楊千嬅《斗零踭》的回歸宣言

56 Replies to “楊千嬅《斗零踭》的回歸宣言”

1. Really like this song, since the first time i heard it. The real Miriam is finally back, i’m glad she’s finally got rid of Leon’s bad taste.

2. 終於有料到!!!! 正呀.

3. excellent job !
   a real come back this time=]

4. Good ar.!!!

5. 我都鍾意依首歌, 最尾”路線任我鋪”個”鋪”字唱得好型

6. I think the song is just so-so. I like the music arrangement very much but I feel like Fa’s vocal is not up to par. It really dragged the quality of the song down.

7. SHE’S BACK! =]
   Looking forward to her REBORN ALBUM!

8. 曲詞編都好到不得了。夠玩味。真的很適合楊千嬅。
   而尾句話完就完，令人感到她充滿自信。

   唯一少少瑕疵是那些「風騷」、「花草」拉高音，都不是楊千嬅的強項。
   但是 Verse 和 Bridge 就 perfect 了。

9. Damon, 很開心看到你寫的楊千嬅回歸！

10. Damon，你說的《一枝花》是千嬅的還是當年彭羚的？

11. 彭羚 一枝花 & 給我愛過的男孩們 = 真正的經典

12. 拍手掌, 單是intro就贏了

13. nothing to be proud of ..斗零踭beginning is copied from Do The Hustle- Van McCoy (after 0:38 into the Van McCoy song), the beat is so similiar. That is the reason why HK Music is dead!!!

14. Anticopy, I think u need to buy a pair of new ears first, and learn a bit more about Music….for god’s sake.

15. 又係香港編曲人參考製成品。

16. 真的一聽intro就覺得是《一枝花》了,愛死jason的編曲

17. 喜歡!好適合千嬅的一首歌~
    愈來愈成熟的一位歌手:)

18. noe, I understand my music, if you care to listen to The Hustle ( 0:38 into the song) the beat is the same as the 斗零踭beginning. I have nothing against 千嬅, just sad about HK Music creativity; the same group that complained about illegal download. Sad really….

19. Thanks for pointing that out. I can hear the similarity in the keyboards/piccolo and the 70s strings, and the beat is the same, but there’s no identical melody here, so it’s more of a musical reference/homage in this case.

20. While I agree there are some Hong Kong music that blatantly copy music from other countries, this one is clearly not.

    It has become a ill trend among Hong Kong music listener to nitpick little music details (as little as few notes/chords) and claim the songs are copying music from other country – without giving any thoughts on differentiating what is a reference/homage/similarity and what is actual plagiarism. Maybe they feel proud and intelligent to show their ‘musical knowledge’.

21. billy, if around 40 seconds of 斗零踭 intro with extremely similiar beat/arrangement is not regarded as copy, then I don’t know what is. You can get sue in the western world. Really should just stop pretending they are the original creator, it is not uncommon these days to hear some old classics remake with rap element but they give credit to the original creator.

22. No, I dont mean u are against anyone, but obviously this is not a case of copy/plagiarism. What constitutes a plagiarism always involves with a copy of series of Chords or arrangement(For instance, check the case of Coldplay’s viva la diva). I could hear the similarity between these 2 songs and would not deny that Jason may have referenced 70s disco music, but it is not a case of copying obviously. And dont exploit the term “Western world” as if you could make your statement superior.

23. 題外話：《一枝花》是 Mr. Carl Wong 編的。Jason 為 Mariam 編的曲有很多，都是實在精彩的。題外話二：都想彭羚再出來唱歌。

24. noe, before posting my comment, I have checked about the music copyright infringement. It really doesn’t need to be the whole song or note from note. If you want a little bit more details please look into:

    http://www.music-law.com/copyrightinfringe.html

    I really don’t want to labour the point but it is blatenly obviouse that they have copied Do the Hustle to create the happy feeling to the intro, and don’t tell me that the 斗零踭 song writer has never hear of that song and just happened to create a similiar tune one day. I just want to mention again, please give credit if you use other people’s creativity and don’t just pretend you were the original creator.

