Draft Against BT prosecution

1. It is doubtful whether the existing copyright ordinance written at 1978 with the intend to cover latest technology like BT.

2. It is in the burden of the prosecution to prove without reasonable doubt that the action of defendant has cause the harm as serious as alleged by the prosecution.
A. The value of a movie depreciate in according to time.
B. The lost of the copyright owner can not calculate using the simple logic of ‘Number of Downloader* Price’, since it disregard two facts:
1. Not all downloader would buy that product if it is not free. It is doubtful that those movies would attract 1/10 of the all downloader.
2. The economic value of a movie doesn’t decrease because of this action, since movie is not a concrete object. On the contrary, increase circulation of parts of the movie would be free advertisement for the movie. Many independent artist survive by using this channel.


3. All the discussion are without the concept of fair use: Copyright violation is not equal to theft. Copyright is what the society granted to a certain product to encourage the creative work. Any owner have the right to borrow what he brought to anyone he desire.

4. To obtain the evidence, one of the custom officer must contribute to the bandwidth of the uploader/downloader. If the defendant is guilty as charged, that officer has committed an offence by aiding the criminal act of the defendant.

5. This should be a civil case, and HKSARG using taxpayer to defend commercial interest is like patrolling Parkn’ Shop with Police. It is a case of ‘coperate welfare’.
Tell me what do you think about that.




WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


連結到 %s

%d 位部落客按了讚: