 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) I don't agree. (I see the point, but I don't think it's that simple.) What is security -- fundamentally? A file served from under the URL (URL) the /images/ directory is HTTP-password-protected with the username and password combo of (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) What about <www.LEGO.com/topsecret> which when I found it last year had pre- release pics of the original SW sets that were coming out. There was a refernce to this URL in a Mania Magazine (which published the URL) but there was no link to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) I don't think that's clear at all! It may be simply a matter of poor index design, or laziness. Luckily for my argument :) I have a great example of this already. <URL:(URL) is an intended-to-be-public website. Check out <URL:(URL): you won't (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Not necessarily. Does (URL) contain links to all the users /~user directories? In 90% of the cases, in my experience,. not. Same for ISPs. So 90% of the web is not intended to be seen by your logic. Security through obscurity is no security at (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) There were, however, images on the SW portion of lego.com which were being served from that webserver (IIRC, not www.lego.com, though). A simple view source revealed thew existece of that webserver. (...) Yeah. I wonder when I'm gonna get an (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Another example of this: what about a link to <URL:(URL) or <URL:(URL) Is it a violation of copyright to give these links to someone? (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) I thought we were talking about links to images. (...) I think the fact that the images are *gone* now expresses an even stronger intent not to publish. :) (...) But if a web developer at some company makes an idiotic mistake like that (and (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Intellectual exercise (was Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs)
|
|
If I were to post the results of this script: #!/usr/bin/perl for ($i=0;$i<1000000;$i++) { printf "(URL) $i; } to LUGnet, and some of the links that result happen to not have links on any of Lego's linked-from-the-main-page pages, would I be in (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) I would say definitely no, because the intention of the query mechanism is to accept arbitrary input. --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) There's a difference? (I'm serious.) Anyway, Brad Justus' statement is about "images or material". (...) *shrug* Perhaps. The web site that was at <URL:(URL) isn't there any more. Doesn't mean I didn't mean to publish it. :) (...) I think I (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) How do you know that any given URL isn't published in some magazine somewhere? Furthermore, the Lego statement doesn't make an exception for this. (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Brad's statement was, to wit, in response to a question by LarryP asking about links to images. (...) If you're willing to respect the wishes regardless of legality, then that makes the legality a moot issue. (I don't think anyone was (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Thanks, Lego! (was Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs)
|
|
Brad Justus has posted a clarification of his earlier statement: <URL:(URL) I'm officially satisfied with this -- and pleasantly surprised by the quick response. (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) I should clarify that "I agree" part. I don't think you have the right to provide embedded links to their images on your own web pages via the <IMG> tag, but IMHO you probably do have the complete legal right to share the URLs of any of the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Indeed. But the answer received was much broader than that. (...) The statement talked about posting links being "copyright violation". That's pretty clearly a legal issue. But Brad's new post has corrected that -- I hope the legal people (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) It's a complicated grey area, and extremely difficult to legislate properly. ("Embedded" images are really no such thing -- they're still external.) So I hope this is something that can be kept within the realm of courtesy. Luckily, there (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) I'm a huge fan of Ted Nelson's transpublishing and transcopyright philosophies. I home someday they become feasable. --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) They seem feasible now from a technical standpoint. (Overlooking the bandwidth issue for the moment.) The problem is the banner-ad revenue model of the current commercial web -- if you can look at PS: why does HTML just have the IMG tag? Why (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Actually, I believe the IMG tag is obsolescent. IIRC, you are now supposed to use OBJECT for everything. I don't know that it'll let you embed another HTML document, though. You can use inline frames to embed HTML documents, but AFAIK, they're (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) It's not. APPLET is depreciated, but IMG is still around. (...) I'll have to look at mozilla and see if it lets me include HTML. That'd make me happy. (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
Ben Gatrelle wrote in message ... (...) page (...) pre- (...) there (...) That URL has been published and is clearly intended for public consumption. Frank Filz Posting from my Dad's (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Thanks, Lego! (was Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs)
|
|
(...) And excellent point. :) Me too. (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Intellectual exercise (was Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs)
|
|
(...) You'd certainly be in clear and present violation of the T&C due to spamming. A million lines ~= 80 megabyte. Youch. Jasper (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) No. It doesn't. If claims like that are allowed to stand unchallenged, people will accept them for truth. Jasper (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Because Netscape designers and programmers of the first hour were utterly clueless. The IMG tag was implemented first, and _then_ codified into RFC status. There was at the same time another type of tag for embedding everything in the works at (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Of course. _Most_ Internet standards work this way. The initial standards documents are often descriptions of current in-use procedures. Or at least, a synthesis of such. But yeah, that doesn't mean they weren't shortsighted. :) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Too many things validate as approximately HTML/4.0 compliant for that to be true. Besides, IMG is way too firmly entrenched. I don't think we'll ever root it out, unless we can provide a superior alternative (human nature being what it is, a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Claims like that are allowed to stand all the time, and they still get knocked over in court when they try to enforce them. It doesn't matter what a company claims it's legal rights are, it matters <cynicism> how good their laywers (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Maybe "obsolescent" was the wrong term. I think I meant depreciated...but I'm not sure if that's right either. (...) I agree. I still use IMG because it's easy and it works on almost all browsers. However, I believe that I read that you are (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Depreciated is what I think you meant, but I looked it up at the w3c, and it's actually not. (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
