岳敏君的畫，還以為海報是他請岳敏君畫的，後來知道事實，沒想他還敢說三道四，真是夠他媽的，以後改名叫林樣吧！
對現在的偽人一向沒什麼好感，近日的風波更令我對偽人反感有加！</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>曾在他某個Blog中見他說很欣賞岳敏君的畫，還以為海報是他請岳敏君畫的，後來知道事實，沒想他還敢說三道四，真是夠他媽的，以後改名叫林樣吧！<br />
對現在的偽人一向沒什麼好感，近日的風波更令我對偽人反感有加！</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 飛</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-267190</link>
		<dc:creator>飛</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-267190</guid>
		<description>參考？以林9嘅江湖地位，對唔住，冇呢回事囉。
雖然萬般不願，但係都要放呢條link出嚟，以正視聽：
http://welovecopy.blogspot.com/
當中，有幾多係ooo同M studio嘅&quot;出品&quot;，我唔知道，不過，正如某網友所講，呢個唔係人嘅問題，係土壤問題..................  :cry:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>參考？以林9嘅江湖地位，對唔住，冇呢回事囉。<br />
雖然萬般不願，但係都要放呢條link出嚟，以正視聽：<br />
<a href="http://welovecopy.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://welovecopy.blogspot.com/</a><br />
當中，有幾多係ooo同M studio嘅&#8221;出品&#8221;，我唔知道，不過，正如某網友所講，呢個唔係人嘅問題，係土壤問題&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;  <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_cry.gif' alt=':cry:' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DT</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-267027</link>
		<dc:creator>DT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-267027</guid>
		<description>More about 岳敏君, you guys can go to this gallery.

http://www.schoeni.com.hk/

Talk to the staff there, you will know more about the artist. How he was bought up.

Only if you care.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More about 岳敏君, you guys can go to this gallery.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.schoeni.com.hk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.schoeni.com.hk/</a></p>
<p>Talk to the staff there, you will know more about the artist. How he was bought up.</p>
<p>Only if you care.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sara</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-267006</link>
		<dc:creator>sara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-267006</guid>
		<description>halo..
我上網搵岳敏君d 資料做功課搵搵下就黎左依到 =]
下...我本身以為林狗有比版權費岳敏君的,點知無,仲可以講埋d咁ge野,對佢好失望=[</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>halo..<br />
我上網搵岳敏君d 資料做功課搵搵下就黎左依到 =]<br />
下&#8230;我本身以為林狗有比版權費岳敏君的,點知無,仲可以講埋d咁ge野,對佢好失望=[</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 方潤</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266925</link>
		<dc:creator>方潤</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266925</guid>
		<description>或者，我諗妳係混淆左一d概念。
姑勿論其他人的說法，在下的說法是﹕blog+Adsense=牟利網誌
妳說的是﹕blog+adsense=商業網站

但「牟利」和「商業」是不同的概念。
我們上班都是「牟利」，但我們不是「商業」經營。
如果妳發現這兩者的分別，也許就不用再煩惱。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>或者，我諗妳係混淆左一d概念。<br />
姑勿論其他人的說法，在下的說法是﹕blog+Adsense=牟利網誌<br />
妳說的是﹕blog+adsense=商業網站</p>
<p>但「牟利」和「商業」是不同的概念。<br />
我們上班都是「牟利」，但我們不是「商業」經營。<br />
如果妳發現這兩者的分別，也許就不用再煩惱。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: XexeX</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266893</link>
		<dc:creator>XexeX</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:39:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266893</guid>
		<description>覺得正常，唔等於冇問題，費事與例，希望妳明白我意思。
我絕對認為抄襲係有問題，致於妳話會影響年青人，我又冇太深入想過，我諗，大部份年青人都有能力判斷。
可能妳認識林九，所以感覺特別深，我唔識佢，所以冇乜感覺，佢變成點都唔太關我事。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>覺得正常，唔等於冇問題，費事與例，希望妳明白我意思。<br />
我絕對認為抄襲係有問題，致於妳話會影響年青人，我又冇太深入想過，我諗，大部份年青人都有能力判斷。<br />
可能妳認識林九，所以感覺特別深，我唔識佢，所以冇乜感覺，佢變成點都唔太關我事。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 小奧</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266870</link>
		<dc:creator>小奧</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:20:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266870</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-266795&quot; title=&quot;View the original comment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Phoenix on 21/1/2008 at 11:51 am said:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://sharethereallife.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!49780AF1991C24E8!521.entry&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;June 14&lt;/a&gt;
(＜－sidekick 按：這個是林海峰為sony ericsson K810i 開的個人blog, 這篇有岳敏君的畫)

