| |
In lugnet.general, "Rich Manzo" <blknigt123@aol.com> writes:
> Since I know a little bit about law I will give the legal prespective of
> what Huw did. I personally have never seen one of these retailor catalogs but
> as long as there was nothing on the catalogue that said "confidential" or for
> store managers Etc there is no reason why Huw cannot post this catalog.
Except possibly for reasons of copyright infringement...? (But TLC has
never really had a problem with that yet as far as we know...only trademark
and trade dress infringement.)
> However if there is a warning on the catalog that specificly states
> "for _ _ _ _ Only or "confidential" etc then Huw had no right posting that
> because that is illegal. but if the person who this catalog was intended for
> willingly let Huw have the information, which was the case, huw is not
> responsible, his informant is.
>
> Sure Huw is not responsible legally, but is he responsibly morally? sure he
> wanted to show us his catalog with all of the new 2000 sets in because he
> thought we would enjoy it. If he could have looked into the future saw this 60
> message thread about his rights to put his find on his website I'd bet that he
> never would have done it.
Waitasecond, waitasecond! This isn't and never was about Huw's *rights* to
put anything on his website. Huw has the right to put whatever he wants on
his website (within the laws of his country, naturally). This was about
whether this makes us as a community of fans look bad or not, and whether it
sets a bad example or a good example. Those two are similar, but different.
> but he thought that he had a great find on his hands
> and wanted to share it. If I would have found this at the local TRU I would
> have put it on here without thinking twice.
> Now that Iam thinking about it,Huws informant is not responsable legally
> responsibe either because once it recieved by him/her it is belongs to that
> person and they can do freely what they want to do with it as long as it is
> not confidential. Same applies to Huw he can do freely what he wants to do
> with it. If he wants to put it on his site, thats fine. If he wanted to put it
> on a billboard In Times Square thats fine too as long as it is not
> confidential.
> This prespective is the legal prespective, the moral prespective, thats for
> someone else to handle :)
Right...and I'm not a qualified legal professional to tackle the legal
perspective, and the moral perspective is too subjective, so I'm only
looking at this from the point of view of the community "getting itself into
trouble"...etc...
My opinion!
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
