Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:10:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
504 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 06:05:26 GMT, "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> I don't think it is equivalent to bookburning. In the case of posts which
> are a clear violation of TLC's copyrights (and I think there are some of
> those), Todd I think would actually be legally obligated to delete them if
> asked.
Note that I was talking about retroactive cancelling _an account of
new rules_. Copyright is hardly a new rule.
I'm talking about messages which were legal at the time of posting,
but became contra-T&C due to a change in the T&C.
> Is eBay's deletion of the occaisional slanderous feedback also equivalent to
> bookburning?
Yes. They don't ethically have the right to determine what is
"slanderous", IMHO, because it gives them the illusion of taking
sides.
>
> In the end, since Lugnet is a private resource, Todd has complete legal (and
> moral) authority to cancel any posts he desires if they no longer meet the
> standards he sets for his server.
Sure he has the legal right. He has the moral right. I don't think he
has the ethical right, though.
Not sure if ethical is the right word, but if Todd were to start doing
these sorts of things, I'd defend his legal right to do so, of course,
but at the same time I doubt you'd see me here again.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3883b8a7.264236860@...et.com>... (...) I don't think it is equivalent to bookburning. In the case of posts which are a clear violation of TLC's copyrights (and I think there are some of those), Todd I think would (...) (25 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