25. We didn’t say he “never hear of that song and just happened to create a similar tune one day”.

    We are saying there is a difference between a reference and plagiarism.

26. 阿中, this is the difference between Asian and Western society. Please feel free to obtain more information from the link below as it expalins the differences between plagiarism and copyright very clearly:

    http://www.plagiarismchecker.com/plagiarism-vs-copyright.php

27. BTW, you guys should take time to find out how Do the Hustle was created in order to appreciate Van McCoy effort

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZcY5vxLbpA

    starts at 0:21

28. I don’t know why we are even arguing with you.
    The part that you pointed out don’t even share the same melody. 斗零踭 only used the same instrument thus giving the same sound & effect as Do the Hustle.

    Stop trying to act intelligent and think you are the only know who knows music.

29. if it is not the same, why make such efforts to defend? To you it is 藍奕邦 creativity; as for me, I recognised the tune straight away the first time I heard it. If you think you are right, don’t defend just buy the album and let 藍奕邦 gets the royalty but I certainly won’t.

30. Ah let’s just have new versions of the song, and you guys should be in charge of the arrangements!

31. d「參考派」編曲人好叻架，抄d唔抄d，又可以開脫被指抄襲的控罪，被揭「參考」出處時，又可以話致敬諸如此類，唯有d戇居粉絲一味護主。

32. 叫人聽經典Disco歌曲The hustle都搞錯名加多個”Do”，只不過係個鐘意玩找錯處的小朋友
    問責都唔該找對人，你所謂plagialism的那兩句到底係作曲定編曲都未分清，門外漢都識分，你話自己識音樂真係笑死人

    Melody係整首歌的主體，創作的根本，香港D抄襲犯係抄D好少本地人聽ge外國歌將全個或部份melody據為己有，當做自己創作的melody，melody抄melody先係抄襲，要抄都抄D好少聽的作品好過啦，抄D人人聽過的根本人人都知，使鬼你不停同人拗，當中根本不構成據為己有，何來抄襲？

    The hustle在1975年發表，六、七十後好少人唔識，你講o個段只有幾個音階，節奏鮮明，若果佢係用左做自己的melody唔referenceing我都會話抄，但人地用左其中兩段在編曲度就只不過係參考七十年代disco歌，就算用另一個arrangement都唔影響個主體，咁都叫抄，香港全部J-pop, rock n’roll甚至所有彷外國style的歌都係抄？

    D電影向某經典電影/導演/演員/人物致敬都會用左原電影某部份情節/道具/服裝，但唔落trailer都唔會叫抄襲，因為人人都知道原創的出處係邊部電影，唔通Kill Bill都叫抄襲香港電影？外國作品參考香港經典作品就得，香港作品參考外國經典作品就叫抄襲？係ge咁你聽粵曲/睇粵劇吧啦，絕對本土原創，你應該好好支持

    不過媚洋派只會狂踩香港作品，參考令西洋同本地的界線雅俗不分，褻瀆了西洋音樂的神聖，媚洋派當然要堅守防線，參考指成抄襲，咁先可以突顯自己夠superior 與別不同ma~

33. 這篇講楊千樺個evolving star text…very inspiring!

34. Benjamin, you should get a job in TVB as they need people like you to defend about copying. Belwo are my replies to your

    1)Quentin Tarantino has always stated that Kill Bill was a tribute to Hong Kong martial arts films (at least he gave credit to others). The last I heard there is a plagiarism lawsuit and Tarantino were being sued for more than $1m for the movies, and the plantiff claimed the films were partly based on his ideas.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/mar/10/quentin-tarantino-law-killbill

    2)You might not fully understand the word plagiariam. According to the Oxford English Dictionary it means “the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”
    Well, you just need to decide if 斗零踭 was the creative idea of 藍奕邦 or just a cheap copy/close imitation of Van McCoy’s creativity, as the composer could not rearrange things with such close imitation. You might also claim the 40s intro means nothing; but it has already created the flow/mood to the whole song. If your arguement is correct, then any HK song producers can slight rearranging other Chinese golden oldies to claim as their own works, why bother to write new songs? Likewise a hangbag manufacturer can rearrange LV to VL and get away with things. Unfortunately, some of these HK song writers complained that illegal downloads which are depriving of their livelihoods.

