 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Normally, I would agree with that. That's definitely my philosophy too. :) But in this case, let me just say that I have as good a reason to believe what I've heard as any I could ever ask for. I would almost stake my life on this one. I'd (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Flawed reasoning. NOONE is EVER right ALL the time. Until we hear from TLC themselves, assume anything you want, but don't be SURE of that assumption. Is it a good idea? Depends on how you/TLC think people will take the scans. 1 - angry that (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Well, let's get something straight here first: 1. TLC's policy about vendor/retailer catalogs is only half of the issue. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something known as a "retailer catalog" (which consumers almost *never* see) (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.database)
|
| |
| | Re: About this 2000 dealers catalog
|
|
(...) Like I said, I don't know for sure yet. The reason they're very different issues is because one's a copyright infringement on top of a potential publicity rights violation and other is simply a potential publicity rights violation, which it (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: About this 2000 dealers catalog
|
|
(...) Excuse me? So it's alright to release a textual description of something that is supposed to be 'confidential', but not OK to post a graphic of it???? If you are trying to protect TLC's rights by keeping this information from the public, then (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.general)
|