我估佢又唔會咁低能，明抄個咁出名既。應該係玩。&lt;/blockquote&gt;

又係半年冇更新的網誌哇</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p><a href="#comment-266795" title="View the original comment" rel="nofollow"><em>Phoenix on 21/1/2008 at 11:51 am said:</em></a></p>
<p><a href="http://sharethereallife.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!49780AF1991C24E8!521.entry" rel="nofollow">June 14</a><br />
(＜－sidekick 按：這個是林海峰為sony ericsson K810i 開的個人blog, 這篇有岳敏君的畫)</p>
<p>我估佢又唔會咁低能，明抄個咁出名既。應該係玩。</p></blockquote>
<p>又係半年冇更新的網誌哇</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sidekick</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266859</link>
		<dc:creator>sidekick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:50:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266859</guid>
		<description>我認識了林狗很久, 即是說, 他也認識我那種.
我幾喜歡佢, 因為覺得佢有才華. 
聽你說覺得他像商人, 我想了一下, 他近年又真的好商人...

一般而言, 藝人私德我不置喙, 因為通常不太關大眾利益.
但林狗這件事, 就已超乎了私德, 而可怕處是, 他會形響大眾(尤其年青人)的價值觀. 
就如同上次容祖兒燒鵝湖事件, 容說的&quot;最多下次抄得小心d 囉&quot;一樣. 

如果你覺得這樣也沒問題, 那麼, 就代表事件真的好有問題了...  :eek: 
唔通成蟲大哥只要打得就可以公開下流, 又或喝醉酒, 在別人演唱會亂o翕一通?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>我認識了林狗很久, 即是說, 他也認識我那種.<br />
我幾喜歡佢, 因為覺得佢有才華.<br />
聽你說覺得他像商人, 我想了一下, 他近年又真的好商人&#8230;</p>
<p>一般而言, 藝人私德我不置喙, 因為通常不太關大眾利益.<br />
但林狗這件事, 就已超乎了私德, 而可怕處是, 他會形響大眾(尤其年青人)的價值觀.<br />
就如同上次容祖兒燒鵝湖事件, 容說的&#8221;最多下次抄得小心d 囉&#8221;一樣. </p>
<p>如果你覺得這樣也沒問題, 那麼, 就代表事件真的好有問題了&#8230;  <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_smile.gif' alt=':eek:' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
唔通成蟲大哥只要打得就可以公開下流, 又或喝醉酒, 在別人演唱會亂o翕一通?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: XexeX</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266858</link>
		<dc:creator>XexeX</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266858</guid>
		<description>並唔係太喜歡林九，因為覺得佢秒秒鐘都想賺你錢，簡單講句：商人。
商人‧傷人，有幾多商人同你講尊重其他人資識產權，所以我對今次事件覺得好平常。

不過，佢搞笑真係有一手，人格等問題我唔會理，等於有冇人會理一個小丑人格有冇問題？總之夠搞笑就得啦。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>並唔係太喜歡林九，因為覺得佢秒秒鐘都想賺你錢，簡單講句：商人。<br />
商人‧傷人，有幾多商人同你講尊重其他人資識產權，所以我對今次事件覺得好平常。</p>
<p>不過，佢搞笑真係有一手，人格等問題我唔會理，等於有冇人會理一個小丑人格有冇問題？總之夠搞笑就得啦。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DT</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266828</link>
		<dc:creator>DT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266828</guid>
		<description>I feel really bad about this.
It&#039;s very disappointing, from Jan&#039;s design. Moreover even more disappointing that how HK people react to this.

