| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> > Yeah, this whole thought of calling it "snooping" seems ridiculous
> > to me.
> > [...]
> > If you run a site and you put things on it you DON'T want people to
> > see and they're world-readable, it's _your_ problem, not their's.
> > This isn't wandering into someone's house because their door was
> > unlocked, it isn't "snooping" - the best analogy I've seen so far is
> > Matthew's back window analogy. If you don't want the stuff seen,
> > don't leave it out there to be seen.
>
> All right. You have this artist friend. She paints things. She invites
> you and fifty other people over for a housewarming party. Great party,
> lots of fun, lots of neat things going on. She's got a couple of her
> latest paintings up on display, even.
>
> Now there's this guy there, he gets kind of sauced, and he wanders into
> your friend's studio where she works on new ideas. He flips on the light,
> puts down his drink, and sees a bunch of white sheets covering what
> obviously are stretched canvases -- works in progress. Biting his finger,
> he shuts the door to the studio (remaining inside), and lifts each of the
> sheets to get a sneak peek at the works in progress. Turns out they're
> actually pretty much completed, and scheduled to be put on exhibit in a
> few weeks. But he sneaks some good hard peeks, and he remembers what he
> sees.
>
> Now the next day this guy gets on the Internet and posts detailed
> descriptions of what he saw, what your friend the painter painted. (Let's
> say she's sort of famous, so people are interested.)
>
> Now, what's the analysis of that?
>
> 1. Does your friend get angry?
>
> 2. Does she have a right to get angry?
>
> 3. Did anything illegal happen?
>
> 4. Did anything immoral happen?
>
> 5. Was any information unlawfully leaked?
>
> 6. Was privacy invaded?
>
> 7. Were publicity rights infringed?
>
> 8. What would happen in court if your friend tried to sue this guy?
>
> --Todd
False analogy. Your conditions don't match Lego's, at least in my estimation.
If you stated that the artist's display was on the street, in public, and has
the other works uncovered in an inconspicuous but equally public location, then
we have a match. What are your answers to the questions above under these
conditions? My answers would be:
1. Yes, at herself.
2. Yes, but only at herself.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. No.
8. Tossed, probably with a reprimand for wasting the court's time.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
