Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 05:02:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
239 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > Editorial control would be if TLC requested removal of, say, an unfavorable
> > review of, say, 7190 Millennium Falcon. (And of course they'd be laughed at
> > if they asked that. Not that they'd ask that anyway.)
>
> 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 something Lego didn't want people to talk about -- just like
> they might not like people to talk negatively about the Millennium Falcon.
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 of the imagination. I felt that I was acting as a computer
to cancel by request. On the other hand, if you consider that I was acting as
an agent (in the programming sense) for TLC, then you might conclude that TLC
was exercising editorial control. I suppose I would find that hard to disagree
with since I don't claim to understand this subtle area of the law. All I
know is that if I'm formally requested to remove something which is clearly
a leak, that I'd damned well better do so.
Now, it's a gray area, of course. Let's say TLC asked me to remove set number
1886 from the database. If they asked that, I'd politely refuse, because I
know that I obtained the information about the set first-hand through the 100%
legitimate channel of LEGO Shop-At-Home Service on the phone. So, there's an
example of information which TLC probably doesn't want out and about, yet which
they would have no grounds for calling the removal of. OTOH, if they formally
asked that 6500 (a 1996 never-released Town set) be removed from the database,
I think I'd probably have to comply with that for legal reasons since AFAIK
the information may have come from a retailer catalog originally. Well, my
brain hurts now.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) 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)
|
33 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
|
|
|
|
