 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I have added a notice to the /admin/plan/ page which reads: Notice: This is a historical document which outlines site philosophy, motivations, directions, intentions, and so forth. This document does not have any bearing on or connection with (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) BTW, James, even without the above notice, I don't even remotely see how you or anyone could misinterpret "To help people share information about LEGO products and LEGO-related resources on the World Wide Web by setting in motion a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Wow! I'm nitpicking but I think you may be swinging too far the other way. I would change the second sentence a bit to acknowledge that there IS some bearing and connection, this is a vision (well, not just a vision, a manifesto because it's (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Okie dokie, ya, good point! Now says this: Notice: This is a historical document which outlines site philosophy, motivations, directions, intentions, and so forth. This document does not embody any rules or regulations and should not be (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Simple. Was the discussion on Lego products? Yes. Was the discussion on allegedly public info? Yes. Therefore, does it belong on LUGNET, and is it within the above and the TOS? Yes. What Jorge did was the digital eq. of looking in a catalog, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) happen (...) what (...) I think this guidance is just plain old common sense... if the information was obtained by you in a way that the general public, acting in a lawful manner and complying with all restrictions on behaviour that are in (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) OK, I am going to TRU this evening, with the list (or at least one set on it) as a private cit, and I will ask about that spicific set...and see if something comes up. This is no more than a humble guess on my part...I mean, I will ask if any (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Larry -- you use the word "steal" here, and "theft" in your subject. This frames the question in colored terms. In my understanding, violation of intellectual property rights is not theft under the law. (And is unlike material theft in several (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What you can and can't do is governed by physics, I think. :) What you may and may not do is covered in the T&C of the discussion groups, part of the LUGNET Terms of Use Agreement, (URL) tries to be clear, but since life is gray (not black and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Put another way, to use a phrase that Matthew Miller just used, (URL) borders of trade secret law are not only fuzzy and indeterminate and case-by-case, but they are also changing every day. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Of course, the issue of posting a link to something is very different from the issue of hosting/publishing that something. (...) Actually, I don't mean to misquote Lar...he said something about a package and a bowtie, but it wasn't about (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) hehehe! (good one Todd!) (...) OK, then here goes. (URL)I have to point out here that "fact" is in direct conflict with the "O" in (...) point taken. (...) No. In my line of work (Military), anything that is _NOT_ classified is free for (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) That I do understand. I now await the letter/E-mail asking me to cease and decease. James (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) For that matter, so are the borders of most any subset of Intellectual Property Law today... --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Feel free to provide a cite. I don't have a Lexis ID but the 10 minutes I spent on altavista looking mostly bolstered the opposite view. That's not a definitive proof, mind you, as people are sloppy with words all the time. Till then, and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I apologize. My statement is true for copyright law (with which I am much more familiar), but apparently not so for trade secrets. (This is where all of those I Am Not A Lawyer disclaimers come in.) (URL) However, I also find it interesting (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Thanks for digging harder than I did, and... you sir, are a gentleman, I appreciate the retraction. Look on the bright side, the base fine appears to be capped at 5e6. Now if we're talking Lira I can cover that. :-) (...) Ya, it is a detriment (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Was it? LSI has _NOT_ opted to publicly post what they privately E-mailed to Todd on this issue. So, we are into the land of speculation as to if LSI considered it proprietary. (...) _big_ paintbrush here Lar. What about:hmm, my organ albums? (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
James Powell <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote: [stuff i've snipped] [then from larry:] (...) [james' comments on napster snipped] Copyright law is very different from that for trade secrets. This discussion should go to .off-topic.debate -- it's (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Give them time. Brad said they are doing an investigation into the incident and will post about it when they have more facts. --Todd (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Fz2vn5.II9@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) community-driven (...) a (...) of (...) on (...) it (...) hanging on (...) at (...) on (...) loading (...) and (...) was (...) manner (...) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Yes, but they could have posted the "request" or "Order" (depending on view) to .Lego.direct. (the one that was sent to Todd that caused him to withdraw the posts from pubilc display) That is what I was meaning. I would hope LSI will put (...) (24 years ago, 13-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Give it up - probably won't happen. Why should they do it anyway? If they define a policy to be [---] then they might somehow be bound to that, if for no other reason than PR. If they choose to simply remain silent, which is certainly their (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) stand (...) OK, am I to assume then that _anything_ I read on the web is fair game? I'm going to need a 2nd Geocities account then!---to put stuff like this up on, and link to. (and await nasty legal threatening letters from) (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) No, what you're free to do is use some common sense and accept the consequences of your actions, should there be any. I personally don't care what you (or anyone else) posts or doesn't post with regards to this or similar "pre-public" info. I (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
