Subject:
|
Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:03:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
106 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> 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?
Yeah, probably (duh :-).
> 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.
I would think so.
> > > - 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."
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 was almost totally
coming from a well-intentioned LEGO fan's point of view (the utmost possible
respect for the LEGO Company) and not from a LUGNET admin point of view.
When I agreed with Huw that his post contained information that everyone
would be better off in the long run if it was cancelled, that part was from
a LUGNET admin point of view.
> > 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
I remember everything. :-)
> [...]
> 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.
Oh, I think we all like having it. :-) As I said on Monday, as a die-hard
Space fan and LEGO enthusiast, I also (personally) enjoyed very much seeing
the information -- not in seeing the scans *exist*, mind you -- that made me
upset -- but in *experiencing* the scans (two very different things, if that
makes any sense).
I might find a $50 bill along the side of the road and be simultaneously
overjoyed and bummed out. This is what actually happened to me when I was
5 years old. I was wicked happy that I'd found that much money. But I was
bummed out that I couldn't keep it, because it didn't belong to me. Someone
had obviously (somehow, I don't know how!) lost it. I turned it in at the
police station, they took down my name and phone number, and then called me
back 2 weeks later to say that no one had reported it missing. So I got to
keep it. Then I could actually be overjoyed. But I think I still asked
around the neighborhood to see if anyone had lost a wallet or anything.
I don't know if you call that a conscience or what. But it's some kind of
moral right/wrong thing going on there.
> [...]
> 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.
That could be... I guess since we all (I should say, those of us who came
down harshly on him) had (and still have) high respect for Huw and were
probably more shocked simply because of this. More shocked than we would
have been, for example, if the same scans had appeared on rebelscumbags.foo
or jedimindtrick.net or wherever. I don't think anyone usually bothers to
come down that hard on someone unless they actually have enough respect for
the person that they would actually expect a difference to be made.
> > > 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.
Definitely.
> > > 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. [...]
Well, that and the list of sets. And the fact that it was a long-respected
community member rather than some unnamed, mysterious person from some other
community that we'll never all meet and grow to love and respect.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) Having missed the original post, I was unaware that he posted a list of set names and numbers. I stand duly corrected. See what happens when you cancel posts? You sow confusion! :D (...) No, it mkes perfect sense. I guess my feelings on the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
