Subject:
|
Re: Theft, Definitive statements vs shaping thoughts(was Re: 2001 Set info
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:30:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5573 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:Fz2vn5.II9@lugnet.com...
> 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.
Hmm. I don't think I said that. As we all know, you have opinions on many
things. I am sure there may even be those who agree with you on some issues
(perhaps even me). However, the fact that people concur with you, does not
mean you are correct. Just as, even if you are in a minority of one - you
can still be right.
Further, if you do believe that wrong has been done here - that laws have
been broken - that parties have been victims, I would argue that you have a
moral responsibly, as a US citizen, to report that crime to the Police. Who
knows, you may even get a reward.
> 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.
Where legal issues a concerned, I would suggest one does not weigh the
opinions of those bickering around them - unless the relevant noisemaker is
willing to post bail for you. :-) I'd strongly suggest this issue needs
injection of fact, not well meant opinion - rather than "I'm not a lawyer,
but..." type posts.
Scott A
> 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 is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
