(開啟字幕) 陳橋事件疑點重重，是巧合還是早有預謀？宋太祖黃袍加身之謎，20240507

Рет қаралды 142,560

Ай бұрын

趙氏曾任教於美國Bryant University 、北京理工大學珠海學院、深圳大學、香港樹仁大學、臺灣中央研究院近史所，歷任客座教授、副教授、研究員、助理教授、高級訪問學者；現任國立中山大學臺港研究中心研究員（兼任）。
2018年獲中國經濟思想史優秀（一等）著作獎，研究題目包括經濟思想、經濟史、政治經濟學，出版著作二十一部，論文三十餘篇。英國權威出版社 Routledge給予 "中國和西方頂尖學者（leading Chinese and Western scholar）" 的評價。
《趙氏讀書生活》，一個歷史學者的平台，分享學術、社會、政治經濟觀察，請以每月5元美元獲取收費平台Patreon的參考資料、獨家專欄、史學和哲學短講分享：
/ chiusreading
或於KZbin 上按加入成為會員，可獲影片的參考資料
/ @gctalk
/ drgavinchiu
PayPal.me/chiusreading
工作洽談：higavinchiu@gmail.com
Wise開戶連結：wise.com/invite/u/sinc262
virgin 上網連結：aklam.io/lRJws0
octopus電媒連結：share.octopus.energy/straw-li...
Gavin Sin Hin Chiu (趙善軒) is a well-known academic with expertise in the areas of economic thought, economic history, and political economy. He has taught at several universities, including Bryant University in the United States, the Zhuhai College of Beijing Institute of Technology, Shenzhen University, Hong Kong Shue Yan University, and the Institute of Modern History at the Taiwan Central Research Institute. He has also served as a visiting professor, associate professor, researcher, assistant professor, and senior visiting scholar.
In 2018, Dr. Chiu was awarded the first-class award for outstanding works in the history of Chinese economic thought. He has published twenty-one books and more than thirty papers, and the UK's authoritative publisher, Routledge, has evaluated him as a "leading Chinese and Western scholar."
In his book, "The Political Economy of the Han Dynasty and Its Legacy," Dr. Chiu and co-author S.C. Kwan examine monetary thought in the Han Dynasty and Three Kingdoms period (220-280 BCE). In the article, "The 'Cold War' between Ho Ping Ti and Academia Sinica. The Changing Political Identity of the Overseas Chinese," Dr. Chiu examines the political and intellectual conflict between Professor Ho Ping Ti and Academia Sinica during the period of 1967-1990.
Dr. Chiu is also the co-author of "The Income of the Customs during Late Ming and Early Qing," a book review of the "Note of the Customs Duties in the Qing Dynasty, 1644-1911," and the editor of "Search from the Beginning: The Intellectual Thought and Education in pre-Qin and Qin-Han Dynasties."
#徐時論
#陳橋

Пікірлер: 484

@gctalk Ай бұрын

《趙氏讀書生活》，一個歷史學者的平台，分享學術、社會、政治經濟觀察，請以每月5元美元獲取收費平台Patreon的參考資料、獨家專欄、史學和哲學短講分享： www.patreon.com/Chiusreading

@Yuenming-Tao-TX Ай бұрын

劉生快速回加記同d首捉 say bye bye。其實人人都是為自己利益。冇唔妥。

@wanggok Ай бұрын

@@Yuenming-Tao-TX 妥膳柱李

@ASUASHUI54351 Ай бұрын

Yeah, 成功又捉到 🐒 上來圍爐洗版了🤭🤭🤭🤭

@student167 Ай бұрын

For the copyright issue, I would suggest you take a look at the interesting litigation between two big toy companies: Mattel vs MGA Entertainment in around the year 2000. There was a toy designer (Carter Bryant) who worked for Mattel for two close periods (8-month hiatus), closely associated with the Barbie Dolls team. Later, he switched jobs to MGA Entertainment and developed a new product series called Bratz Dolls. Bratz Dolls surpassed Barbie Dolls and became the number one toy idol for girls. The argument arose because the designer claimed that he came up with the idea for Bratz Dolls during the period when he was not employed by Mattel, between his two stints at the company. However, he was accused of having the idea while still working at Mattel even though he had not presented his idea to the management. Mattel presented evidence (as claimed by Mattel, I didn’t verify if the court had adopted the evidence or even if the evidence existed) that the designer had used the Mattel fax machine to send his sketches and discuss the idea with Mattel staff, both of which are considered Mattel resources. P.S. All verdicts and points of view are from the USA only

@student167 Ай бұрын

I am not sure if my reply has been removed by YT AI, I didn't use any offensive language or content 🙆‍♀ I tried to upload it again ...

