 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) control (...) I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were the legal grounds for the censorship? Scott A (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like. (...) Ding ding ding! Yes! (...) I definitely and without a doubt agree that you do not do that specific thing (whatever you or I call it) here and if anyone is thinking that I (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) John, Was that a cleverly timed joke (if so, nice work! :-) or was your content clipped unintentionally by your WebTV browser? Looking at the incoming HTML-form logs, your browser appears to have chopped the text after the "an". Question: When (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I should add one thing here to clarify the context of what I mean. I'm talking of course about the newsgroups above. In contrast, the sets database is a completely different story: editorial control *is* and probably always will be exercised (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Errr...That should read "That is not a facetious question." --Todd (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Nothing, of course. --Todd (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) 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.) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial control is being or has ever been exerted. Perhaps we are working from different definitions of the term...? My working definition of "editorial control" is to edit or (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Todd, what would you do if someone posted set numbers and names that they had legitimately obtained from www.lego.com? (see (URL) ) --Dave (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) One of them I have heard of is the distinction between an open forum and an edited publication. In an open forum, slander or libel is not the fault of the proprietor, but an edited one creates an expectation of an editorial standard and the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Apparently not. And that does change the situation in my mind. (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) He wasn't censoring as he was not removing material for moral or political reasons... he was exercising editorial control. A very important distinction. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) We may have to agree to disagree on this but there is no difference in kind between "deleting on whim" (which I agree you should not do) and "enforcing the T&Cs" (which I think most of us strongly WANT you to do) from a legal sense. In my (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) A Legalo man is a man who likes Lego but is concerned with Lego Legal matters. A Lego man isn't. His world is building Lego and unless Lego bring out minifig lawyers he has no interest in Lego Legal issues. Tim (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What is a Legalo man? --Todd (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes: It can also open you up to legal issues. By the way what are the legal issues ? I printed out the new set Information when it briefly appeared on the Lego Site I could scan it and publish it in Lugnet. Is (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Because, all things being equal, I think it's morally wrong to delete things, unless required to do so. It can also open you up to legal issues. (...) I believe that it's wiser and safer to require specific documentation and only to delete (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
