Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:14:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> 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 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 not be out in the open, but it is still in a public place.
Now, if they put a cover over the billboard and lock it down, that's something
else.
>
> 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'm not sure what the quality of Lego's website has to do with it, but
certainly companies should use more caution, legal or not.
> > 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.
It is up to Lego to bring legal action against the offending site. Until then,
I don't see the problem with the links, and even then, the links will be
meaningless once a restraining action brings the site down.
> > 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.
Well said (but lawyers may have the last word).
>
> > 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.
Absolutely agree. I must admit, if I think something is extremely dubious, I
might refrain, but that is purely a personal decision.
>
> 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/
I agreed with Mike Stanley. Either the world is coming to an end (Ooooooo,
here comes the year 2000) or he is being quite reasonable. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) They probably would agree. Read this story: <URL:(URL) Note that no decision has been reached, despite the preliminary injunction. Also note that this is actually about linking to documents which violate copyright, so linking to documents (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
