|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
