Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:55:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1112 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Matthew Miller writes:
> 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.
>
> 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.
<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 won't be the last. It
is, in fact, quite common for a company to define 'grey areas' as black (or
white) simply to avoid the headache involved in defining them legally (and the
other ways, too).
molehills != mountains
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) Possibly true. But: 1) I don't want to see people kicked off of LUGnet over it. 2) More importantly, by tacitly allowing claims like this, we lose our freedoms. I know, that sounds melodramatic. But: the "you have to go through our front (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| Thank you for your response -- we appreciate it. (...) 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
