| |
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:06:55 GMT, "James Brown"
<galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Jasper Janssen writes:
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 06:18:02 GMT, "James Brown"
> > <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Jasper Janssen writes:
> If you insist. But no amount of sniping is going to convince me that
> "webserver"=public. What about firewalls? They're on an unsecured webserver,
> too - does that make them "public?"
What do you mean "firewalls are on an unsecured webserver"? I think
you need some more grounding in the terminology, cause I can't make
head nor tail of what you're trying to say.
If it should happen to be be "otherwise unsecured webserver residing
behind a firewall", then: "behind a firewall" === secured.
> > This is about a claim Brad made that it was _legally_ so. I am not
> > saying it isn't impolite (though I don't agree..), I am saying it
> > isn't illegal. _That_ is the claim that needs to be challenged. I am
> > not going to let some clueless corporate lawyer (whichever company he
> > is from) and an equally clueless judge completely screw up the
> > internet as we know it, if I can help it.
>
> And I am saying I don't care about the legalities. I don't think the
> legalities are an issue. There is sufficient established precedent (IMHO) to
> knock down anyone attempted to claim more under copyright law than they are
> entitled to.
Until the precedent the other way is larger.
> As I said to Matthew very early on, molehills do not equal mountains.
Windmills need to be charged sometimes.
>
> > > > > Certainly it is the originators right to determine "intent to publish", not
> > > > > Joe Public.
> > > >
> > > > Oh. So if I print a few hundred folders, crop-dust them over the inner
> > > > city, then say that everyone who's read it, or shown it to friends, or
> > > > given it away has violated my copyright because I didn't intend to
> > > > publish it, I have a leg to stand on?
> > >
> > > You're being ridiculous - the analogy fails on several levels. For one
> > > thing, the actions you describe are intent to publish.
> >
> > Oh, really? I thought it was the originators' right to determine
> > intent to publish, not Joe Public's? You're contradicting yourself.
>
> No. It was assumed that you are the originator - you said "my copyright"
> You print several hundred copies of whatever, and distribute them randomly to
> the public, in a methed which can't even remotely be construed as accidental,
> then you are either demonstraing "intent to publish" or some form of insanity.
Yes, absolutely. So your claim that it is the originator's right to
determine what constitutes "intent to publish" is clearly and utterly
wrong. You are, as I said, contradicting yourself with every post.
> How so? You wanted examples of how something could be on a webpage without the
> author/company/whatever intending it to be there. Illegal means are as valid
> as any other.
No, they're not.
>
> > Joe Web Designer mistypes a line in a script, and loads all the employee's
> > payroll information to the wrong server, and now it's on the www page.
>
> Tough. Life sucks sometimes.
>
> Life sucks != intent to publish.
Attribute and quote properly, please. You claimed to have written some
things I did here, and you claimed I'd written some things you did.
That is not good in a debate.
>
> > Again, politeness is not the issue here.
>
> I think it is. I don't think anyone here, Brad included, honestly believes
> that LEGO would have a legal leg to stand on. BUT claiming more legally than
> one can necessarily enforce is a standard coporate tactic, and just about every
> company in the world uses it. The possibility prevents the bulk of
> infractions, which is the point anyway.
Oh, great. So just because "everyone" in the "corporate" world uses a
blatantly illegal tactic, we should be happy to see lego do it.
Whatever dude. I'm finished here, come back when you have solid
arguments instead of straw men.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| <snipped .admin.general - this is getting obviously into the realm of just (...) A firewall must exist (at least in part) on a machine that serves the internet at large. Like I said before, a couple posts ago: "you're defining webserver differently. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