35. 外國片商都有買龍珠、無間道和鬼眼版權
    美國版和香港版都有不同但這些片商尊重知識産權
    問題是作曲者是否原創人? 我覺得斗零踭的和 The Hustle 拍子都好相似….

36. I don’t think that I should got a job offered by TVB wor. TVB係明抄tim la，你吹佢唔脹丫，駛鬼你搵人去幫人解畫，你define plagialism倒不如decode下你自己寫咩啦

    你講人”plagiarism”早已叫你搞清對象，你仲開口埋口都仲係講藍奕邦，都唔知你係真唔識分作曲編曲定眼大睇錯編曲人。普通人齋聽都識分主體旋律同伴奏襯底，一般人都識分前者歸作曲，後者歸編曲，The Hustle那段係主體旋律，斗零踭係伴奏襯底，我可以講埋俾你聽唔止intro丫，副歌,outro都有一樣個beat丫，你聽哂成首歌未丫???要指控但只係片面聽頭四十秒，仲講咩understand “my music”??

    係自己睇返自己第一段留言最後一句”That is the reason why HK Music is dead!!! “你係指控緊其抄襲動機不良，之後你一直都只係講咩係抄襲，但係你一直都冇證明/推論首歌抄襲動機不良，更不要談”That is the reason why HK Music is dead!!! “，當中完全冇logical argument，由始至終你只能舉證有similiar，但你有冇舉證到佢冇落reference俾版稅，呢個都唔係official資料，事實係有ge你就一直o徙鬼氣，冇ge只不過係幫人追版稅，但你始終都唔係討論點解咁ge similiar係”That is the reason why HK Music is dead!!!” 即係唔俾版稅就會令香港音樂死亡???完全冇sense可言

    點解用KILL BILL做例子唔係用來討論俾唔俾版稅問題，而係人人都知佢係copy左香港電影，香港人同外國人都指有copy成份，但冇人怪佢plagialism就係因為佢係用經典事物同新事物混合去再進行創作，效果人人讚好，絕少人覺得係一種抄襲，就係文本當中可以發現新舊混合的創作，呢一種特色係現代流行文化創作中常見的intertextuality互文性，斗零踭亦係同一情況，不再詳述

    而香港抄襲慣犯唔係運用intertextuality，而係將非主流少本地人聽的外國作品照dup落自己D「作品」將之據為己有，搏冇人知，這種抄襲plagilism當中的不良動機除左要聲討版稅，當然人人得以誅之

    但係今次斗零踭同經典歌曲intertextual，除左版稅問題，不見得有甚麼動機不良要令人去聲討，愛音樂的人都會明白當中的創作，只有版權人才會去同唱片公司追版稅，其他人追版稅鬧抄襲根本只不過係為了證明自己好有「流行曲知識」，視音樂為音階，視歌曲為商品，完全冇一種愛音樂甚至愛文化的人應有的cultural literacy

    音樂同文化一樣係流動、有活力、多樣性，發展音樂係需要多元文化交流、衝擊而才可令創作多元化，香港樂壇已死唔係因為與外國作品有互交性的過程，而係因為一成不變的港產K歌、計算音符預測流行程度為樂的作曲廢物，不容許低俗香港音樂染指西洋音樂的階級潔癖者，以及一味show off流行曲知識去亂批別人抄襲的「稅務官」或「音階管理員」

37. to anticopy:

