Subject:
|
Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:08:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5663 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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.
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 new 71xx sets come up, then ask if there is a star wars escape pod set,
and then give the number (I have it on a web page, which is one of the
questions I have asked, can I post a link here or not?) and see if it comes up.
>
> 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.
I'm not asking when is it OK to steal something. I'm asking when is
information to be considered 'public' vice it being propriatary. Does the fact
that Jorge got the info in a ligitimate way (IMO) that he is Ligitimately
allowed to discuss (assuming that he was allowed to discuss this, and that it
was not in his work contract that he could not discuss such things)...does this
not then count as the information being in the public domain?
> 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?
I _don't_ happen to think Napster is stealing, at least in the meaning that you
are implying. I have enough music that I taped off radio, do you want me to go
and erase those tapes too??? How about a VCR, I bet you have one.
Napster has _acted_ in cases where it was proven that someone was doing
something illegal (by banning users), it has no control over the illegal use of
its system, in the exact same way that the phone company has no control over
what I send over the phone.
> 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.
Oh, and I am going to Copyleft after this too, to find out how much a T shirt
with the DeCSS code on it costs.
(firmly on the opposite side of the fence from Lar, but happy to discuss it
rationally with anyone)
James P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
