 | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | (...) Well I don't want to get into splitting hairs but I think James might have been refering to this post: (URL) I think he missinterpreted as you giving the go ahead for such a thing. (URL) post that you (Todd) refer to is clear cut but the other (...) (24 years ago, 18-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) The point I was trying to make in both posts is that I can't "give permission" any more than I could give someone permission to steal a car or rob a bank. The law (fuzzy and gray!) governs what is permissible and the T&C are fuzzy and gray as (...) (24 years ago, 18-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —James Powell
|
| | | | | | Todd, I'm not trying to misquote you. You said, what is posted in #179 right? I then posted a link, on the basis that you are _not_ hosting this info. My understanding of what you had responded to me, given the chain of E-mails was that if I wanted (...) (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I said that, yes. But you're still misunderstanding what I said. I would recommend that you print it out on paper and sit down and talk about it with a parent or guardian or attorney. (...) No, you can't assume that just because I haven't said (...) (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) I would argue that their NON-action as to stating their intent/response/feelings on the 2001 set info would make them lose their right to say SPIT about it anymore. They've had PLENTY of time to respond, and if their lawyers can't draft (...) (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | I think this belongs in .general for right now, though maybe it SHOULD be in .lego.direct. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | I'd suggest you check out the EFF (eff.org) and the ruling on DMCA, if required consider this my permission to remove posts with links. The internet just got a _lot_ colder. America is now trying to rule the world by lawyers... LS James Powell (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) required (...) world (...) ---you may not think that removal is needed, I have removed the list I had posted of prices/sets/descript...s/lego#'s. So, there is nothing offensive/illegal still at that link. James (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) Todd, are you sure that "you can't advise us whether something violates T&C or not"? T&C are your own rules, right? If you can't advise about it, who can advise? Selçuk (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Most things, not all things. Not gray-area things. (...) If in doubt, in gray-area cases like bleeding-edge Intellectual Property law, consult an attorney, is about all I can say. --Todd (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry Todd, but I think I'm really missing something. I thought we are not talking about The Law, but The T&C. It is a written document authored by you. So I think that you must have some idea about whether something is against that written (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) In 99% of cases, I'm sure I have a very good idea. But the 1% left over is gray because it basically says, "don't break the law" (i.e., local laws or whatever laws may apply in whatever circumstance is in question) and "the law" is something (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Very close, which is close enough. As you say, it's the gray areas that are hard, and sometimes there is no course of action from "here" to "there" that is perfect and doesn't step on SOMEONE's toes. ++Lar (...) That disclaimer applies to me (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Be careful what you wish for. You work for IBM, you know how large corporations are, once you ask for a definitive statement it often comes out very restrictive. Sometimes ambiguity is better. (even if it's unpleasant for the audience at home (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | (...) Excellent point. If it were not for ambiguity and not asking stupid questions, there would be no instruction archive. KL (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
