 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Matthew Miller
|
| | | (...) I'm pretty sure removing things like this is editorial control, wholesale or not. (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Prolly. But removing the whole thing is "less" control than excising words but leaving the rest. Or so I seem to recall Prodigy's lawyer telling me about 15 years ago when I first started looking into this topic. And "less" control, especially (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Hmmm...that's alarming...that shouldn't be happening. Are you SURE? What's the URL of a thread display, for example, that's not threading properly? I ask because of the way lugnet newsgroup canceling works -- when an article is canceled, it (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) No. I think it was user error! I went back to try to reproduce it and saw that the "linear all" was purple. Meaning I clicked on linear all when I thought I was getting "nested all" view instead. So never mind. However, consider putting (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) This is so far from editorial control that light from editorial control takes ten million years just to reach here. The reaons were purely _legal_ and by specific request from TLC. Editorial control would be if TLC requested removal of, say, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) I understand that you're acting in good faith and make no accusations against you. However, since this information was apparently available to the public before being posted to LUGnet, I have a hard time seeing how it's not editorial. It's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, hmm, I guess you have a good point. It depends on who you consider to have done editing when you raise the question of editorial control. For example, I certainly do not think that I exercised any editorial control -- not by any stretch (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Except, of course, that TLC wouldn't have had permissions to cancel the articles if they were posted to Usenet. I suppose they could rogue cancel them but they'd get into a real storm if they did that just because of what the articles (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) That's how I see it, ya. --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I disagree. Well I am adding fuel here, and I'll say that I think you ought to do what Lego asks when it's reasonable to do so, but it is always your "choice" to do or not do something. Even if Lego came over to your house and pulled a gun, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't think that matters. Once information is public, any trade secret protection ends. And if Lego wanted trade secret protection in the first place, they should have made sure that Target made its employees know that they have a duty to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) some. (...) disclosed (...) Well, not exactly. When a company is seeking damages in a suit due to losses, the level of protection that the information is given is a material factor, but not the entiriety. That is, were TLC to sue Target, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) And here is where the problem with not 'getting' the internet comes in. Plus, the information is now in quite a few people's brains (not mine -- memory not good enough *grin*). Do they intend to wipe those clean? (...) Put another way -- (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) in (...) returning (...) We're not there, thank goodness, but again, drawing from memory, there have been cases where *every* person who could be reasonably identified as having seen it (a small number, less than 1000) was informed that the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Not in Canada they cannot...even my employer cannot. (DND) (...) If the info was not labeled, then too late for it to be labeled afterwards. James Powell (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I object to that statement -- it's wording. My opinion is that LUGNET does not exercise editorial control but will, when required, forcibly remove information from its server when it has been notified that the information must be removed on (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) excise (...) fashion. (...) requirement. (...) It doesn't. Enforcing the T&Cs is exercising editorial control. I've said this a bunch of times, I think almost all of us want you to do it, so it's not about whether you should do so or not, it's (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) That is in fact what happens here. Everything passes through unimpeded. However, if, after the fact, something has to be removed for legal reasons, how is that considered having exercised editorial control? (That is a facetious question.) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Errr...That should read "That is not a facetious question." --Todd (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) This may be a dead horse, but I'm just reading this thread now. I think part of the muddiness is that Larry is talking from the side of how the law will be applied. A word can have a very different meaning in court than in Webster's (or (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —David Low
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Todd, what would you do if someone posted set numbers and names that they had legitimately obtained from www.lego.com? (see (URL) ) --Dave (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Nothing, of course. --Todd (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) This is the problem with accepting funds from TLC. Cynics will say that TL is TLC's pocket now, and that this is just a sign of things to come blah blah blah. Although, I very much doubt that is the case. To avoid any fuss in the future it (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Nah. I'm a cynic (wanna see my ID card?), and I don't think this is the case. Steve (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't think that's a correct assumption. According to BradJ and LSI Legal, this was information (especially the pricing, which could change between now and the release) which was not intended for the public and should never have been made (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, I will chime in here by saying that Meijer has a policy considering things of this nature to be company sensitive. I know that the Systems department have special rules in regards to situations like this. Scott S. -- (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Apparently not. And that does change the situation in my mind. (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) I'm going to start by saying that I fully understand the Lugnet admins actions in this case. It's far better for the relationship with LEGO to move quickly and do what they request, and *then* follow up to see if it was right or not. But at (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Geoffrey Hyde
|
| | | | | From what I've seen of this information leak, it's a case of shutting the gate *after* the horse has bolted. If six million people suddenly knew WW3 was coming, but shouldn't have, because of some government department's stuff-up in transferring the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | I'm not sure where the best place to hang this in the tree is, but here it is. Many people have argued that now that the information about the 2001 sets is openly available, Lugnet should not bow down to TLC's request to remove the information. My (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I don't claim to know all or even many of the details, but I'll bet that no one person "blew it" and that it's the result of poor communication on a number of levels, most likely starting at the level between Target's lawyers and Target's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | (...) Sorry, but here we're going to have to disagree. If Lego and Target have an agreement (which is starting to become apparent), then someone is responsible for the fact that the info got out. If Jorge signed something when he was hired saying (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