@kjbbcc223 Ай бұрын

😂用花生事件呃人入黎聽歷史課，不失為好事🤣

@user-sn3wg1uc3n Ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂❤

@lilychiang9866 Ай бұрын

趙博好鬼馬😂

@ycc2363 Ай бұрын

聽到最尾有講到，又可以講用歷史講今次事件.

@user-xp2ey2iv3q Ай бұрын

由細到大最憎上歷史，趙先生令我有改觀！不錯，多謝你！

@yonnieyip3717 Ай бұрын

鬼馬呀你😂俾標題坤咗入嚟添（不過我喜歡），不失趙博一分材料一分話👍

@peteryin5151 27 күн бұрын

感謝分享❤❤

@kkkam6987 Ай бұрын

趙先生早晨，大家早晨，多謝趙先生分析同分享，多謝！多謝！

@hokawah8617 Ай бұрын

早晨趙老師😊

@fredchui8720 Ай бұрын

謝謝分析

@chrismok3769 23 күн бұрын

清楚解釋。謝謝！

@edtjfc1 Ай бұрын

趙博；應該是missing pieces to the puzzle. 其餘，分析同利用自己的專業及經驗，非常中肯，一語中的👍👍

@gracefulwong2131 Ай бұрын

趙博真是趙博，分析，引導我們用正確思維去了解分析，千萬不要簡單作出評擊，陰謀論而去互罵，惡意的對罵毫無意義，造成更大傷害，當然最理想的是陳家和劉先生坐下雙方坦誠，劉先生若果做不足之處，坦誠道歉，更值得尊重

@Tomysit416 Ай бұрын

聽咗咁多個KOL講述陳橋事件，都係趙博嘅見解最獨到😂

@pw2.038 Ай бұрын

抽死人水抽得好靚，簡直二次傷害，笑得開心啲喎

@hippolam6935 Ай бұрын

世界大同時代（表面）稱帝必亡

@phillispong3421 Ай бұрын

多謝你❤詁不到您乜開聲.是是非非為何！

@graceling0529 Ай бұрын

內容非常精彩👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼但可否改善一下懶音問題🙏🏼🙏🏼

@LAURA-oz8ls Ай бұрын

我想請問趙博，「金匱石室」係趙匡胤定袁世凱發明㗎 ? 定係其他人發明㗎 ? 謝謝 !