    難道一首歌sample 另一首歌的melody 或音樂伴奏作編曲，就算是抄襲？我的音樂知識不豐富，但年前madonna 的hung up 不就 sample 了ABBA 的 Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! 的 intro 去營造retro disco的氣氛嗎？安室奈美惠去年大賣的60s70s80s，都取樣三個年代不同歌曲 (例如flash dance… what a feeling?) 的melody 再創作，這也算抄襲？
    斗零踭同樣借用The Hustle 的hook line去做襯底，營造70s 的感覺，因為他是本地創作，所以就算抄襲？
    我相信你這裡想說的是，究竟這首歌最後是否有credit THE HUSTLE, 有否給版權？你的著眼點應該是這首歌是否“偷”了另一首歌的版權吧？
    如果credit 俾足，那還有甚麼問題？
    我的問題是，七十年代流行的應該是鬆糕鞋，而不是斗零踭吧。

38. Benjamin, you are talking a load of rubbish.
    1) Kill Bill. Your arguement does not stand as Adam has already pointed out 外國片商都有買龍珠、無間道和鬼眼版權. Why bother (if your arguement is correct), as their version is different to the orignial ones???
    BTW, as I have explained and if you care to read carefully, there is already a law suite on copyright infringement on the storyline. As for the HK martial arts film, they have a case if they could prove that Kill Bill were using their storyline, you seemed to know a lot, why don’t you mention the name of the movie?
    2) Don’t use the word or phrase like intertextuality or 發展音樂係需要多元文化交流 to cover up for copyright infringement. You can look up the Govt. website for copyright, which states:
    ….If a musician copies a very catchy musical phrase from another musician’s song, there is likely to be infringement even if that phrase is very short.
    As for adaptation, it states:
    ….The making of an adaptation of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work. For this purpose an adaptation is made when it is recorded, in writing or otherwise.
    …..In this Part “adaptation” (改編本)- in relation to a musical work, means an arrangement or transcription of the work.
    Therefore was the intro of 斗零踭 a creative work or an adaptation??? You seem to know a lot, you tell me.
    3)Maybe my phrase “That is the reason why HK Music is dead” is too difficult for you to understand. Why do you need creativity when you can steal and do your own adaptation? The more we allow this, the less likely this will attract creative talents into the business, because thse people can put in less time and less efforts to make a quick gain. Copyright infringement is regarded as stealing in some parts of the world. I will be surprised if they have paid for the loyalty, I am even willing to apologize if I am wrong.

39. perko, as I have mentioned before, 抄襲 is like stealing. The focus shouldn’t be based on whether the guy was caught stealing, it should be based on the person’s intension. If they feel The Hustle was good, they should pay for the royalty. Let’s not forget, many have commented on the excellent intro which brought out the mood to the whole song, was that a creative work by the musician or a adapation? Did they represent other people’s creativity by paying for the copyright, these should be the questions that we should be asking. Without represent to Intelligent Property (and I don’t just focus on 斗零踭), it could only spell death to other’s creativity.

40. BTW, I meant respect instead of represent in my previous comment.

41. perko, you are also right,七十年代流行的應該是鬆糕鞋，而不是斗零踭。 This might be down to the creativity of the song writer, hahaha.

42. The only similarity is the musical instrument. Maybe the world should be banned from using that instrument ever again, or this Anticopy or Copyright (most likely the same person) will come out and cry foul again.

    Well, unless the song is not written by Hong Kong music writer. Because he only care to criticize anything HK produces, all Western stuffs are superior in his mind.

