Subject:
|
Re: Todd, I'm very much confused!..:-( (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:01:57 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Selçuk <teyyareci> <sgore@STOPSPAMsuperonline.com>
|
Viewed:
|
135 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:FMoDwD.FAr@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > They are from TLC's very own site and Netscape or IE is not a hacking • tool
> > > at all (they enabled us to manually enter URLs, right?) and so on, BUT,
> > > what if they are not from www.lego.com?
> >
> > I don't think it breaks the T&C. It may still irk or unsettle TLC, but • who
> > knows, and, as Larry so deftly pointed out, a company ought to be • prepared
> > for such things. Notwithstanding, it still probably may make the most • sense
> > to play cards cautiously.
>
> Whoops, I read too quickly. You were asking what if it was -not- from
> www.lego.com.
>
> The answer is that it's against the T&C if it invades TLC's privacy or
> publicity (or other rights). Until TLC publishes specific rules or
> guidelines about leaks, it's up to each poster to do the right thing, and
> that may involve their having to consult with an attorney for guidance if
> necessary (if they're walking some thin line or in a gray area).
>
> I can't interpret gray things.
>
> --Todd
Uhm...Uhmmsf...well..Your first answer was OK but..
Let take it from the beginning
* Huw posted a message that he has the scans of not published vendors
catalogs with unreleased (yet) set scans. Assuming Vendor catalogs and
unreleased set info is not legal:
- Posting a link to it is OK according to T&C. Having illegal things on
a site is owner's responsibility, not Lugnet's business, but Todd's business
as being both a fan and a friend of Huw. (I'm OK with that)
- Message was against T&C SINCE it also had set information, which is
preassumedly illegal. (I'm OK with that, too)
* Remy posted a message with full of www.lego.com URLs pointing to
unreleased set pictures
- Posting a link was OK according to T&C, but he was very guilty. Why?
(I lost here first)
- These links were from www.lego.com (publicly available) so he
shouldn't be guilty. Yes, but posting links was not against T&C at the
beginning, regardless of where they are pointing to, lego.com or foo.bar,
wasn't it?) (Here I started to ask myself who am I, where is this place,
etc..)
I saw the thread of Remy case as a whole, and saw that it started and
finished somehow. But I think it shouldn't be started at all, since he only
posted URLs, not the information itself, so nothing done against T&C. All I
want to know is what I couldn't get yet (the difference between the two
cases).
So, I'm confused more now..:-(
Selçuk
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