@SunShine...123 Ай бұрын

趙博講歷史真好聽

@chiuidy1854 Ай бұрын

趙博，請問邊度有得驗基因標基

@gctalk Ай бұрын

魔方

@waichang Ай бұрын

趙博講多D思考方法，現代人必備知識

@lowyamfai7753 Ай бұрын

推薦看粵語頭條😊

@losertai1094 Ай бұрын

此陳橋彼陳橋，看似無關，卻能連結關鍵相連，因勢利導佩服佩服。靚抽。

@pw2.038 Ай бұрын

抽死人水仲要咁開心😢 佩服佩服

@angushonghk Ай бұрын

見好多人真係喺家屬冇提供實質證據下就當咗家屬版本嘅一面之詞係"事實"，"事實"但死冇對證"。

@cannychan8191 Ай бұрын

其實好多人見證事件始末, 但礙於種種理由, 不便公開~~~

@tcp0023 26 күн бұрын

已經公開啦，有多個人證，對話截圖都有

@gal8872 Ай бұрын

趙老師，講得好！👍👍👍

@siuwong1341 Ай бұрын

你的分析最好 28:00

@florenceleung7251 Ай бұрын

好想聽趙生講如何出版運作嘅細節😅

@markcheung1974 Ай бұрын

好多人先放立場，不問是非，趙博解释得很好

@JasonY2024 Ай бұрын

分析得很中肯，謝謝！

@user-qe4zr6pz2x Ай бұрын

畫頭隻黑手很有當年衛斯理書面相片既風格😂

@chingg6702 Ай бұрын

有料

@gal8872 Ай бұрын

講得好

@ivanwong9189 Ай бұрын

Good sharing

@chrisip1071 Ай бұрын

Thanks

@mimihello4410 Ай бұрын

謝趙博分析～分享某人早謀取利益

@KKL838 Ай бұрын

多謝趙博獨特分析！

@Gozilla2037 Ай бұрын

感謝趙博士從作者、版權、出版商、發行制度和相關法律的方向，去分析香港陳橋事件，現時很多KZbinr都放錯了焦點，只集中討論細劉的人格、背景和陳小姐的動機等。

@user-hq8su4py5r 18 күн бұрын

還說什麽所謂博士專家，連陳橋先生的女兒都搞錯！！！

@Gozilla2037 17 күн бұрын

@@user-hq8su4py5r 請問他講錯了陳橋先生女兒的哪一方面?

@TheSimpy1997 Ай бұрын

尊敬的趙博士, 小弟取消訂戶原因： 1. 吸晴題目造成人格謀殺之效, 冇必要；以宋史包裝以為靚抽, 買弄小聰明,,. 2. 以涉及末成年少女權益的「給19歲的我」類比私人商業糾紛的「陳橋事件」, 藉此証明批評的需要性, 混淆公眾利益的嚴緊界限. 3. 明明接觸過城寨節目,卻說不認識劉細良, 世界仔典型劃清界線行為, 完全違反小弟對你一貫的看法. 無論如何, 多謝你的貢獻, 受益多時.保重

@gctalk Ай бұрын

Bye

@gctalk Ай бұрын

汝安則為之！一分材料一分話，這是我堅持的原則，你要為你自己的立場而去選擇性作出判斷，甚至乎歪曲事實，我也沒有辦法。多謝你曾經的支持拜拜。

@TheSimpy1997 Ай бұрын

趙博士, 小弟親眼見過你因抗爭而被拉上警車, 且學識豐富, 文武兼備, 你不像其他KOL私怨攻心, 公私不分, 此刻仍對你尊敬；但就是因為你標榜「破障」, 而在第一身的陳橋缺席聆訊時, 能據而立論的全面証據可信存疑或缺, 嚴謹論政者最好保持沈默, 否則怎能避嫌吸晴自利呢, 又或間接引導聽眾誤判呢？這就是為什麼香港法律不容許法庭審判案件時作公開討論的原因. 如我有聽錯而你認為有歪曲之處, 望指賜教, 如有錯, 請諒！