I check out the blogs..only Sidekick showed concern about this.

HK culture?  Totally eat sxit man...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I feel really bad about this.<br />
It&#8217;s very disappointing, from Jan&#8217;s design. Moreover even more disappointing that how HK people react to this.</p>
<p>I check out the blogs..only Sidekick showed concern about this.</p>
<p>HK culture?  Totally eat sxit man&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phoenix</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266795</link>
		<dc:creator>Phoenix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266795</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://sharethereallife.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!49780AF1991C24E8!521.entry&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;June 14&lt;/a&gt;
(＜－sidekick 按：這個是林海峰為sony ericsson K810i 開的個人blog, 這篇有岳敏君的畫)

我估佢又唔會咁低能，明抄個咁出名既。應該係玩。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://sharethereallife.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!49780AF1991C24E8!521.entry" rel="nofollow">June 14</a><br />
(＜－sidekick 按：這個是林海峰為sony ericsson K810i 開的個人blog, 這篇有岳敏君的畫)</p>
<p>我估佢又唔會咁低能，明抄個咁出名既。應該係玩。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 小奧</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266772</link>
		<dc:creator>小奧</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:54:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266772</guid>
		<description>那幅圖片已是活動的一部分，根本是商業的一部分了。

另外玩冇問題，又好似玩andy warhol係人都認得，但話唔係扮andy warhol就比較好笑 :arrow:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>那幅圖片已是活動的一部分，根本是商業的一部分了。</p>
<p>另外玩冇問題，又好似玩andy warhol係人都認得，但話唔係扮andy warhol就比較好笑 <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_arrow.gif' alt=':arrow:' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: laihiu</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266770</link>
		<dc:creator>laihiu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:53:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266770</guid>
		<description>hi 五師兄, please correct me if i&#039;m wrong....but i thought plagiarism means presenting somebody else&#039;s work as if it&#039;s your own? did he do that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hi 五師兄, please correct me if i&#8217;m wrong&#8230;.but i thought plagiarism means presenting somebody else&#8217;s work as if it&#8217;s your own? did he do that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sidekick</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266768</link>
		<dc:creator>sidekick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:37:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266768</guid>
		<description>laihiu, 
冇辦法, 我知道你讀law, 自不然就會咁樣, 請多多包涵...
我識o左你咁耐, 先敢咁樣同你討論啦~ 就算是argue 都應該冇乜問題啊~
我覺得呢d argue 會令大家都學到o野, 叫你告我都唔係咩晦氣說話, 而係我真係好confuse......
你俾我o既感覺係, 一個有裝adsense o既個人blog screen cap 蘋果o既圖大鑊過林狗抄考岳敏君o既畫做talk show 海報仲要唔認. :p

雖然你冇話&quot;流行=就應該抄?&quot;, 但林狗o個句, 真係令我有咁o既感覺...
關於adsense 的問題, 我就是未見過相關案例所以才問你啦...

我個blog 近月好靜, 你多d o黎留言啦~  :grin:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>laihiu,<br />
冇辦法, 我知道你讀law, 自不然就會咁樣, 請多多包涵&#8230;<br />
我識o左你咁耐, 先敢咁樣同你討論啦~ 就算是argue 都應該冇乜問題啊~<br />
我覺得呢d argue 會令大家都學到o野, 叫你告我都唔係咩晦氣說話, 而係我真係好confuse&#8230;&#8230;<br />
你俾我o既感覺係, 一個有裝adsense o既個人blog screen cap 蘋果o既圖大鑊過林狗抄考岳敏君o既畫做talk show 海報仲要唔認. :p</p>
<p>雖然你冇話&#8221;流行=就應該抄?&#8221;, 但林狗o個句, 真係令我有咁o既感覺&#8230;<br />
關於adsense 的問題, 我就是未見過相關案例所以才問你啦&#8230;</p>
<p>我個blog 近月好靜, 你多d o黎留言啦~  <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':grin:' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 五師兄</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266763</link>
		<dc:creator>五師兄</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:06:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266763</guid>
		<description>laihiu:

