 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Some of us just want to know what _is_ acceptable here, so that we are not subject to arbitrary deletions. For example, if I post the URL of where I have 'the list' (hehehe, making it sound evil!), is that a violation of the LUGNET T&C? How (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Is anyone else finding this discussion a small pain in the "a postiori"? You guys are now revolving in tighter circles than even Justice Scalia normally attempts. AND arguing in TWO languages about the meaning of a particular word (arguing in (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Web interface to LUGNET news moving from www.lugnet.com to news.lugnet.com
|
|
(...) If there's a web server there *and* if there is not also a web server. For example, it could be that both news.example.com and www.example.com point to the same machine (CNAMEs or additional A records, whatever). In that case, (URL) would (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Web interface to LUGNET news moving from www.lugnet.com to news.lugnet.com
|
|
(...) Pretty easy to fix, ya -- to make a redirect over to the www.lugnet.com URL. (...) Right...when I said the other day that moving the news stuff to a separate subdomain would solve a lot of problems and that the advantages outweigh the (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Memberships- Where to send them?
|
|
(...) The online form is the only place for signing up, but you can certainly snail- mail the payment. --Todd (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
(...) I agree 100%. --Todd (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:Fz3795.Js3@lugnet.com... (...) Er...in a couple years. Doh! -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (URL) - Zacktron Alliance ICQ: 23951114 AIM: TimCourtne (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
"Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Fz360C.D9t@lugnet.com... (...) with (...) second (...) a (...) ...But prolly not as scary as someone joining the IDF in the fall <grin, duck, grab bulletproof vest, run> :) (...) go (...) (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
(...) <grin> Yup, I remember that'n at the Brickfest, thank goodness that was the second time I met you so I wasn't as scared as I would've been otherwise. You're a scary guy, Tim! <grin, duck and run> (...) Heck, they aren't even less safe than (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
"Mark Sandlin" <sandlin@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:B5B80E2D.3604%s...ink.com... (...) do (...) Yep, know the feeling. Planning the Legofest for this Sunday, I was approached by a 15 year old from Michigan who really wanted to come, but his (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
Unfortunately some parents' knowledge of the internet is limited to what they hear on the evening news. There is a 16-year-old young man who lives near me who was very interested in building together, and he sent me an email so we could talk about (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Web interface to LUGNET news moving from www.lugnet.com to news.lugnet.com
|
|
Hrrmph... I posted a reply to this yesterday night but it never got here. (...) <snip> I've told you before, and I'll say it again - this is a Very Good Thing (tm). The whole concept of moving the news is good for lugnet, and hopefully the execution (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
(...) Clearly. <grin> Surely the cosmic waves were attracted to Larry's magnetic personality. -Shiri XFUT .o-t.fun (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
(...) not. (...) Well, I never make misteaks so... Cosmic rays clearly dropped a missing "some" in my referenced post, the sentence should read: "This info is available about *some* members." Thanks! ++Lar (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Apology
|
|
I apologise Todd, I mistyped your name on a previous posting. As I am unable to cancel a message through the web interface- I am apologising though this message. Sorry. Alex (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Memberships- Where to send them?
