Comments on: What “justice is done” means http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/ 只談老實私見。 Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:05:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: 田中小百合 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/comment-page-1/#comment-52231 田中小百合 Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:28:56 +0000 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/#comment-52231 抄也是潮流，由林狗繼續引領。 抄也是潮流，由林狗繼續引領。

]]> By: nikita http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/comment-page-1/#comment-52174 nikita Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:46:51 +0000 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/#comment-52174 補充番少少，我唔反對「致敬」行為，以前讀中學資訊不及現在發達，佢唔抄我都唔會識得外國的設計單位，可能今次林狗比傳媒踢爆，會令八十後一代認識岳敏君都唔定，不過呢個係「致敬」的secondary outcome。 佢最肉酸的係唔認概念係來自岳敏君。做左唔敢認，樣衰都爆。 補充番少少，我唔反對「致敬」行為，以前讀中學資訊不及現在發達，佢唔抄我都唔會識得外國的設計單位，可能今次林狗比傳媒踢爆，會令八十後一代認識岳敏君都唔定，不過呢個係「致敬」的secondary outcome。

佢最肉酸的係唔認概念係來自岳敏君。做左唔敢認，樣衰都爆。

]]> By: 方潤 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/comment-page-1/#comment-52125 方潤 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:25:55 +0000 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/#comment-52125 我都俾人抄過，係咪即係可以去買隻翻版﹖ 我都俾人抄過，係咪即係可以去買隻翻版﹖

]]> By: Snowdrops http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/comment-page-1/#comment-52121 Snowdrops Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:11:25 +0000 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/#comment-52121 Even if "Soft Hard" didn't plagiarise (as opposed to paying tribute towards) others' design concepts in the past, the fact that they admitted to 借用岳敏君的招牌「大口笑」來宣傳, this cannot be defined as "poetic justice". There is an illogic underlying this statement, "軟硬的東西都俾人抄得多，抄番人一次好公平", as two wrongs don't make a right. It would have been true poetic justice if the copycat was somehow exposed himself accidentally and allowed the original creator to claim rightful credit for the work. But that is not the case here. And a true artist won't see the chance of plagiarising others' work as quid pro quo for the fact that others have plagiarised his. Even if “Soft Hard” didn’t plagiarise (as opposed to paying tribute towards) others’ design concepts in the past, the fact that they admitted to 借用岳敏君的招牌「大口笑」來宣傳, this cannot be defined as “poetic justice”. There is an illogic underlying this statement, “軟硬的東西都俾人抄得多，抄番人一次好公平”, as two wrongs don’t make a right. It would have been true poetic justice if the copycat was somehow exposed himself accidentally and allowed the original creator to claim rightful credit for the work. But that is not the case here. And a true artist won’t see the chance of plagiarising others’ work as quid pro quo for the fact that others have plagiarised his.

]]> By: nikita http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/comment-page-1/#comment-52026 nikita Fri, 30 May 2008 08:28:06 +0000 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/#comment-52026 作為前度軟硬迷，他們愛向心儀藝術人士作品「致敬」才真，例如廣播道fans 殺人事件，二人的大隻佬露內褲照就是明抄美國名牌內褲廣告，軟硬其中一人為王菲唱片「胡思亂想」的封面，甩字概念是外國某設計單位，林狗的個人唱片「的士夠格」Spock 造型也是「致敬」之一。 香港有邊個抄過軟硬？快慢必算嗎？ 作為前度軟硬迷，他們愛向心儀藝術人士作品「致敬」才真，例如廣播道fans 殺人事件，二人的大隻佬露內褲照就是明抄美國名牌內褲廣告，軟硬其中一人為王菲唱片「胡思亂想」的封面，甩字概念是外國某設計單位，林狗的個人唱片「的士夠格」Spock 造型也是「致敬」之一。

香港有邊個抄過軟硬？快慢必算嗎？

]]> By: f16 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/comment-page-1/#comment-52022 f16 Fri, 30 May 2008 05:47:55 +0000 http://blog.hoiking.org/2008/05/30/1087/#comment-52022 no la~軟硬常抄人才是真相，他們的設計單位"明抄"是常見的事，林狗常抄人可以大大聲美其名是"致敬",實則"心照"！ 我沒有細心找"罪證",不過這blog有不少他們的設計單位"致敬"作品。 http://welovecopy.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2006-10-20T15%3A35%3A00%2B08%3A00&max-results=5 p.s 我是軟硬的粉絲。 no la~軟硬常抄人才是真相，他們的設計單位”明抄”是常見的事，林狗常抄人可以大大聲美其名是”致敬”,實則”心照”！
我沒有細心找”罪證”,不過這blog有不少他們的設計單位”致敬”作品。
http://welovecopy.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2006-10-20T15%3A35%3A00%2B08%3A00&max-results=5
p.s 我是軟硬的粉絲。

]]>