你說的只是說明你不懂甚麼是 plagiarism 的精神……</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>laihiu:</p>
<p>你說的只是說明你不懂甚麼是 plagiarism 的精神……</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: laihiu</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266762</link>
		<dc:creator>laihiu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266762</guid>
		<description>hey calm down :)
i didn&#039;t even mention a word of law!
and that&#039;s because it&#039;s not relevant la

&quot;大口仔個樣仲流行過毛澤東同岳敏君d 畫添, 不如抄佢仲方便?&quot;
don&#039;t get your logic here....
when did i ever say 流行=就應該抄?

about whether a website displaying ads is for commercial purpose or not...just google and you should find some widely reported cases on it.

i&#039;m just trying to provide an alternative point of view...please don&#039;t think i&#039;m trying to argue :D

and though i agree with you that it&#039;s more ethical to properly attribute the person who inspired his work, i won&#039;t compare this case to &quot;醜化毛澤東&quot;&#039;s example, coz that&#039;s a totally different issue. 更何況 nobody&#039;s being 醜化 here......

will stop here :) won&#039;t comment no more...hehe..don&#039;t wanna spam your post...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey calm down <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
i didn&#8217;t even mention a word of law!<br />
and that&#8217;s because it&#8217;s not relevant la</p>
<p>&#8220;大口仔個樣仲流行過毛澤東同岳敏君d 畫添, 不如抄佢仲方便?&#8221;<br />
don&#8217;t get your logic here&#8230;.<br />
when did i ever say 流行=就應該抄?</p>
<p>about whether a website displaying ads is for commercial purpose or not&#8230;just google and you should find some widely reported cases on it.</p>
<p>i&#8217;m just trying to provide an alternative point of view&#8230;please don&#8217;t think i&#8217;m trying to argue <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>and though i agree with you that it&#8217;s more ethical to properly attribute the person who inspired his work, i won&#8217;t compare this case to &#8220;醜化毛澤東&#8221;&#8216;s example, coz that&#8217;s a totally different issue. 更何況 nobody&#8217;s being 醜化 here&#8230;&#8230;</p>
<p>will stop here <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> won&#8217;t comment no more&#8230;hehe..don&#8217;t wanna spam your post&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 小影</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266756</link>
		<dc:creator>小影</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266756</guid>
		<description>如果他真說出「我呢幅又唔係畫又唔係用嚟賣... 」之類，我會對他好失望</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>如果他真說出「我呢幅又唔係畫又唔係用嚟賣&#8230; 」之類，我會對他好失望</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sidekick</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266753</link>
		<dc:creator>sidekick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:53:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266753</guid>
		<description>laihiu, 
照你咁講, &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.google.com.hk/images?q=%E5%A4%A7%E5%8F%A3%E4%BB%94&amp;svnum=10&amp;um=1&amp;complete=1&amp;hl=zh-TW&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;start=20&amp;sa=N&amp;ndsp=20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;大口仔&lt;/a&gt;個樣仲流行過毛澤東同岳敏君d 畫添, 不如抄佢仲方便?

另, 半題外話, 就算係毛澤東個樣咁流行, 都唔代表可以用o黎玩,  見: &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/2007Cti-News-Content/0,4521,110505+112008011600083,00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;廣告醜化毛澤東？ 雪鐵龍道歉&lt;/a&gt;&quot;。

你說：
&lt;blockquote&gt;and most importantly….if truly as reported, the work is not made for any commercial purpose, then i don’t see how it affects 岳敏君’s interests….&lt;/blockquote&gt;
可能張海報本身冇得賣, 不過talk show d 飛最貴o既係450蚊之嘛... btw, 一個talk show 海報都唔算commercial purpose? 
上次&quot;Hello Kitty 與死人頭&quot;, 如果我冇記錯, 好戲量其中一個理據係, 個drama d 飛唔使錢, 不過好似都拗唔贏喎... 

bbtw, 講法律, 你一定比我在行, 我不能在此造次... 

bbbtw, 我唔係講緊林狗犯法, 我只係覺得佢冇品, 唔尊重原創o者! 