@gctalk Ай бұрын

@@TheSimpy1997 不認識就是不認識，我跟劉生素未謀面（只在書展遠距離望一眼），又沒有聽佢節目，本來也沒有興趣深入討論，但發現思障太多，故在直播中破之：一、同路人不應互相攻擊。這是典型的以"誰"（who）來判斷問題，而不考慮"什麼"（what）和"為什麼"（why）的思維。（在國難當前，大家都是炎黃子孫，理應一致對外，扶清滅洋）二、這件事情應該在法庭上處理，不應在網上進行公審。世事除了法律，還包括道理和情感。關於張婉婷、新何太、刀削面等事，也不一定要訴諸法律，即使有眾多評論者，其中也包括某些人士。我查證了美國老年人欺詐案件中訴諸法庭的比例大約為1/44，尤其是在民事訴訟中，考慮到資源和成本，有時甚至需要跨州甚至從國外回來參加庭審。三、事件沒有公眾利益，這也是我最初的想法，但後來聽了其他人的分析後改變了看法，比如李慧玲提到劉氏夫你曾公開表示出版這本書是出於「義務」，這就不再僅是商業糾紛了。聽完李小姐的分析後我才決定直接討論這個事情。最後，不止一位網友提到，他們是通過看我在那個網絡台的節目才認識我的，這與我的記憶完全不符。那天徐少樺邀請我在觀塘的翠華餐廳吃飯，之後上樓做了一集嘉賓，所以我實際上沒有見過他們。目前已知的內容： A 根據南華早報資源部主管的訪問，當日劉氏夫婦已九十大壽為名，而索取版權費的豁免，南華早報並不知悉是商業活動，由於以為是生日禮物，所以沒有向陳橋確認。 B 劉氏夫婦在2017年的節目曾經指這件事是義務，希望讀者能夠支持訂購。 C 陳橋在2019年回港時，曾經向至少六位傳媒同行申訴此事，並告訴他們曾經與劉氏聯絡，劉叫陳上他的辦公室商討，但同行認為此事會令到陳橋身心受到影響，所以勸退他。 D 記協前主席受訪表示，對於有人以記協的名義意圖為陳橋籌備出版和九攝影展毫不知情，而且未經過中委會討論。討論這個課題，當然是吃力不討好，必然會流失一些他忠實的聽眾，如果一些本來訂閱和觀看較少的頻道，或可以借這個題目增加流量，但對我來說，我的訂閱本來跟他不相伯仲，觀看人數稍高，本應可以置身事外，但一分材料一一話，沒有材料不說說話，既然材料眾多，也不能不說。

@TheSimpy1997 Ай бұрын

謝謝回應第一, 同路....完全同意. 第二, 你的標題, 已隱含引導, 且具傷害, 弱化討論, 強化結論, 欠公允.第三, 李慧玲標寫「騙局」, 引多人証詞話陳橋從冇答應給予版權, 但劉細良七分鐘影片所示南早合同, 明確顯示版權屬南早所有, 且無說過「非商業」之類文字, 初印1000, 限印5000, 何來得出「生日禮物」之論, 怎看都是嚴緊的商業文件, 李慧玲的指控, 弱不禁風. 至於你說序和名字都有版權, 正是如此, 七年不控, 是否已有口頭協議, 陳自知理虧, 勝算冇望？ A. 荒謬, 除非劉所持係假合約, 否則上到法庭, 叫法官點信係「生日禮物」, 「不知悉是商業活動」 B. 印1000本再版非名人歷史圖片刊物, 坊間大把, 2017正值尚書房備受下架之迫而臨結業, （其後果要免費送出千多本被退回書本執笠收場,） , 以謀利角度, 蝕多過賺機高, 且冒隨時被封場辦不到相片展而血本無歸, 「義務」一詞不過份. C. 片面之詞, 若真含恨深切, 又有真憑實據控訴劉為騙子, 不上庭也可叫人代筆唱衰, 以洩心頭之憤；還是書成之後不按口頭協議脅索巨款（老蕭透露）, 偏遇劉氏夫婦寧不辦書展, 一拍兩散, 賺蝕順其自然, 恰可解釋為何相片展取消, 陳直到死後無大吵大鬧, 無留一字一句以訴冤屈, 劉不到陳靈堂拜祭......這也是一個故事. D. 告佢, 唔好得把口.以還公義. Follow the money.....純生意論, 陳不費一分一毫係90壽誕向世人展示其畢生成就, 而劉甘冒風險全資出版冷門書籍, 微利收場（有數得計,若是大錢, 早已嘈到拆天）雖非大團圓結局, 到死不往來, 但各取所需, 怨而不破, 直到陳橋老伯歸天才爆大鑊, 引爆用意何在？各方圍攻何解？被插者固然要撿討凌角過露, 領插者又有否誤信公義之名, 而錯導類文革之風呢？累了, 言盡於此, 謝鴻文回應, 敬意仍存, 再見.

@user-xh4em5qp3u Ай бұрын

終於發聲!

@gary9936 Ай бұрын

好學術性的分析聽了好像好厲害但聽不明白謝謝大大的分析

@dyuen9780 Ай бұрын

Thx

@danielyeung7765 Ай бұрын

Very very good 💯💯💯

@kwylwy Ай бұрын

👍 幾句就將陳喬先生攝影集重點講咗出嚟

@tho9211 Ай бұрын

聽完這集，記起中學上中史課阿sir講故果種生動令我哋全班專注聽書回憶返哂黎，謝謝趙博！

@angelay1744 Ай бұрын

個pptx 超正!