43. 一似就係有問題，你要聲討你都問返編曲人或者唱片公司搞清事實你先嘈啦，lee度又唔係offical資料發放，若果佢最後如你所願有傾過版權你就apologize，咁你寫咁多野就真係唔知為乜，真搞笑，連最基本事實你都未搞清，你一直講ge唔係廢話就係垃圾

    你由始至終都係講的是有冇傾過版權，即係商業程序，唱片公司之間係會有佢地的方式，若果佢事實上需要俾版稅，而又被你發現佢冇，你就應該去信兩間公司揭穿件事，等佢地自己用商業程序或法律程序去處理，而唔係o係度做版稅法官

    o係度傾唔係傾你o個D 版稅問題，而係去分析音樂、欣賞音樂，我寫的不是垃圾，因為篇文都唔係從版稅角度出發寫，我駛鬼理你o個D未經證實的垃圾去跟你個套講丫

    第二你都仲未搞清的是一樣beat的唔止你講的40秒intro，中間副歌、最後outro都有，你未聽哂首歌已經嘈，就已經證明你有好多野都未搞清，要嘈都搞清哂所有野先啦，而且自己連基本知識都冇(作曲/編曲之分)，好難想像你係識聽音樂的人，你自己都未搞清你句statement，就唔好插人個”arguement”(我都唔知自己有show過arguement)，我只能陪你講beat 的similar同香港音樂質素低的關連性問題，但恕我不能陪你拗版稅問題，因舉證責任歸原告，我不能假設性回答你D冇事實基礎的控訴，我講野rubbish，只因你句statement一開始就係rubbish

    第三，若果用同一個storyline係抄襲，咁音樂上作曲一樣先係抄襲，但係編曲同作曲唔同，若果個beat一樣就係抄襲，j-pop,dancing,disco, rock n’roll唔止香港抄人，歐日都係自己抄自己，鼓手十個有八個都有抄過，個低音鼓點樣可以冇一首作品都唔係抄襲，次次都有唔同beat丫????我地可以討論編曲係唔係應該計版權，但唔係指責編曲sample左人地個melody就係抄襲或者係冇創意，因為melody轉去編曲同melody抄melody係好大分別，要衡量惡意抄襲罪行係從整首歌的格局比較，而唔係只聽完B歌個intro編曲同A歌melody某兩段beat有similar就指控抄襲，連成首歌聽完再評這基本動作都唔識，你平時聽歌應該唔係聽音樂，係聽聲ga jar

    你再回我都唔會應，除非你得到The Hustle版權人通知，華星或者編曲人在melody個beat轉移左落編曲的形式都「必須」俾返版稅予The Hustle版權人，而事實上The Hustle版權人收唔到版稅兼追究責任時，我先再出來陪你玩啦，在此之前，你講咩都係rubbish

44. Good to hear that you have finally decided to shut up (though I suspect you will come back to reply with another name in the future). Amazing how you have chosen to ignore certain points:
    1) Kill Bill. You use this to討論俾唔俾版稅, you didn’t realize with your limited knowledge that there is already a law suit on this for copyright infringement. Then when someone pointed out why other western companies paid for 龍珠、無間道和鬼眼版權, you had nothing to say, that is not surprising to me at all.
    2) Plagiarism. I have already told you that we are talking about copy right infringement; I am definitely sure you don’t know their differences, get it sorted before challenging me (sorry, I take it back as you will not be speaking to me again). Next time, don’t throw words at me when you don’t fully understand.
    3) 未聽哂首歌已經嘈? Your argument on this point is absolutely rubbish. There should be a continuity throughout the song, the intro and the outro are already the major part of the song; the intro brought out the happy mood of the song and the outro allows the listener to finish on a happy note, do you think (that is intended as a question not a statement) the song writer can deviate from the foundation laid? I have listened to the whole song and I consider the intra as the most important part to bring out the mood of the whole song; they knew that and have provided 40 s of intro.
    You might also know that there is a law suit against one of Harry Potter’s book on certain characters/storyline were copied from another book (and not the similarity of the whole storyline)
    4) My knowledge on music. We can both argue till the cows come home but that doesn’t prove that you musical knowledge is greater than me. I would like to point out; when there is a copyright infringement case, the court does not have a group of musical experts as jury; they have the general public and it is upto them to decide if there is similarity between two pieces of music.
    5) 分析音樂、欣賞音樂. You really should know that I didn’t start off with the intension of looking at copy right infringement
    分析音樂、欣賞音樂. was my intension when I first listened to 斗零踭, I was surprise to recognize the intro straight away; the tempo, beat and the arrangement was so similar to The Hustle, it really has brought out the mood of the whole song.
    It doesn’t mean I can’t speak about the copy right infringement even though I do not have the copy right as we have the freedom of speech in HK. If you remain silent will not be a loss to the musical industry (and I am sure you will come back with another name), as someone pointed out that 有d戇居粉絲一味護主。