我都一早說了, 總有人覺得, &lt;a href=&quot;http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2007/03/08/984/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;個人blog + Adsense , 就= 商業網站&lt;/a&gt;
upload 去photobucket, 乃因直接link 人家的圖片是不對的(增加源網站server 負擔), 而且香港境外的人都會看不到圖, 及, 我想用圖片cap 埋林狗d 說話.

喂, 既然你讀law, 不如我o地諗o下計, 例如你搵人告我, 於是就有案例分辨到有adsense o既個人blog 係咪就等於商業網站, 於是就唔可以fair use 蘋果日報d 圖. 尤其當呢份報章, 及其網站, 咁鍾意抄blogger d 文作商業用途, 偷blogger d 圖時, 仲鍾意加埋蘋果日報logo 上去咁抵死o既時候...

當然, 我唔係咁想俾人告, 如果你有相關案例提供, 話到俾我知, 只要個人blog 有adsense 就變o左商業網站時, 我會好感激你~   :eek:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>laihiu,<br />
照你咁講, <a href="http://images.google.com.hk/images?q=%E5%A4%A7%E5%8F%A3%E4%BB%94&#038;svnum=10&#038;um=1&#038;complete=1&#038;hl=zh-TW&#038;client=firefox-a&#038;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&#038;start=20&#038;sa=N&#038;ndsp=20" rel="nofollow">大口仔</a>個樣仲流行過毛澤東同岳敏君d 畫添, 不如抄佢仲方便?</p>
<p>另, 半題外話, 就算係毛澤東個樣咁流行, 都唔代表可以用o黎玩,  見: &#8220;<a href="http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/2007Cti-News-Content/0,4521,110505+112008011600083,00.html" rel="nofollow">廣告醜化毛澤東？ 雪鐵龍道歉</a>&#8220;。</p>
<p>你說：</p>
<blockquote><p>and most importantly….if truly as reported, the work is not made for any commercial purpose, then i don’t see how it affects 岳敏君’s interests….</p></blockquote>
<p>可能張海報本身冇得賣, 不過talk show d 飛最貴o既係450蚊之嘛&#8230; btw, 一個talk show 海報都唔算commercial purpose?<br />
上次&#8221;Hello Kitty 與死人頭&#8221;, 如果我冇記錯, 好戲量其中一個理據係, 個drama d 飛唔使錢, 不過好似都拗唔贏喎&#8230; </p>
<p>bbtw, 講法律, 你一定比我在行, 我不能在此造次&#8230; </p>
<p>bbbtw, 我唔係講緊林狗犯法, 我只係覺得佢冇品, 唔尊重原創o者! </p>
<p>我都一早說了, 總有人覺得, <a href="http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2007/03/08/984/" rel="nofollow">個人blog + Adsense , 就= 商業網站</a><br />
upload 去photobucket, 乃因直接link 人家的圖片是不對的(增加源網站server 負擔), 而且香港境外的人都會看不到圖, 及, 我想用圖片cap 埋林狗d 說話.</p>
<p>喂, 既然你讀law, 不如我o地諗o下計, 例如你搵人告我, 於是就有案例分辨到有adsense o既個人blog 係咪就等於商業網站, 於是就唔可以fair use 蘋果日報d 圖. 尤其當呢份報章, 及其網站, 咁鍾意抄blogger d 文作商業用途, 偷blogger d 圖時, 仲鍾意加埋蘋果日報logo 上去咁抵死o既時候&#8230;</p>
<p>當然, 我唔係咁想俾人告, 如果你有相關案例提供, 話到俾我知, 只要個人blog 有adsense 就變o左商業網站時, 我會好感激你~   <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_smile.gif' alt=':eek:' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: laihiu</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266701</link>
		<dc:creator>laihiu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:16:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266701</guid>
		<description>&quot;而是擺明抄考，還對原作者踩多一腳&quot;

