| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> > 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.
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 LUGNET more in the long run to have this requirement in
place than not to have it.
It's far easier to say "if you want to play in the sandbox here, don't do
this" and have 99.9% of people abide by that than not to say "don't do this"
and have LEGO making legal requests every two days. In either case, sensitive
or infringing information would have to removed upon legal request...so why
not discourage it in the first place. That is the basic rationale.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-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
|
|
|
|