45. “nothing to be proud of ..斗零踭beginning is copied from Do The Hustle- Van McCoy (after 0:38 into the Van McCoy song), the beat is so similiar. That is the reason why HK Music is dead!!! ” that’s a statement!! Not a question!!!

    對不起我回來了，只為總結下，要「護主」都唔會同你D二打六拗，拗完又冇獎，你以為你自己係邊個?講左咁多日，報紙都未賣過，討論區都冇咩人傳開，同以往抄襲事件反應完全不同，就知件事大極有限，繼續同你傾只不過解下悶ja，唔好睇得自己咁重

    我所有野都係回應你第一段留言為主，
    “I have already told you that we are talking about copy right infringement” 你應該有講過ge，不過都好後先講~~你第一段只不過講個beat similar，同埋”That is the reason why HK Music is dead!!! “第二段留言加多句”sad about HK Music creativity”，所以我就跟你討論下兩者之間的相似性質及其與香港音樂質素及創意低之間的關係law，完全make sense，你到第二後先開始講侵權ja ma，你要討論侵權就下次第一段留言就講清楚啦~

    “Really should just stop pretending they are the original creator, it is not uncommon these days to hear some old classics remake with rap element but they give credit to the original creator. “這是你第三段留言，你有提過俾”credit to the original creator”，不過我就係要remind你這裡不是official 資料發放，要知佢有冇俾credit一係就問唱片公司，一係就買佢隻碟睇下，不過我估你兩樣都唔會做，因為你只不過係運用你的freedom of speech，而唔係提供有實質證據的指控，你有權冇任何查證就剩係自己講，不過人地質疑返你時，你最好拎返D事實來講，唔係你只係講”rubbish” ga je

    而lee D之後你先講”copy right infringement”ja~copy right infringement係犯法，但失實指控他人意圖或蓄意犯罪亦係犯法，人地可以告你誹謗，你都可以告返我誹謗，只要你證明你之前有俾個證明係The Hustle版權人認為該首歌當中有需要俾版權的部份而一直都冇被通知而追究，不過由始至終你都係得個講都冇做過，只不過用文字作網上自漬的小朋友，你有自由發表意見，不過你可能已經觸犯誹謗罪，不過你個傻仔仲一直講，你之後自己小心D啦~好心提你Ja

    我唔回應其他野，因為其他野都唔係重點，我講Kill Bill的確唔係用來講侵權或者版稅，你自己理解能力低唔好怪人，我講Kill Bill只係講觀眾對Kill Bill的反應普遍都唔係抄襲，當中係要有版稅的商業處理手法，但無損電影的可觀性及其文化意義，係回應作品間的similar與其質素之間冇必然的關聯性，係借來回應你第一段的”statement”(It’ really a statement, don’t try to deny again), i.e.”…the beat is so similiar. That is the reason why HK Music is dead!!! “，係你自己拎案例來講「俾唔俾版稅」ja ma，而且討論俾版稅的問題你都未知佢到底有冇俾過，咁點傾落去？

    你要搞清楚，similar=/=抄襲(if 當中係有不同「元素」進行創意交雜)or similar=/=侵權(if 佢俾左版稅as there is necessary)，本來都仲可以同你討論similar同抄襲的關係，不過既然你好firm咁確定討論「侵權」，咁你就firm左佢真係有「真實的侵權行為」先再嘈啦，唔好再用copy ar,similar ar呢D含糊而又非相關法律正式字眼，唔認同ge你或者都可以繼續o係度自漬ge，冇人會阻你，小朋友