hmmm 
after reading the whole article i don&#039;t view it in that way

firstly, 林海峰 did admit that his has made reference to (參考) 岳敏君&#039;s works.  note that he actually said in the interview: 
&quot;岳 敏 君 的 畫 近 年 的 流 行 程 度 就 如 毛 澤 東 的 肖 像 處 處 可 見&quot;

secondly, about 抄襲...at most you can say it&#039;s derivative work, since copying of an &quot;idea&quot; itself is not plagiarism.

and most importantly....if truly as reported, the work is not made for any commercial purpose, then i don&#039;t see how it affects 岳敏君&#039;s interests....

but even as a liberal myself, i wouldn&#039;t be comfortable like you to download appledaily&#039;s photo and upload it to photobucket and publish it on a blog with google ads placed prominently on top...

just my two cents ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;而是擺明抄考，還對原作者踩多一腳&#8221;</p>
<p>hmmm<br />
after reading the whole article i don&#8217;t view it in that way</p>
<p>firstly, 林海峰 did admit that his has made reference to (參考) 岳敏君&#8217;s works.  note that he actually said in the interview:<br />
&#8220;岳 敏 君 的 畫 近 年 的 流 行 程 度 就 如 毛 澤 東 的 肖 像 處 處 可 見&#8221;</p>
<p>secondly, about 抄襲&#8230;at most you can say it&#8217;s derivative work, since copying of an &#8220;idea&#8221; itself is not plagiarism.</p>
<p>and most importantly&#8230;.if truly as reported, the work is not made for any commercial purpose, then i don&#8217;t see how it affects 岳敏君&#8217;s interests&#8230;.</p>
<p>but even as a liberal myself, i wouldn&#8217;t be comfortable like you to download appledaily&#8217;s photo and upload it to photobucket and publish it on a blog with google ads placed prominently on top&#8230;</p>
<p>just my two cents <img src='http://sidekick.myblog.hk/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/default/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hystericireul</title>
		<link>http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/comment-page-1#comment-266699</link>
		<dc:creator>hystericireul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sidekick.myblog.hk/archives/2008/01/20/1142/#comment-266699</guid>
		<description>不知所謂。

常常口口聲聲「尊重版權」「尊重原創」「尊重創意」，原來尊重的只有自己的創意自己的金錢。人家用來再創作，便要拉要鎖要生要死要打要罰，自己抄襲便死不認錯。

「再創作」本身根本不是壞事，向某人某物致敬也實在不必看版權看得太重。終究在資訊流通發達的社會，出現這種情況很常見。但最最最最最基本的是，要先說明原創者是誰！！

一下子便抹殺了原創者的創意，這是極極卑劣的行為！我自己也有不少文章會給人引用，那沒問題，反正也出不了書賺不了錢，但最少也得留個連結和名號吧？

林海峰這種垃圾，罵也嘥氣，惶論買飛入場。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>不知所謂。</p>
<p>常常口口聲聲「尊重版權」「尊重原創」「尊重創意」，原來尊重的只有自己的創意自己的金錢。人家用來再創作，便要拉要鎖要生要死要打要罰，自己抄襲便死不認錯。</p>
<p>「再創作」本身根本不是壞事，向某人某物致敬也實在不必看版權看得太重。終究在資訊流通發達的社會，出現這種情況很常見。但最最最最最基本的是，要先說明原創者是誰！！</p>
<p>一下子便抹殺了原創者的創意，這是極極卑劣的行為！我自己也有不少文章會給人引用，那沒問題，反正也出不了書賺不了錢，但最少也得留個連結和名號吧？</p>
<p>林海峰這種垃圾，罵也嘥氣，惶論買飛入場。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

