 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) You'll have to ask TLC -- post to lugnet.lego.direct and see if/how they answer that. Or write via e-mail directly to Brad. I can only speculate that, while they may be annoyed, they may not have any legal grounds for getting upset in the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Err, oops. That sentence makes no sense. I meant is, if I did that, TLC wouldn't care? If not, why not? The same info from the list could then just end up repackaged and still getting out there. eric (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I'm just a little confused, I guess. A list of (possible) upcoming set names, set numbers, and prices was posted. TLC asked you to remove them. Are you really saying that if I went over to lugnet.space and said "well, I wonder what set number (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) To claify, this distinction was reiterated in DCMA (sorry don't have USs # for it), so is still offerable as protection (witness Napster as a example) James P (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has occurred here) may (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
