Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:25:07 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@SAYNOTOSPAMmattdm.org
|
Viewed:
|
1227 times
|
| |
|
|
Thank you for your response -- we appreciate it.
Brad Justus <legodirect@lego.com> wrote:
> Our position is that only images or material which are clearly accessible
> through normal navigational means (i.e. by following hyperlinks from the
> home page) are meant for public consumption. If unlinked material should be
> “discovered” (either by accident or intent), then the publication of the
> location of that material is a copyright violation (one could argue that
> the listing of the hyperlink to that material is tantamount to publishing
> the material itself). And if material was once available (through normal
> navigational means), but no longer is, than it, too, is out of bounds.
I can agree with and respect your other points, especially regarding the
retailer's catalog. That makes sense. However, this one doesn't. There is no
legal precedent for this, but this sort of restriction cannot stand before
simple common sense.
I'll repeat again the store-window analogy:
If a company puts a sign in their store window, it cannot be violation of
copyright for someone to read it. If they put it up in the front window, of
course everyone is going to see it. But it doesn't matter if they put it up
in their back window -- the alley is public property, and anyone wandering
there has a perfect right to read what is in the window. And they, in turn,
have a perfect right to tell their friends to also go look at what's written
there.
It doesn't matter if the company has put out other signs that say "hey, go
read our back window" or not. It's common knowledge that -- intrinsic to the
way buildings work -- there are often windows not as obvious as those facing
the street.
Copyright barely even comes into action here -- no one is copying anything.
People are just looking. (I should note that in the digital world, there is
the difference that documents must be copied across the network to RAM and
disk caches, so there is some actual copying going on -- BUT, there is legal
precedent for this being fair use, so just as in the real world, copyright
does not forbid the simple viewing of published items.) If I copy the sign
and put it in my OWN window, that would obviously be a violation.
The www.lego.com web server serves as the virtual store windows of the Lego
Company. If something is prominently displayed and linked to, that is like
it being in the front window. However, if the links are hard to find, that's
like it being in the back, viewable from a publicly-accessible alley. If
there's no links to them, that's exactly like there being no front-window
signs pointing to the back.
There's NO standard anywhere which says anything about the special status of
certain URLs over others -- it's intrinsic to the way the Web works. Your
comment that "normal navigational means" is equivalent to "following
hyperlinks from the home page" is erroneous technically, legally,
practically, and in common usage.
To extend the analogy a bit more: if the back alley were not public, but
instead a private way behind a gate, that would correspond to the concept of
an intranet server behind a firewall -- exactly where secret information
should be kept. Breaking into such a machine would certainly be wrong and
illegal, just like it would be wrong and illegal to break into a physical
building to steal data. But there's no "breaking" going on at all when one
views something posted on a public server.
If the Lego Company does not intend for documents or pictures to be viewed
by the public, they should not put them in their store windows -- either
real or virtual.
The concept that providing links to legitimate information legitimately
published by someone else might be illegal would completely break the World
Wide Web. This is not a small issue. I really _want_ to say: I will respect
your wishes simply because I want to respect the Lego Company. And I'm
especially sorry if this puts the new relationship between the Lego Company
and the internet Lego community on a sour note. But this is a precedent that
MUST NOT be set, and I can't accept this. Please reconsider your stance.
--
Matthew Miller
mattdm@bu.edu
Boston University
Systems Analyst/Administrator
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) <snipped bulk of well-thought out post> I agree with you in principle, but I think you're making too much out of this. LEGO is not the first company to claim more copyright protection than they may be entitled to, or can enforce, and they also (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
