Subject:
|
Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:22:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Jeremy Sproat writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Sproaticus wrote:
> > > The first thing you can do, instead of bouncing the server, is to bump • off the
> > > folks who *flagrantly* flout your request to not post sensitive TLC info.
> > > Specifically, *this* info. Personally, I'd yank Remy's posting privs
> > > immediately.
> > I'm missing something here. Retailer catalogs are one thing. They're
> > pretty clearly not for general consumption. But why exactly are the
> > images in question trade secrets? They are posted on a public server by
> > TLG with no protection whatever.
> > Read my post about IP law:
> > http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=3467
>
> I can't help but feel that this logic is flawed. Basically, this argument
> goes along the same lines as, "we are physically free to walk out the 7-11
> door with an unpaid-for pack of gum, so we should be allowed to". But the
> thing is, is that we as TLC's customers have an unwritten contract with TLC to
> act responsibly.
>
> > If it's on a server on the internet, and it's not protected in any way,
> > it's fair game. I think we're getting spun up unnecessarily at this
> > point.
The analogy is flawed. It is illegal to walk out with unpaid-for gum. It is
the internets intent to disseminate information. If you post it on your site,
you are saying "Hey, look at this". That is how it works out practically AND
legally.
> Sure, it's Lego's goof for allowing the images to be accessed from their
> public Web site. But it's *still* proprietary information until TLC
> officially and conciously releases it to the public. And it's our
> responsibility to respect their property.
We cannot interpret TLC intent on putting things on their website. There are
definately companies who leak info to drum up interest (or do it intentionally
(vapor-ware anyone?)). Now that being said, if TLC contacted LUGNET and asked
us to remove the post, I think we should. Even though we wouldn't have to
legally. However, to my knowlege, they haven't.
Steve Martin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) goes along the same lines as, "we are physically free to walk out the 7-11 door with an unpaid-for pack of gum, so we should be allowed to". But the thing is, is that we as TLC's customers have an unwritten contract with TLC to act (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
