Subject:
|
Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:41:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4641 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi David,
thank you very much for your suggestions.
In lugnet.admin.terms, David Eaton wrote:
> > If you are under 18 years of age, ask your parent(s) or guardian(s) for
> > permission before using LUGNET and make sure they have read and understood
> > this Terms of Use document.
>
> I realize that this was in the old version of the document, however I think it
> might be good to change it to be a bit more proactive. As in "By posting, if you
> are under 18, you are acknowledging that you have your parent or guardian's
> permission to do so, or are capable of being legally responsible for yourself."
> That could be worded better, I think, but basically very explicitly requiring
> parental permission. Essentially, they could still comply with the rules as
> written now, and *ask* their parents but get *refused* and still post just fine.
I guess I catch it. Well, the basically (and let's face it: the theoretically)
requirement is: "By using LUGNET, be at least 18 years old. Otherwise ask your
parents for permission". If they ask, get refused and still post: That's fine,
but I'm not responsible. IF something happens, it depends on actual age of them
whether they're legally responsible for theireselves or the parents are
responsible. But not me. So I'm more safe if I don't limit it to posting in the
groups and in addition it's not allowed to talk to children into believing I
could hold them liable, since in fact, this is not the case by all means.
Of course, if I misconceived your words, LMK!
> > By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, or engaging in any
> > other form of communication through this service, you are granting LUGNET a
> > perpetual, irrevocable, royalty- free, unrestricted, non-exclusive, worldwide
> > license to use, copy, publish, archive, restore, or display any such
> > communication in any medium online and offline.
>
> Previously, there were two bits that always made me nervous, but were considered
> to be important:
>
> 1) "adapt". Technically, when LUGNET shows the "condensed" view of a post, it
> may be considered to be "adapting" the post by automatically quoting *part* of
> the message. As I understand it, "adapt" is meant to cover adaptation to various
> mediums, where necessary. Hence, if some sort of new technology came along that
> required LUGNET to adjust people's posts in order to "display" them, it's ok.
Would be "to quote (including in extracts)" an acceptable alternative?
> 2) "sub-license". I think (as indicated elsewhere) that this was intended
> initially to allow Todd & Suzanne the ability to license LUGNET content to a
> publisher, who could produce something like a Lego-related book, or (as Todd had
> mentioned, I think) a "best-of-LUGNET" CD. However, it may also be useful in
> terms of displaying LUGNET's posts elsewhere. Say (for example) that LUGNET were
> to feed another Lego site with an RSS feed, such that the other site was able to
> publish LUGNET's data. "Sub-license" would cover that.
Makes sense. But maybe it would discomfit less by using "sub-license under the
LUGNET brand" or so?
> I think the question I (and others) may have is: what happens when something of
> this nature comes up? If there is something which glorifies violence, are you
> legally required to proactively remove the content?
Well, if it's REALLY glorifying violence as more accurately described here:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/terms/?n=607
At such a case I'm basically required to remove it. But: "Without plaintiff no
judge".
> What happens if you don't?
If nobody complains: Nothing. Otherwise, there are several options:
- The complainer could press charges at the police. This would cause me paying a
fine (but I doubt the amount would have more than two digits prior to comma) and
I had to remove the content in question, of course.
- The complainer could try to impose a cease-and-desist order/warning by an
advocate. This would be much more nasty. But I probably would refuse it and go
to law. (Receiving such an cease-and-desist order/warning would connote that I
was referred to the subject matter but haven't considered it as unlawful)
> Another question, related: LUGNET does not actually host images which are
> displayed in FTX, it merely facilities their display by automatically directing
> the browser to another host. If violence-glorifying information is displayed on
> LUGNET via a 3rd party, is this something that LUGNET is liable for?
Unfortunately, yes.
> > Do not post information or material for commercial purposes which is not
> > reasonably related to LEGO toys or which contains advertising which is not
> > reasonably related to LEGO toys.
>
> While this is a holdover from the old TOU, I'm not sure I like it. Hm. Consider
> a discussion in off-topic.geek about which company's video cards you like using
> on your computer. I'd like to think I have the ability to post a link to the
> company's website during the discussion, but NOT have the ability to post an
> UNSOLICITED link to their website (spam). Certainly if it's not Lego related, it
> belongs in a non-Lego forum, but I would think that solicited advertisements
> might be appropriate in certain circumstances.
I guess making recommendations isn't advertising and it's also not for
commercial purposes.
> > Except where otherwise noted or where implicitly understood (such as
> > discussion group content created by users or images owned by the LEGO Group),
> > all material on this site is Copyright ©. All rights reserved.
>
> It looks like it's missing something right after the copyright-- before it had
> explicitly stated Todd & Suzanne, however perhaps it ought to specify
> individuals (IE Todd, Suzanne, Rene) or simply "LUGNET" as an entity, which
> perhaps can be described later.
First, I was tempted to add "Rene". But that would be inappropiate, because
there's not much which comes under my copyrights at the current status of
LUGNET, and I don't want to adorn myself with borrowed plumes. But probably
"Copyright LUGNET" is a workable compromise.
Leg Godt!
Rene
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
| A few comments: (...) I realize that this was in the old version of the document, however I think it might be good to change it to be a bit more proactive. As in "By posting, if you are under 18, you are acknowledging that you have your parent or (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
