To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / 176
175  |  177
Subject: 
Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.terms
Date: 
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:18:41 GMT
Viewed: 
5554 times
  
In lugnet.admin.terms, James Powell writes:

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 community-driven
  knowledge-base."

as some sort of blessing to publish anything to your heart's content in a
newsgroup, even if you did someone mistakenly believe that it was part of
or related to the T&C (which it isn't).

Do tell!


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, that is hanging on
the end of a asle.  (I know at least one TRU that puts the retailers cat. at
the end of the asle)  Therefore, are you next going to remove discussion on
something which someone has seen at TRU in a catalog?  How about if they • happen
to see boxes labeled with 71xx, Escape Pod as they are working at a loading
dock?

We (the LUGNET community) need some guidance as to what is acceptable, and • what
is not.

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 place (for
example not going into the back rooms of stores, just to pick one of many)
cannot use, then unless you are certain (and can document it) that it's OK to
post, you're not ok. This rules out posting stuff that you stole, stuff that
you peeked into, stuff that you got because you work on a loading dock or with
a retail system etc.

I guess I'm dismayed that this question even came up. You seem to be asking
when is it OK to steal stuff, in essence. Like I said way back when the price
tag incident arose, it's not ok to mess with store property or store
information because you happen to be in a store or happen to be a store
employee. Information of this sort isn't free, its property and you are
constrained (by regulations imposed on you as a condition of entry or a
condition of employment, respectively) in what you can do.

It's not some sort of game where if someone can steal it, get away with it,
and post it to a public place that suddenly makes it OK for everyone else to
make copies of it and talk about it. That way lies lawlessness. Or do you
think that Napster users aren't engaged in stealing, for example?

Scott Arthur prattling about how this is my opinion and my opinion only
notwithstanding. Guess what. No one except Todd is going to make definitive
statements about what policy here is, it's all opinion and there isn't going
to be a nice neat tidy package with a bow on it that ends the debate. But you
have to decide whose opinions you value and whose you think are pretty much
rubbish. I have my mental list with hundreds of names on it. (its categorized
by topic, when for example you talk about continental RR stuff or the RCN, I
tend to give you a fair bit of credence... :-) ) I suspect I know where I am
on a lot of other people's lists too.

What we're doing is influencing policy, and providing opinions to shape other
people's thinking and actions if they so choose. That's the way free discourse
works.

++Lar



Message has 3 Replies:
  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
 
"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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

29 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR