http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/ the name is Famous, not Donald... Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:17:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/#comment-3780 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:56:40 +0000 http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/#comment-3780 hey..how r u??famous duck still standing eay???yummylolly gone with the wind..muakakakaka...how's life? hey..how r u??famous duck still standing eay???yummylolly gone with the wind..muakakakaka…how’s life?

]]> http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/#comment-1661 Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:59:00 +0000 http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/#comment-1661 Godfrey v Demon Internet has been distinguished in Bunt v Tilley [2006] 3 All ER 336; [2006] EWHC 407 (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/407.html). This was also a case of internet libel against an ISP and Eady J said ‘I am also prepared to hold as a matter of law that an ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the internet cannot be deemed to be a publisher at common law. I would not, in the absence of any binding authority, attribute liability at common law to a telephone company or other passive medium of communication, such as an ISP. It is not analogous to someone in the position of a distributor, who might at common law need to prove the absence of negligence… There a defence is needed because the person is regarded as having "published". By contrast, persons who truly fulfil no more than the role of a passive medium for communication cannot be characterised as publishers: thus they do not need a defence’. Godfrey v Demon Internet has been distinguished in Bunt v Tilley [2006] 3 All ER 336; [2006] EWHC 407 (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/407.html).
This was also a case of internet libel against an ISP and Eady J said ‘I am also prepared to hold as a matter of law that an ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the internet cannot be deemed to be a publisher at common law. I would not, in the absence of any binding authority, attribute liability at common law to a telephone company or other passive medium of communication, such as an ISP. It is not analogous to someone in the position of a distributor, who might at common law need to prove the absence of negligence… There a defence is needed because the person is regarded as having “published”. By contrast, persons who truly fulfil no more than the role of a passive medium for communication cannot be characterised as publishers: thus they do not need a defence’.

]]> http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/#comment-454 Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:00:30 +0000 http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/#comment-454 ah sedak bang! ah sedak bang!

]]> http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/#comment-444 Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:36:02 +0000 http://famousduck.com/klcc/suria-klcc-portrait-of-the-roof/#comment-444 Bila mu nak jual racket tu kat aku...mu beli yang baru la...hehe.. Bila mu nak jual racket tu kat aku…mu beli yang baru la…hehe..

]]>