@finallv8070 Ай бұрын

趙生讲得真系好

@katiefish310 Ай бұрын

中大系上出版用畢業生既文出版文集呢件事，反而無咁多人討論。果單先真心癲。。。。

@user-jo6xi2cm4e Ай бұрын

21:33 香港版陳喬事件 .

@chaoxianli-ff8gp Ай бұрын

善軒老師，可以講一講中唐時期的兩稅法、節度使制度，晚唐五代間梁晉之爭（朱溫與李克用之爭），後唐李存勖重用伶人，五代各有特色，當中馮道乃不倒翁也。

@cle0p Ай бұрын

以幫人賀壽為名，呃咗個出版權返來，佢係拎錢出嚟投資，然後亦得到不錯的回報。但壽星公就乜都無，仲要幫你做簽名會，真係癲癲地！

@jennywoo2340 Ай бұрын

對唔住，聽到後面才有最重要的分析，唔好意思！

@QRQR777 Ай бұрын

不帶一些偏見論述，比較好。

@leunghay2839 Ай бұрын

可惜事件已去到把劉細良與其他KOL的私人糾紛拉上，與及發展到攻擊劉細良的人格，甚至連及劉細良太太的人身攻擊。大家可以討論事件，拉扯到與出版事件無關的部分，對每位KOL，甚至每位聽眾都沒有好處。

@Over1680 Ай бұрын

非常同意，好似姓徐同姓藩兩位kol，為支持自己論术更屈劉叫fans去羅恩惠網聲討及留言，其實我唔係劉fans ,不過咁啱我有睇劉為事解話嗰兩集，咁樣姓徐同姓藩兩位比人感覺只係因私怨加鹽加醋，就算真係有發生過嘅事實都冇人會相信啦！

@cannychan8191 Ай бұрын

有咁的人格, 先會做出咁的事, 為何不能討論人格問題??

@cannychan8191 Ай бұрын

@@Over1680 真是良的鐵粉~~相不相信, 你要去查證有沒有發生過這樣的事, 不是說: 我相信敎主~~

@pw2.038 Ай бұрын

死者家屬聽到依一集應該好安慰，果然係同一團火，為咗流量靚抽

@cannychan8191 Ай бұрын

點解事實不能揭破??一個品格和道德有問題的評論員, 目標只是歛財, 能為你做什麼??

@shukyingpoon8654 Ай бұрын

可以講下香港老夫娶大陸少妻問題嗎？呢個問題九十年代到而家都有😂😂

@student167 Ай бұрын

For the copyright issue, I would suggest you look at the litigation between two big toy companies: Mattel vs MGA Entertainment (around the year 2000). There was a toy designer (Carter Bryant) who worked for Mattel for two periods (8-month hiatus), closely associated with the Barbie team. Later, he switched his job to MGA Entertainment and developed a new product series called Bratz Dolls. Bratz Dolls surpassed Barbie Dolls and became the number one toy idol for girls. The argument arose because the designer claimed that he came up with the idea for Bratz Dolls during the period when he was not employed by Mattel, between his two stints at the company. However, he was accused of having the idea while still working at Matte even he didn't presented his idea to the management. Mattel presented evidence (as claimed by Mattel, I didn’t verify if the Court had adopted the evidence or if the evidence existed) that the designer had used the Mattel fax machine to send his sketches and discuss the idea with Mattel staff, both of which are considered Mattel resources. P.S. the verdict and points of view are from the USA only

