Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:22:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
735 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the extremely clear (and reasonable) policy on catalog scans.
> It is now clear that the retailer catalog is not to be shared (even old
> ones, I guess those need to come down) in any form. I hope that everyone
> who has continued to offer to e-mail scans will at least cease to use
> Lugnet to make an offer (and even in one case bragging about how many
> requests they have filled) which is clearly illegal, and by TLCs
> communication to all of us, not what they consider "fair use".
Fairly reasonable. I don't particularly agree with the "if it's
there on the server for you to see if you mistype a number in a URL
but isn't specifically hyperlinked you can't 'publish' a link to it"
interpretation.
I guess I might feel differently if the Lego website didn't bite so
hard, but given all the other things that are wrong with it, telling
people they shouldn't link to images that may not be (for whatever
reason, maybe even a web designer typo) linked is a little silly.
Not that I care _much_ since like I said, their site is atrocious
and I can't remember the last time I bothered to go through it, but
it does seem silly. If you don't want anyone seeing it, don't make
it available to be seen. I don't keep copies of my bank records on
my website thinking that's safe and ok just because I don't have a
hyperlink to them.
> I would even support Todd's canceling any currently existing messages
> which make such offers, or point to web pages containing such
> information.
I wouldn't.
> I guess we also need to refrain from passing on URLs to sites which leak
> information.
I don't agree with that. This smacks of the various wrong-headed
lawsuits we've heard about where some company has tried to hold Site
A responsible for the information that Site B is displaying simply
because Site A has a link to Site B.
> I'll also support immediate suspension of Lugnet posting priviledges for
> anyone who does this (such priviledges of course being quickly
> re-instated if the action was accidental or out of ignorance, as is
> always the case).
That's Todd's call, but I think it's pretty obvious that mistakes
CAN be made and I still think there is some gray area here - so I'm
not really in support of "immediate suspension" of anything. I'm
not convinced Lego has any business telling me which sites I can
post a link to (like rebelscum.com). I seem to recall Todd
mentioning something like this before but his opinion/stance
concerning it eludes me right now.
Note I mostly don't care about this - I'm far too busy to worry
about posting any of these links myself, but if I notice something
on Slashdot that refers to rebelscum.com carrying some pic and I
think it's neat after looking at it I don't expect to catch any flak
over mentioning it here. It's not like the LUGNET effect would be a
drop in the bucket compared to the Slashdot effect anyway, and if
rebelscum.com is hosting a pic Lego has a problem with then Lego
should take it up with them (but they won't listen) not me (or
Slashdot).
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) I have to agree with you Mike. If Lego has sensative data on its server which the public has easy access to that is there problem... not mine. However, I don't want Todd to end up in jail for hosting data, or (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) I would agree with Mike's interpretation. Whether or not lawyers would, I don't know. If Lego put this information on a billboard in the middle of nowhere, could they complain if I found it and published information on how to get there? It may (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) "publishing a link may be copyright violation" That means that either you were the author of the appropriate RFC and retroactively retracted your putting in the Public Domain of the URL scheme, or that "Hey, the LIC in Orlando has some cool (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
