 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
Please allow me to provide some further clarification. I agree that perhaps our position regarding the viewing of images on LEGO.com was somewhat hard- line and legalistic. It was not intended to be so. (I'll take the heat here, as it was my (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.announce, lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Ah. Okay, I should have paid more attention, I guess. The US judicial system is about as clear to me as #1200 SiO grit mud, though. (...) Indeed. (...) Jesus. The linked to the imdb, and another random page on imdb linked to a (c) photo? "No (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) If it would help, I'll post a list of all possible URLs (of a given length and/or fitting current patterns) under <URL:(URL). (...) I'm not a legal expert, despite my strong opinions, but thanks to the power of online dictionaries, I'm able to (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Todd's not stupid, so while I think he may be more inclined to make LUGNET an extremely TLC-friendly place policy-wise, I seriously doubt he'd implement policies that basically go against the entire grain of the WWW. This one part of Lego's (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Not so -- there was no ruling, just a preliminary injunction. Furthermore, they aren't accused of publishing the copyrighted information illicitly, but of being engaged in "contributory copyright infringement". I'm not a lawyer, so I can't (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) <snip> Thanks for the clarification of policy. (...) I guess I'll join the chorus of voices asking that you reconsider this. It's not a legally defensible policy, and it's not a practically defensible policy, and further, it sends a bad (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
Brad Justus <legodirect@lego.com> wrote in message news:FMwGur.E6n@lugnet.com... (...) ... (...) matter. (...) by (...) for, (...) of (...) company (...) the (...) patent (...) in (...) steps (...) Thanks for the clarification. I was the guilty (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) And so a rather uninformed US judge has recently ruled. I don't suppose anyone wants to relocate the lugnet server to anywhere else but Australia or Hongkong? I think it's a _very_ sad day to see Lego take this stance. To get my position clear (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
