| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Ben Roller writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Ran Talbott writes:
> > > > Lego says we can't discuss it?
> > >
> > > You're still free to discuss it. But, if you want to *publish* it
> > > somewhere, you'll have to find a publisher that won't honor Lego's request.
> >
> > Is that your policy Todd? Can I talk all of the about the sets that I know
> > about? If we find out about leaked information (from some other site for
> > example), can we talk about that information in other casual conversations
> > on Lugnet?
>
> That's a question for Brad or LEGO Legal via Brad. I am not a lawyer, so I
> can't give you legal advice on how not to break the law or how to avoid
> infringing on the LEGO company's rights.
Actually, it is the key question in a court case ongoing in NYC right now...Is
a link to a site that contains something illegal if a cease and decease order
has been granted?
I am refering to DeCSS, and www.2600.com, it makes for interesting reading.
> The policy is: Don't infringe on anyone's privacy or publicity rights. It's
> up to you to decide how to avoid doing that.
OK, then _why_ are you making decisions (Todd) on what publishing is? You have
protection (as far as I can tell, again IANAL) because you, and LUGNET are the
ISP, not the person posting the msg.
> My advice is: Err on the safe side. Use good judgment. Use common sense.
> Ask Brad lots of tough questions.
That is _advice_, and as such is good.
(I'd follow it, I am in some other things which I am more disturbed about,
such as the DeCSS case, I could set up a mirror, but have not, because of job
concerns...I cannot afford to get into a legal pissing match, and I am sure I
am stubborn enough to let it go that far)...but, you removing postings by
someone is far more than advice.
James Powell
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Do you mean why does LUGNET have this policy/requirement as part of the T&C? Because it benefits the community more in the long run to have this requirement in place than not to have it. Or, from a site survivalist point of view, it benefits (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) That's a question for Brad or LEGO Legal via Brad. I am not a lawyer, so I can't give you legal advice on how not to break the law or how to avoid infringing on the LEGO company's rights. The policy is: Don't infringe on anyone's privacy or (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
