| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> So, just to be clear, LUGNET is no longer a place we should post:
>
> - Price lists gleaned from Toys R Us computers?
Those would probably be the property of Toys R Us, so you'd have to ask them
to know for sure whether it's OK. If posting the lists doesn't infringe on
any of Toys R Us's privacy rights, then I wouldn't think it would be a
problem. (Note: I've never worked for TRU and I'm not familiar with their
policies.)
IMHO, it would be most respectful to TRU to ask permission from a supervisor
(or someone knowledgeable at TRU) before extracting and posting such data, in
case TRU happens to consider the data sensitive and/or proprietary prior to
its becoming publicly available on the scanning stations.
Perhaps someone working for TRU can volunteer to find this out and report
back. If what they learn is that TRU does not want its price lists gleaned
from its computers posted on the Internet, then yes, absolutely LUGNET is not
(never was) a place anyone should post such price lists. But again, it's
the poster's responsibility to get this straight one way or the other first.
That's fair, right?
> - Pointers to websites that have images of sets before their release (ie,
> TheForce.net, TheOuterRim.com, etc)?
I personally don't see any problem with this, depending on how the pointers
are worded. Simply reporting upon the existence of something somewhere else,
no matter how illegal (including posting URLs of information contained on
other publicly accessible servers, for purposes of discussion) can hardly be
construed as infringing on anyone's rights. Then again, I am not a lawyer,
so don't take this as legal advice. I'm sure it's an extremely gray area.
Eric, the several pointers you posted last Spring were (in my opinion) 100%
fine (except for one where you quoted someone else's presumably copyrighted
text, but I think you voluntarily cancelled that one). Perhaps they were
even a little bit more on the conservative side than they needed to be, but
I think you were just trying to be careful and respectful...?
Basically:
- Use common sense, but lean toward careful and away from rogue or clumsy
- Don't get yourself in trouble, don't get us in trouble
- Don't do anything to piss off LEGO Legal
- Don't make a bad name for AFOLs
- Play fair
- etc., etc.
IMHO, these sorts of "rules of thumb" ought to apply anywhere: here or in
RTL, or on some mailing list, or basically any hobby, not just LEGO.
Yes, you may have to, at times, voluntarily restrict yourself if you're
unsure whether something is a problem or not. (But how many areas of social
life as a human aren't like that?)
I know "this is the Internet." I know the Internet is famous for passing
around millions of things illegally every day. However, each individual site
on the Internet is a subset of the Internet and runs by its own local set of
guidelines, which may or may not agree with the whole. If people want to do
illegal things outside of this site, fine, I don't (and couldn't) care. And
I realize that's going to happen whether I care or not, and forever and ever.
But if people want to do illegal things here, well, this really isn't the
place for that. That's not why it was set up. It never was, and I think
this was made pretty clear from the beginning.
(Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting... I'm not, I'm just on a philosophical
roll.)
> Both of these things seem to be directly in violation of the new hard-lined
> terms you're setting forth,
Well, there actually aren't any _new_ terms being set forth. I think
everything Suzanne said was trying to clarify parts of #6 of the Discussion
Group Terms and Conditions (which haven't changed since September, 1998).
It's not the site administrator's responsibility to monitor every posting
and tell people whether or not they're breaking some law or tromping on
someone's rights -- it's the poster's sole responsbility. And that's true
anywhere -- even on Usenet. (It's just that on Usenet, nobody hardly ever
seems to care one way or the other. That's just the culture there.)
BTW, even if there were new terms being set forth here via news postings,
you wouldn't necessarily have to abide by them (except where they were
already covered by local laws) unless you somehow had agreed to them.
> and yet both are things that have been fairly
> standard things during the period before new set releases in the past.
> I remember when the prototype X-Wing was being debated...
I'm not aware of any privacy or publicity rights which were violated on this
site in connection with those incidents. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and
it's not my responsibility to monitor such things either. Some things stand
out, some things don't. What went up earlier this week was clearly (to me)
stepping over the line, albeit innocently and unknowingly. But that's why I
felt I had to say something.
I hope this helps shed light on the issues, and I hope I've answered your
questions well enough. (If not, I'm not sure what else I could add -- I
think I wrote everything I could think of.) But feel free to ask more
questions if anything's still fuzzy.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) with (...) So, just to be clear, LUGNET is no longer a place we should post: - Price lists gleaned from Toys R Us computers? - Pointers to websites that have images of sets before their release (ie, TheForce.net, TheOuterRim.com, etc)? Both of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
