Subject:
|
Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:57:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
408 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > So, just to be clear, LUGNET is no longer a place we should post:
> >
> > - Price lists gleaned from Toys R Us computers?
>
> Those would probably be the property of Toys R Us, so you'd have to ask them
> to know for sure whether it's OK.
Ah, but they're clearly taken from a missive sent to TRU from TLC, and as they
aren't on the shelves, aren't yet meant for public consumption. Right?
I do agree, though, that since the information is being taken from a TRU
computer, that the "permission to post" would have to include TRU in some way.
> > - Pointers to websites that have images of sets before their release (ie,
> > TheForce.net, TheOuterRim.com, etc)?
>
> I personally don't see any problem with this, depending on how the pointers
> are worded. Simply reporting upon the existence of something somewhere else,
> no matter how illegal (including posting URLs of information contained on
> other publicly accessible servers, for purposes of discussion) can hardly be
> construed as infringing on anyone's rights. Then again, I am not a lawyer,
> so don't take this as legal advice. I'm sure it's an extremely gray area.
Ah, but in effect, isn't that what Huw was doing? He placed the pictures on
his website, and said, "Hey, there are some pistures here. Take a look."
> Eric, the several pointers you posted last Spring were (in my opinion) 100%
> fine (except for one where you quoted someone else's presumably copyrighted
> text, but I think you voluntarily cancelled that one). Perhaps they were
> even a little bit more on the conservative side than they needed to be, but
> I think you were just trying to be careful and respectful...?
Trust you to hone directly in on the real concern of my post. :D
Well, yeah, I was being careful. I went way too overboard the first time (even
I am more than capable of admitting that) and wanted to be sure to stay on the
conservative side of the line afterwards (besides, what more needs to be said?
"TheForce.net has a picture of set Blahblahblah, here's the URL" pretty much
covers it).
> I know "this is the Internet." I know the Internet is famous for passing
> around millions of things illegally every day.
Well, my feeling run more towards "This is the internet- it's designed to
disseminte information". Yes, we exist in a time when the dissemination of
that information can fall into a huge grey area. And while the Internet is also
good for building communities (and LUGNET is by far the best example of that
I've seen), to me the main feature of it is the information, and even more
specifically, the immediacy of new information. Huw, a person in the UK who I
never would otherwise have heard of, got his hands on information I wanted (in
this case, specifically, pics of the new Adventurers sets). He put them on the
Internet, and now I know what's coming. Would I curl up and die without that
info? No. But I do like having it.
The same is true for the very earliest shots of the Star Wars sets. I was very
eager to see them, and very glad for the LUGNET article that led me to the
shots.
> However, each individual site
> on the Internet is a subset of the Internet and runs by its own local set of
> guidelines, which may or may not agree with the whole. If people want to do
> illegal things outside of this site, fine, I don't (and couldn't) care. And
> I realize that's going to happen whether I care or not, and forever and ever.
> But if people want to do illegal things here, well, this really isn't the
> place for that. That's not why it was set up. It never was, and I think
> this was made pretty clear from the beginning.
And that's fine, it is (as I've said before) your site, and your rules apply.
I still think you're probably one of the most even-handed people I've come
across, and certainly these rules are 100% fair.
My intention is only to point out that there have been circumstances very, very
similar in the past, and nothing has been said, so I think we *all* came down a
little hard on Huw for doing something that was, in the past, pretty much SOP.
> > Both of these things seem to be directly in violation of the new hard-lined
> > terms you're setting forth,
>
> Well, there actually aren't any _new_ terms being set forth. I think
> everything Suzanne said was trying to clarify parts of #6 of the Discussion
> Group Terms and Conditions (which haven't changed since September, 1998).
True, not new terms, but new attention to them, certainly.
> > and yet both are things that have been fairly
> > standard things during the period before new set releases in the past.
> > I remember when the prototype X-Wing was being debated...
>
> I'm not aware of any privacy or publicity rights which were violated on this
> site in connection with those incidents.
But it was essentially the same thing. A picture was posted on the internet,
and someone pointed to it.
The difference here- the only one I can see, anyway- is that this time the
person who posted the pictures on the web is the same as the one who posted the
article pointing us to them, and he got smacked down for it. In neither case
did LUGNET host the pictures, only a link to them and a message telling people
they were there. That's the same as I was doing when I pointed to stuff on
TheForce.Net, except that I'm not affiliated with TheForce.Net. And that's the
only difference.
Unless there's some connection between LUGNET and Brickshelf that I'm missing.
Anyway, my main point is this: If LUGNET isn't a place to share that kind of
questionable, grey area, cutting edge information anymore, that's fine- there
are still places it can be disseminated, such as r.t.l. I think many of us may
have forgotten about r.t.l since LUGNET came about- I know I don't read it
anymore (or didn't), because LUGNET effectively replaced everything I could get
there, and in a more intelligent, more civil, higher signal to noise ratio
environment. But r.t.l is still there, and if LUGNET isn't the place for them,
it's far from the end of the world, because I'm sure the info can be passed out
there. No big deal.
eric
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) Actually- Hugh also posted a comprhensive list of set names and numbers- I think that Todd is saying this violates the T&Cs, while pointing to such a list offsite does not. Chris (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) Yeah, probably (duh :-). (...) I would think so. (...) He did that, yes. But I think he also posted a list of sets and set numbers, didn't he? Those are quite different things, I think. Anyway, like I've said a thousand times already, my beef (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
