 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Agreed. And thanks for digging up the cyberlaw cite, those were the very cases I was referring to, although I was incorrect in referring to Compuserve as a common carrier, their defense was the library defense. (Believe it or not, I think (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) This is a very interesting read, IMHO: (URL) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) True, that is usually the case. However, according to M-W, to censor is to "[...] suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". "Suppress" certainly has connotations of "before publication", but "delete" doesn't. Anyway. It's not (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) It depends, could a "reasonable" person find them, if they had "reasonable" knowlage of how it worked? (in other words, if Jorge left his price scanner and I picked it up, and tried looking at _all_ the 71xx series lego, would I have found (...) (26 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) James, Above, as Mike Timm just pointed out, you quoted something which has absolutely nothing to do with the Terms and Conditions here or the Terms of Use Agreement. What you quoted was from a plan document -- a manifesto -- a public (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| Brazenly oversnipping for humorous effect... (...) I Dispute that the T&C say this! In fact I'm pretty sure they say: "All other themes are just scenery or spare parts for Trains!". YCLIU. ++Lar (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I will counter with the info from this post that I made that applies to me, Jorge or anyone else who has "accepted the conditions for posting" here at Lugnet.. see (URL) post referenced is about some Castle set info I had, not anything else (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Ooog ooog ooog :) Actually, I believe that Canadian case law is similar to the US on this point. You either exert no control, or you're responsible. <snip> (...) That's _belabour_. Ooog ooog ooog :) Jeff Elliott (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) You'll have to ask TLC -- post to lugnet.lego.direct and see if/how they answer that. Or write via e-mail directly to Brad. I can only speculate that, while they may be annoyed, they may not have any legal grounds for getting upset in the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Err, oops. That sentence makes no sense. I meant is, if I did that, TLC wouldn't care? If not, why not? The same info from the list could then just end up repackaged and still getting out there. eric (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I'm just a little confused, I guess. A list of (possible) upcoming set names, set numbers, and prices was posted. TLC asked you to remove them. Are you really saying that if I went over to lugnet.space and said "well, I wonder what set number (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) To claify, this distinction was reiterated in DCMA (sorry don't have USs # for it), so is still offerable as protection (witness Napster as a example) James P (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has occurred here) may (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Who would?:) (...) Again, who would? 8) (...) And I'm adding to it!!!...!!! HaHA!!!!!!!! (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I think Scott is right on this one. While censorship usually has the implication of morality-judgements, it's also used in the sense of keeping things secret. Think of a military censor, watching the media to keep out any information that (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) You, he and I can call it what we want. Actions speak louder than words. Scott A (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) A quick tangent: I didn't hear TLC request that anyone cease and desist from discussing this information or anything else. To the best of my knowledge, the sole request was expungement of preexisting posts containing TLC-sensitive information. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Nope. Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the (...) Really? (...) A thread? (...) Secret - TLG would say so, or at least that is what I am told :-) Scott A (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| "Scott A" <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Fz1A7r.MI3@lugnet.com... (...) not (...) Very true - imagine this scenario - You want a particular mini-figure, "Timmy", that is only available in a very large, very expensive set this year. (1) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
