Subject:
|
Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:02:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
771 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, James Powell writes:
> But, they were there. I would think that makes Remy's post fine, and
> I think (again this is just personal feeling) that Todd, you should
> apoligise and retract your statement (at least part of it) (post 405
> to announcements). Remy only posted what he had found, and they -are-
> still there. [...]
Wholeheartedly agreed.
> I also feel that Todd, you -must- clarify what is and is not acceptable for
> linking to 'new' images. Otherwise, you cannot complain if someone does not
> follow what you have not said. Make a general announcement, after you have
> thought up what you want to say.
I think we'll have to ("have to" as in "makes the most sense to") see if
we can get some sort of "rulebook" or "playbook" clarifications from LEGO,
hopefully via LEGO Direct, and use that as the standing ground. One thing
becoming apparent here is that when LEGO wrote up their "Fair Play" documents
they never could have imagined this level of fanatacism and info-seeking.
Heck maybe the reason they never mentioned the retailer catalogs on the
Fair Play page is because they thought fans would never see them in the first
place, or maybe they didn't even want people to know they exited. Either
way, I don't think there's a soul alive who's been following along who
could've predicted the extent of this whole mess.
I agree completely, going forward we need to clarify things as much as
possible, hopefully with concrete examples.
> Todd, you cannot expect all of us to have the same feelings towards the
> rights of others when it comes to distributing catalogs and so on. If
> -your- views are xyz, you -own- this site, and are ultimatly resposible
> for it, and you can tell people not to discuss it here.
It still (as it always did) comes down mostly to not breaking that law and
not trouncing on the rights of others, but yeah, exactly how that's defined
has been very weel defined.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| For the sake of clarification, I did send an email to Brad today so he could give Big Brother's views on the matter at hand. I didn't send it until 4:30 cst, so I don't expect a response until sometime next week (considering he DOES respond). (25 years ago, 11-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) Thank You Todd... for being able to see both sides of this issue. I agree with what I snipped, and I think that clarification is a good thing, rather than a bad thing. James Powell (25 years ago, 11-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) But, they were there. I would think that makes Remy's post fine, and I think (again this is just personal feeling) that Todd, you should apoligise and retract your statement (at least part of it) (post 405 to announcements). Remy only posted (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