@user-lk2nv8fo4p Ай бұрын

謝

@takchingyu2087 Ай бұрын

加油！😊

@davidwong825 Ай бұрын

😂邊🈶️咁多巧🈴️ 你又唔係未見識過 ccP’s patience😮

@johnhui1705 Ай бұрын

以為趙博響應老徐，講吓陳橋老先生与劉細良有关攝影集版權之爭議！ 😅 原來上面歷史課！🤭🤣

@user-sn3wg1uc3n Ай бұрын

我都以為趙生咁無聊架😂😂😂😂⋯⋯講呢個陳橋好好多😅😅😅

@Jeremyho439 Ай бұрын

老趙也抽水

@jasonleung2084 Ай бұрын

頂佢😂

@yuanyuanhe5550 Ай бұрын

哈哈，陳橋兵變👍👍👍👍，EQ高

@chiewata Ай бұрын

徐少華趁機會將私怨搭上抽水啫

@clothesadoption1111 Ай бұрын

請問劉細良嗰本嘅書名同排版是否同中橋出嗰本一樣？

@gctalk Ай бұрын

Seen yes

@Sam642009 Ай бұрын

@@gctalk😮咁過份南早、橋叔一蚊無袋全部落入劉細良口袋😮

@kingstonleung1776 Ай бұрын

以為你講橋叔事件，心諗趙博又會花生🥜 點知係陳橋兵變😂😂😂😂😂

@cartierroc1433 Ай бұрын

入嚟睇咗個頭之後，第一個感覺係"伏"。第二個感覺係"服"。😂

@TheSimpy1997 Ай бұрын

好幽默😂

@florenceleung7251 Ай бұрын

喺喎😂

@flpicmacgoo Ай бұрын

多謝晒

@komalei2677 Ай бұрын

1:30 ，字幕顯示「督府」，並非「督撫」嗎？

@bnli8882005 Ай бұрын

多謝！

@cherryleung1804 Ай бұрын

謝謝分享長知識👍👍

@irislo2567 Ай бұрын

論點非常清晰！👍🏻

@gagwong8964 Ай бұрын

此陳橋不同彼陳橋，靚抽😌

@cheongyue8261 Ай бұрын

好圓滑🎉

@user-zr1lh8xg7w Ай бұрын

涿州最有名嘅黑面神係張飛，鄰近地區就有包公，山東宋江李逵，有冇可能一帶地方都混有黑色人種基因？

@magwong8348 Ай бұрын

25:10 2006年版本有南早授權嗎😮

@kicks2047 Ай бұрын

要講再版問題，呢個先係重點。2006版本有冇南華早報授權出版？

@fujitigerone Ай бұрын

一於法律解決告佢囉！

@teresaay832 Ай бұрын

I agree with you, Gavin! The case is not really involving public interests. As a Canadian in Vancouver, I do not doubt what United Front Works in Canada has been working on dismissing the voice of Hongkongers and attack the progress of democracy development which is against what UFW has done successfully in the past 5 years in the Canadian Chinese communities. This is my first observation as the timing is too fishy when Kenny Chiu's bill C282 was just brought up again by the Foreign Interference Commission and the Conservative Party while Simon Lau has been working closely with Kenny Chiu in the past year. As you can see, Canada is different from UK in terms of history, maturity of political system, handling skill with the invasion of CCP in Canada .... Secondly, I do not doubt that Simon & Carmen should have done something wrong in this case, specially on the money paid for the copyright, but I am very sad to see many KOL from Hong Kong whom I know are fighting for HK with justice have kept on expanding the case instead of helping to solve the conflicts.

@happyman3869 19 күн бұрын

Gordon poon 説有一位直播趙高，你認識他嗎？

@evilxwind Ай бұрын

有料有料。幫細艮大叫一聲兵變呀😂

@wanggok Ай бұрын

人無完美，Trump重大鑊啦，點會有習近平咁完美架細良參政，中共便郁佢陳女冇受中共主使，我切柏楊老婆都投共啦

@tcp0023 26 күн бұрын

@@wanggok 你切定都得

@wanggok 26 күн бұрын

@@tcp0023 與中共無關，咁純潔？

@user-zd2ye7lg5l 29 күн бұрын

一本記錄香港歷史的影集變成兩方對峙，何其可悲

@user-ru9rr1ky4t Ай бұрын

睇呢個陳橋仲有營養

@dominic213w Ай бұрын

多謝趙博講宋太祖嘅陳橋兵變。因為我一直都有懷疑呢件事係咪假㗎，宋太祖咁兒戲就做咗皇帝，好似唔太合理。我一撳入睇都以為係食花生，趙博會去講陳橋本攝影書嗰單嘢添😅

@Jack-mm3bl Ай бұрын

大宋開國的非典型政變 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJLce4JuhJh_fdU

@seekyeboo9385 Ай бұрын

好奇問：如何提取趙匡胤基因？又如何肯定所提取就是趙匡胤的？

@simonlee6512 Ай бұрын

族譜至今?