46. 抄襲=/=侵權，早已俾左版權的抄襲唔叫侵權，未俾版權但又唔係惡意將前作據為己有欺騙觀眾亦都唔係嚴格定義的抄襲，你自己搞清D logic先再出聲啦

47. Haha, what a surprise couldn’t keep your mouth shut, could you? Look like you are getting short temper already. Anwswe to your replies:

    1) 你要討論侵權就下次第一段留言就講清楚啦~. Obviously you didn’t read my first post, July 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm (which is even earlier than the one you have quoted) says…”nothing to be proud of ..斗零踭beginning is copied from Do The Hustle- Van McCoy….. “. I think even a primary student knows that I am talking about copy right infringement. Why did I say that? Because it was a reply to the post earlier which mentioned…單是intro就贏了…Next time, try to understand the whole picture before getting involve with any argument/ discussion
    2)…Give credit to the original creator… This is another example why you jumped into argument without real understanding. When you have several people complemented that the intro of this song was good; which I believe have set the tone and whole mood to the song, that is why I have mentioned to give credit to the original creator.
    3)報紙都未賣過，討論區都冇咩人傳開 about copyright infringement of the song. Let me explain some simple facts for your simple mind. I am not organizing an attack. For our information, I don’t hate 千嬅 and I don’t hate 藍奕邦 or 蔡德才. Unlike Key Tse which not so long ago, newspapers, you tube, magazines, forum all attacking her singing, this is a very calculated and organized attack from some sector which felt that she was threatening her star’s position. For our information, I don’t hate 千嬅 and I don’t hate 藍奕邦 or 蔡德才. I am only disappointed they were not more creative which brought me to my comment, ”… That is the reason why HK Music is dead..” If the creativity of HK musicians are based on rearrangement/copying, what future does that hold to HK music??? I am making my objection as a consumer but saying to them; you need to be more creative if you want me to buy your album, that is why I hadn’t gone to the forum to create a new topic for discussion or even contcat the newspapers for the story.
    4)About copy right infringement suits. I have already mentioned the Kill Bill and Harry Potter cases, but I don’t think you simple mind will understand why these cases only surface now and not earlier. For the plantiff, they will focus on what is the biggest benefit to them. It really is best to sue them for copy right infringement when the products became very popular (like the Kill Bill and Harry Porter cases) and they could back date the penalty based on the revenue generated. This is different from LV strategy, as they are selling their brands they will try to sue the others (which these immiation companies tend to be small) for copy right infringement at the earliest opportunity, as this can affect their max. profit.
    5)…俾唔俾版稅. Once again you are trying to ignore your previous argument on版稅, which you state, “…點解用KILL BILL做例子唔係用來討論俾唔俾版稅問題，而係人人都知佢係copy左香港電影，香港人同外國人都指有copy成份…” When you are challenged with 龍珠、無間道和鬼眼, you immediately changed to…”我講Kill Bill的確唔係用來講侵權或者版稅，你自己理解能力低唔好怪人”. Hahaha, really??? If there is copy right infringement, they should pay, full stop. However, by paying the money doesn’t mean the creativity of the intro are down to them, as that is what I consider to be a slight rearrangement and the original songwriter should be created with the creativity.
    6) 創意交雜. Harry Potter book did not copy even the whole storyline, the plaintiff pointed our similarities between two books characters and scenes were enough to take someone to court. Do you think people don’t use the創意交雜 excuse before for LV counterfeit? I have already left so much information for you to learn, otherwise you will know that even a copied drum beat can be infringement, if you prove it is substantially similar.
    Once you prove access and substantial similarity, the infringer can present defenses. First, he can argue that his song is an independent creation. Going back to the copied drum beat, it is conceivable that the infringer thought it up all by himself and it is only a coincidence that your song has the same drum beat. After all, there are only a limited number of drum beats. This would be proof of independent creation. In fact, it is theoretically possible that two people could create the same song with neither knowing of the other’s work….
    For 斗零踭, if the tempo, beat or musical instruments arrangement are similar, then I will be interested to hear about the explanation on independent creativity.
    BTW, good to see that you are now talking about copy right infringement instead of plagiarism. The question is; does you pea brain mind really understand the difference?