|
|
To : Tood Lehman. I want to become a member of Lugnet! However with memberships I prefer to work with snail mail for application and confimration, rather than electronic ( especially whne payments are concerned.) Are you able to provide an adress to (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Uh, not really, some members prefer to keep that confidential. Especially younger ones; my mom specifically asked me to leave out my age (on my webpage too), even though I thought it was silly because everyone here knows all (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Thanks to those who mailed me. (...) *Sigh* (...) Substantiate this please, if you can. I see this time and time again here. Words are words. They not not suddenly change their meaning when one employs seeks legal advise... they are just the (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> <snip> (...) 41. Not to be too picky, but I believe that Age is displayed only if the member wishes it to be. -Andy Lynch (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade)
|
| |
| | Re: FS/FT: OLD and NEW SETS
|
|
(...) I am not sure I agree. I think standards of behaviour have to be enforced, and that while we may make certain allowances, one's age, mental health, mood, or political beliefs (to name a few factors that might be cited by someone trying to (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Let's be clear here, are you asking for someone to mail you a description of the contents (which you've already seen if you've read the thread, but briefly, it's proprietary marketing and pricing information that is the property of TLC), or (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) sway (...) censor's (...) <SNIPPED> So if it is not "censorship", what is it? I missed the posts (e-mails welcome), so I have no real ideal what was in the post. So to me this denial of information, for no solid reason as far as I can see, (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Agreed. And thanks for digging up the cyberlaw cite, those were the very cases I was referring to, although I was incorrect in referring to Compuserve as a common carrier, their defense was the library defense. (Believe it or not, I think (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) This is a very interesting read, IMHO: (URL) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) True, that is usually the case. However, according to M-W, to censor is to "[...] suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". "Suppress" certainly has connotations of "before publication", but "delete" doesn't. Anyway. It's not (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) It depends, could a "reasonable" person find them, if they had "reasonable" knowlage of how it worked? (in other words, if Jorge left his price scanner and I picked it up, and tried looking at _all_ the 71xx series lego, would I have found (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) James, Above, as Mike Timm just pointed out, you quoted something which has absolutely nothing to do with the Terms and Conditions here or the Terms of Use Agreement. What you quoted was from a plan document -- a manifesto -- a public (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Brazenly oversnipping for humorous effect... (...) I Dispute that the T&C say this! In fact I'm pretty sure they say: "All other themes are just scenery or spare parts for Trains!". YCLIU. ++Lar (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I will counter with the info from this post that I made that applies to me, Jorge or anyone else who has "accepted the conditions for posting" here at Lugnet.. see (URL) post referenced is about some Castle set info I had, not anything else (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Ooog ooog ooog :) Actually, I believe that Canadian case law is similar to the US on this point. You either exert no control, or you're responsible. <snip> (...) That's _belabour_. Ooog ooog ooog :) Jeff Elliott (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Who would?:) (...) Again, who would? 8) (...) And I'm adding to it!!!...!!! HaHA!!!!!!!! (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I think Scott is right on this one. While censorship usually has the implication of morality-judgements, it's also used in the sense of keeping things secret. Think of a military censor, watching the media to keep out any information that (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) You, he and I can call it what we want. Actions speak louder than words. Scott A (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) A quick tangent: I didn't hear TLC request that anyone cease and desist from discussing this information or anything else. To the best of my knowledge, the sole request was expungement of preexisting posts containing TLC-sensitive information. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Sorry, but here we're going to have to disagree. If Lego and Target have an agreement (which is starting to become apparent), then someone is responsible for the fact that the info got out. If Jorge signed something when he was hired saying (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Nope. Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the (...) Really? (...) A thread? (...) Secret - TLG would say so, or at least that is what I am told :-) Scott A (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
"Scott A" <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Fz1A7r.MI3@lugnet.com... (...) not (...) Very true - imagine this scenario - You want a particular mini-figure, "Timmy", that is only available in a very large, very expensive set this year. (1) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I am not sure if anyone major could change there production runs now. I suppose knowlege at the lower end of the food chain is much more powerful: If I were a toy shop and I knew TLC had an impressive range on the way - I may not buy (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I think that's too simple a dismissal. See my previous post about isolated facts and how they can add up to Really Big Secrets. "this fact by itself doesn't tell you much" is not a valid defense in and of itself. Besides, unless we're in the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) That's precisely what I'm doing. As long as he's convinced that what he's doing isn't editorial control he's never going to seek legal advice about it, is he? (...) ++Lar (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) So you're agreeing, then? Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the very definitions you quote. Do be clearer in future, hmm? (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I think that's too simple an answer. The list didn't contain any really shocking information. It had some Star Wars sets, which are fairly recognisable by their names- and then it had some other set names which could, frankly, be just about (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I hate replying to my own posts and quoting dictionaries, today I shall do both: From: (URL) verb [T] to remove parts of (something to be read, seen, or heard) because it is offensive or considered morally wrong, or because it is secret She (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) My apologies. (...) I won't sleep tonight (...) Nope. (...) Perhaps that is the problem. I found no firm legal argument, only opinion. I a seminal post perhaps? (...) I'd agree, what Todd did is more important than what you/he calls it. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) simply (...) would (...) I'd say the simple answer is that the competition is watching also. If Sony, Nintendo, Disney, and K-nex all catch wind of next year's release at an early enough time, they can adjust their marketing strategies to (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What, are you TRYING to annoy me here? You've edited Todd's and my words by trimming away most of the sentence to make it look like I am agreeing with Todd's definition. Gentle readers, do not be fooled by Scott's action here. Scott, I'm (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Even if they have directed it at Target- and all their other retailers- it's ridiculous for them to try and stick the cat back in the bag. What possible purpose does it serve? Why does it benefit them to have people on Lugnet not talk about (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) control (...) I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were the legal grounds for the censorship? Scott A (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like. (...) Ding ding ding! Yes! (...) I definitely and without a doubt agree that you do not do that specific thing (whatever you or I call it) here and if anyone is thinking that I (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) John, Was that a cleverly timed joke (if so, nice work! :-) or was your content clipped unintentionally by your WebTV browser? Looking at the incoming HTML-form logs, your browser appears to have chopped the text after the "an". Question: When (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I should add one thing here to clarify the context of what I mean. I'm talking of course about the newsgroups above. In contrast, the sets database is a completely different story: editorial control *is* and probably always will be exercised (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Errr...That should read "That is not a facetious question." --Todd (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Nothing, of course. --Todd (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) That is in fact what happens here. Everything passes through unimpeded. However, if, after the fact, something has to be removed for legal reasons, how is that considered having exercised editorial control? (That is a facetious question.) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial control is being or has ever been exerted. Perhaps we are working from different definitions of the term...? My working definition of "editorial control" is to edit or (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Todd, what would you do if someone posted set numbers and names that they had legitimately obtained from www.lego.com? (see (URL) ) --Dave (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) One of them I have heard of is the distinction between an open forum and an edited publication. In an open forum, slander or libel is not the fault of the proprietor, but an edited one creates an expectation of an editorial standard and the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Apparently not. And that does change the situation in my mind. (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) He wasn't censoring as he was not removing material for moral or political reasons... he was exercising editorial control. A very important distinction. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) excise (...) fashion. (...) requirement. (...) It doesn't. Enforcing the T&Cs is exercising editorial control. I've said this a bunch of times, I think almost all of us want you to do it, so it's not about whether you should do so or not, it's (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) We may have to agree to disagree on this but there is no difference in kind between "deleting on whim" (which I agree you should not do) and "enforcing the T&Cs" (which I think most of us strongly WANT you to do) from a legal sense. In my (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) A Legalo man is a man who likes Lego but is concerned with Lego Legal matters. A Lego man isn't. His world is building Lego and unless Lego bring out minifig lawyers he has no interest in Lego Legal issues. Tim (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What is a Legalo man? --Todd (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes: It can also open you up to legal issues. By the way what are the legal issues ? I printed out the new set Information when it briefly appeared on the Lego Site I could scan it and publish it in Lugnet. Is (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Because, all things being equal, I think it's morally wrong to delete things, unless required to do so. It can also open you up to legal issues. (...) I believe that it's wiser and safer to require specific documentation and only to delete (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I obtained clarification from LSI Legal today on the telephone and it was indeed also true legal request and represented LSI Legal's position. (...) No, it was a formal legal request. And the phone call confirmed this. --Todd (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I object to that statement -- it's wording. My opinion is that LUGNET does not exercise editorial control but will, when required, forcibly remove information from its server