@albertleung3690 Ай бұрын

very good, I think you nail it 100% on Chan vs. Lau story. after being bombarded these days with this, this is my person opinion. I don't know both and no fan of both even though I m a photographer enthusiast. Yes, Lau definitely don't have written permission on the 3 issues you mentioned. He may have oral permission to go ahead to do the book and Lau likely promised to firm up or complete a written agreement on the permission. With the picture of both at the book opening, I think Lau would not be there if he didn't know anything about the book. However, I think Lau wants something before he will sign on the written permission and Chan do not agree, I can only conclude it is money or something else. So this disagreement drag on for 7 years with no law suit.

@keithsit4215 Ай бұрын

好明顯係劇本，似有代理人帶風向，呢種完全唔關乎公眾利益嘅私人業權糾紛，仲要係7年前發生嘅事，點解突然無風起浪？無限放大？試諗下邊個最樂意見到呢個現狀？在下都認為有見地及以公眾利益為上嘅KOL, 實不宜隨波逐浪。

@jc96911 Ай бұрын

4月頭陳橋去世，所以陳女才出聲。你應該先了解事件對錯，而不是以“大局觀”/“有人帶風向”為切入點。

@Sam642009 Ай бұрын

唔好每一次都以陰謀論去睇每一件事，劉細良唔係聖人佢嘅出版社曾經多次發生版權問題，正常黎講佢應該比其他人對版權更敏感，但佢以橋叔名義出相冊居然無同橋叔商量亦都無任何合約就太奇怪，而且佢個女都講咗橋叔一直都有不滿但因為年紀大無精力先無追究，所以橋叔去世之後佢個女先講出嚟。你聽返劉細良嘅講法佢聲稱自己同橋叔好熟但橋叔嘅喪禮佢無去。

@wanggok Ай бұрын

@@jc96911 細良參政，中共好多計搞佢，陳女奉黨命行事

@jc96911 Ай бұрын

@@wanggok 我都支持佢參政，但佢有冇侵犯版權係另一回事wo。有就有，冇就冇。唔會因為中共搞佢，就由有陳橋授權變成冇陳橋授權。你不如話為左搞細良，所以陳女提早毒死老豆。