48. Re:抄襲=/=侵權，早已俾左版權的抄襲唔叫侵權，未俾版權但又唔係惡意將前作據為己有欺騙觀眾亦都唔係嚴格定義的抄襲，你自己搞清D logic先再出聲啦
    You are really full of bullshit. I really feel that I am wasting my time to expalin to idiots like you, if you rearrange other poeple music in your song for profit making purpose, that is not 惡意將前作據為己有欺騙觀眾, what is??? I really think this record company should get another person with 2 brain cells to 「護主」, cause you are really a waste of oxygen.

49. Copyright/Anticopy, stop making multiple accounts and wasting our time with your dumb logic. You are the only person here that think the song is 抄襲. No one else think so. If you hate Cantonese music so much then just don’t listen.

50. Billy, funny both of you do know the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism. Others have mentioned the similairity. My only advice for you is don’t read my comment if you can’t take it. BTW, if it is stupid, then it shouldn’t be logical.

51. Mr. Copyright, I was the one who tell someone to stop listening to Cantonese music if that someone dislikes Cantonese music so much, so please stop “copying” my advice and “remixing” them and ask me to “not read your comment”.

    Because that is just “too similar”, and I consider that “plagiarism”.

52. Don’t flatter yourself. It still surprises me that you and Benjamin made the same mistake, plagiarism does not get sue, it is copyright infringement that causes the problem.

53. Oh thanks, but I don’t recall myself saying I want to sue you. I was just saying how obvious you were plagiarizing me. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

54. to copyright:

    你誤會了，我絕對不同意你的論調。

    1. 我說的“偷”，是針對版稅問題。如果已經俾足版稅，“偷”的問題不存在。

    2. Sample 另一首歌的旋律不算抄襲，甚至可算是reinvent, 令人重新認識一首（通常，老）歌。

    3. 70s 的音樂感跟這首歌的主題十分配合，特別是整首歌投射出 70s 電視劇的味道，令人（至少我）想起一眾“搖曳風騷”，開始萌芽的成熟的“女強人”女星。鬆糕鞋或斗零踭，不是太重要。我不覺得創作意念有問題。（而且，據wikipedia資料，斗零踭在七十年代中，曾經由Manolo Blahnik帶回潮流）

    4. 我不是楊千嬅的fans，至少我不覺得她在這歌的表現很好。

    5. 我不認同的，是你的 “抄襲 is like stealing” 的看法，imitation is the highest form of flattery，如果世界上所有藝術家都那麼避忌“抄襲”或“臨摹”的話，所有任何的art movement 以至很多音樂的潮流都不會出現。

    6. 你所謂“抄襲 is like stealing”，其實是針對“錢”的問題，而不是關於創作吧。你對這一首歌的關注，其實是關於“錢”吧。

    7. 有關創作，我相信，當越少人取得 “專利”，整體創作的發展卻往往是越蓬勃的。

55. 剛巧路過，看見討論版稅問題如此激烈，想回應一個copyright所說的論証。
    你說如kill bill或harry potter被人入稟指控抄襲，証明外國也視為抄襲行為。但我想說明的是，除非法庭最後判決他們為抄襲，否則只有聆訊也不能說明他們有抄襲吧，因為人人（只要有錢有時間）都有入稟的權利，但是否會勝訴又是另一回事。因此，你不可以說因有人入稟所以Quentin Tarantino就是抄襲，而這亦代表你這個論點根本與現在討論的問題無關，你不能引用此作為你的任何論據。

56. 跟七十年代純音樂，Barry White ， Love’s Theme 好似，航空公司廣告歌

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIkLED1H0BA