when it has been notified that the information must be removed on (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Why are you so afraid of nuking posts on your own system? Do you really have a legal obligation not to delete posts without a formal legal request? I would only call to confirm if you *disagree* with the request, and want to see if they (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) My primary suggestion is to start with the person who posted the information, rather than talking to Todd first. Don't send a threatening legal letter, but nicely say that Lego prefers to keep that information secret, and and ask the poster to (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I don't claim to know all or even many of the details, but I'll bet that no one person "blew it" and that it's the result of poor communication on a number of levels, most likely starting at the level between Target's lawyers and Target's (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Well, I will chime in here by saying that Meijer has a policy considering things of this nature to be company sensitive. I know that the Systems department have special rules in regards to situations like this. Scott S. -- (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I don't think that's a correct assumption. According to BradJ and LSI Legal, this was information (especially the pricing, which could change between now and the release) which was not intended for the public and should never have been made (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Why would you think TLC haven't already complain to Target also? (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I just received an email reply from Brad to my earlier message to him today. He reiterated that the original request was a formal legal request and noted that he could not give permission for me to post the contents of the message. He said (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
exactly... I think Todd did the right thing in responding to LEGO's wishes (formally or informally legal). However, LEGO should have directed this 'problem' at Target - NOT at LUGNET... Just my 2 cents.. Gene (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Actually, probably a few days. Just spoke with the LSI attorney who Brad consulted with before sending the request, and I got the distinct sense that this is a issue which LEGO wishes to address quickly and devote whatever time and resources (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <clip> (...) I can say with confidence (because I am in a business where we frequently get prerelease product info and training material that is covered by a non- disclosure agreement) that LEGO has this in place between themselves and Target. (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <sheepish> Um... OK... I didn't mean that the way it sounded. :-| </sheepish> -Duane (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Whoa whoa whoa! Watch what you say, please. For the record, I have *NEVER* censored a message here and never will. Any message I have ever removed has been under one of four cases: 1. Someone is unable to cancel their own message for whatever (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. I sent a polite request to Brad today asking for his permission to post a verbatim copy of his email, and cc'd the LSI attorney who he originally cc'd on his request, and also left a phone message (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in this case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest of the LUGNET/TLC (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of a 'please (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Not in Canada they cannot...even my employer cannot. (DND) (...) If the info was not labeled, then too late for it to be labeled afterwards. James Powell (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) in (...) returning (...) We're not there, thank goodness, but again, drawing from memory, there have been cases where *every* person who could be reasonably identified as having seen it (a small number, less than 1000) was informed that the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) And here is where the problem with not 'getting' the internet comes in. Plus, the information is now in quite a few people's brains (not mine -- memory not good enough *grin*). Do they intend to wipe those clean? (...) Put another way -- (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) some. (...) disclosed (...) Well, not exactly. When a company is seeking damages in a suit due to losses, the level of protection that the information is given is a material factor, but not the entiriety. That is, were TLC to sue Target, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Eugwe Coral <eugwecoral37@cs.com> schrieb: FyyoI7.MJ1@lugnet.com... (...) What you wrote makes a lot of sence for me, but if this was the case, why did TLC ask Todd to cancel the message and not Target. Note that only Target would be affected if (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J. (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row) TLC's reasoning (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Uh, kinda... NICK #:^< (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I don't think that matters. Once information is public, any trade secret protection ends. And if Lego wanted trade secret protection in the first place, they should have made sure that Target made its employees know that they have a duty to (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) This is the problem with accepting funds from TLC. Cynics will say that TL is TLC's pocket now, and that this is just a sign of things to come blah blah blah. Although, I very much doubt that is the case. To avoid any fuss in the future it (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
From what I've seen of this information leak, it's a case of shutting the gate *after* the horse has bolted. If six million people suddenly knew WW3 was coming, but shouldn't have, because of some government department's stuff-up in transferring the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I disagree. Well I am adding fuel here, and I'll say that I think you ought to do what Lego asks when it's reasonable to do so, but it is always your "choice" to do or not do something. Even if Lego came over to your house and pulled a gun, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