@chrislee1996 Ай бұрын

劉細良兩公婆貪錢人所共知，經常同合作嘅人反面，正仆街

@xzing9026 Ай бұрын

如果佢有白紙黑字，佢晨早攞咗出嚟，依家連同陳生一齊影嘅相，都叫做證據，七年前博大霧，依家要還，BTW，你條題係世紀抽水題！咁都俾你諗到！

@amylamcf52 Ай бұрын

講真，這集真係一頭冒水，解釋陳橋事件亦買無厘頭

@kinchan5326 Ай бұрын

避重就輕，醒！

@jcngokai-76 Ай бұрын

問題其實就喺僑社身上，而且仲係是否有僑社嘅辦公室有冇易手，如果有嘅話就可以知道有人特登搞sideshow

@user-vo4lq6op7b Ай бұрын

人生匆匆過一笑泯恩仇

@genieeye5783 Ай бұрын

赵博你好！想请教一个无厘头的问题：粤语里的口语“你靓得好交关”里的“交关”这个形容词，会不会跟宋代的纸币交子和关子有渊源呢？🤣

@meilingng7601 Ай бұрын

講得好啱！分析清楚。

@manp3002 Ай бұрын

真的不想黃鬥黃！各位花生友包括與事件無關的一眾評論員，劉細良事件最好就係等法官判決，不過見到有人報私仇有人幸災樂禍有人落井下石有人扮公義搏流量，尤其仍然留港的kol，未見他們批評時弊為港人發聲，但就這件與民生無關與政制無關的，最重要自己既不是知情者又與事件毫不關連的卻日日做判官，使唔使講足半月咁多呀，總之醜態百出，現今香港人受政治打壓，黎智英案47人案等等一連串的冤案屁都不敢放個，連愛國港官議員毛都唔敢郁條，你地唔敢出聲要自保怕觸紅線怕比拉，唯有自隊黃絲最安全，（說不定有功添），以上一切是明白的，但使唔使去到咁盡講咁多日似乎未有想停口的意思，好在還有點安慰還有好多有影響力的網紅kol未有參與打狗隊中，記得鄭大班好中意講的一句【時窮節乃現】，今時今日真係看得清清楚楚，為2餐嗟，明白的，何不像建制人士坦盪盪地擺明車馬為2斗米助紂為虐做港共打手，假正義落井下石（劉細良到底也算是個黃絲），踩住別人的膊頭上去摘果子，食相太難看，我們不必盲目撐黃，是敗類就要清除，但理智的真港人應該知道如何表達正義，適可而止

@timfung9535 27 күн бұрын

其實有聽開城寨嘅人都知道細良好Q吋，就好似當年鄭經𨌺咁嘅性格去批評時事先好聴，我對細良係咪一個卑鄙下流賤格嘅人一點興趣都冇，只係唔想城寨新聞消失因為呢件事而消失。

@thisisnottheend4392 Ай бұрын

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

@chesuilun Ай бұрын

It's better to search more at the background of Chan Kiu.

@pcc9784 Ай бұрын

On the topic of Mr. Chan, you are just "Riding Wall"!

@WilsonDrive001 Ай бұрын

邏輯十分清晰，內容涉及古今，精彩👍🏻

@kileunglau2920 Ай бұрын

解釋合邏輯！

@user-xp2fk4dh9w Ай бұрын

👍👍👍

@user-gp1it5gf9z Ай бұрын

初期多說趙博偏幫刘細良，專心聽後，果然是，不止偏幫，間中做埋"辯護代言"😢

@gctalk Ай бұрын

聽力有問題嗎？

@leoho4102 Ай бұрын

如出一轍

@holun168 Ай бұрын

還以為以故南華早報當年攝影師，陳橋先生

@user-dc2el2vl8v Ай бұрын

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👍👍👍

@WTO101 Ай бұрын

點解唔私下解決，圍攻也不好方法，由法律解決不更好嗎？

@1967lks Ай бұрын

講得啱細良應該告佢啦

@jianli4787 19 күн бұрын

趙先生。學校有你版權當然可以想出就出，只不過冇出既然目的，出都折本。如果你有咁既商業價值，你自然就會一早保護好，合約會增加保護你版權既條款。但係如果你冇咁做，學校的確出你文集賺錢都你都吹唔漲。署名權係指學校唔可以話果D文章唔係你寫，並唔係出書需要你批准。你可以參考下動漫電影。漫威有D人物版權賣左比其他公司，就連漫威自己都唔可以拍該角色，擁有版權既公司想點拍就拍，拍成點根本唔需要同原作團隊漫威交代。（當然有可能會揾漫威商量，係因爲想提高產品既質素，並唔係法律義務。）當然版權法條文千差萬別，具體權益可以差好遠，陳橋事件未必可以相提并論。劉生經過《南早》授權有可以使用全部陳橋相片。係全部而唔係部分，按照《南早》雇傭合約陳橋全部相片版權都歸《南早》所有，包括陳橋私藏既果D，只係《南早》冇去追。文字説明同序言版權劉生並未獲得。至於照片版權是否從《南早》処呃返來，根本口同鼻拗。雙方口供都有錯漏同事後改口既情況。、至於話信邊個，一邊係攝影師，另一邊係媒體同政治人物，後者自然牙齒印比較多，容易多仇家抹黑名聲顯得冇前者咁好。譬如趙博，都可以話某同你同臺做節目多時既什麽塔（真係唔想提佢，正垃圾）親身指你有問題。而好多其他人都係出於同情“弱者”。