| |
In lugnet.admin.general, James Powell writes:
> Todd,
> I'm not trying to misquote you. You said, what is posted in #179 right?
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.
> 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 to link to a site, whatever was there was NOT
> your business (except that it was relivent within T&C of LUGNET)(1), and
> that I could make a link to a list that was not hosted by LUGNET. The fact
> that you have not asked me to remove or removed the involved link _TO ME_
> signifies that you accept this as a "publicly accepted" that such a link
> (at least in this case) was OK.
No, you can't assume that just because I haven't said anything, it is OK.
All you can assume is that because I haven't said anything, there's a decent
chance that I probably have no problem with it. But that certainly does
not necessarily make it OK. (Note: I'm -not- saying that it's -not- OK
either. It might be OK and it might not be OK. I'm not a lawyer and I can't
tell you definitively that it's OK or not OK. I *think* it's OK, but that's
doesn't mean it is.)
> > http://news.lugnet.com/admin/terms/?n=179
>
> Would have been the post I was thinking of. It seems to indicate to me that
> what I did was acceptable by you.
As long as it doesn't violate the T&C -- which is fuzzy because IP law is
fuzzy -- then it's acceptable by me. But that means *nothing*. The burden
is *entirely* upon you to act responsibly.
As I said before, *don't* take my word for it on something like this. I am
not a lawyer. GET yourself a lawyer if you plan to do gray-area stuff, or
ask LEGO to clarify exactly what they feel is OK and not OK, so that you know
whether you're violating their rights or not. But don't expect a nice neat
answer with a bowtie either.
> I'm not trying to misquote you, perhaps I misunderstood your actions and
> words, but my understanding of the whole discussion was that you considered
> it OK for me to post a link to off LUGNET information that was "banned" by
> you on LUGNET. That is what I was trying to convey
I *do* consider it OK to make such links, *if* it doesn't violate the T&C.
I *cannot* and *will not* advise you as to whether or not a given link to
leaked information violates the T&C. You do so at your own risk.
Also, BTW, I haven't banned any information here. The T&C prohibits the
disclosure of information which invades other peoples' privacy. To be clear:
LEGO required me to expunge the leaked information here that was posted two
weeks ago. LEGO is the only one in this case who can make the judgment call
that it was sensitive leaked information.
Anyway, a couple posts upstream[1], when you wrote, "Todd has _publicly
stated_ that such a link is OK," obviously I have a problem with that, since
that is not at all what I said. What I said was far more complex and fuzzy
than that.
--Todd
[1] http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=8703
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
| (...) 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)
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The 2001 lineup (list on FBTB)
|
| 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)
|
15 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
|
|
|
|
