 | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Jorge Rodriguez writes:
> Today it was a boring day at work so I decided to look up the the Lego
> Studio set. Since I didn't know the number I had to search sequencially
> and what I found almost made me scream like a schoolgirl at an N-sync
> concert. Sets are usually in the computer 3 or 4 before they actually go
> out on the floor. It is now August, you do the math. That's right, 2001
> sets!! At least the ones we will see in Dec. And prices.
> [...]
Assuming this is not a hoax, did you get permission from the LEGO Company or
from Target Stores to disclose this information publicly?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jorge Rodriguez writes:
> > In lugnet.announce, Jorge Rodriguez writes:
> > > Today it was a boring day at work so I decided to look up the the Lego
> > > Studio set. Since I didn't know the number I had to search sequencially
> > > and what I found almost made me scream like a schoolgirl at an N-sync
> > > concert. Sets are usually in the computer 3 or 4 before they actually go
> > > out on the floor. It is now August, you do the math. That's right, 2001
> > > sets!! At least the ones we will see in Dec. And prices.
> > > [...]
> >
> > Assuming this is not a hoax, did you get permission from the LEGO Company
> > or from Target Stores to disclose this information publicly?
>
> We give out dpci's and prices on regular basis. All I listed was name
> of item, price of item, and dpci of item. If a guest had walked in the
> store and askes me to punch in a dpci to check on an item I will give
> him the same info.
OK, so just so I understand, it is Target Stores policy to give this type of
information out? Anything that's in the computer is fair game to tell to
customers?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jorge Rodriguez writes:
> > Assuming this is not a hoax, did you get permission from the LEGO Company
> > or from Target Stores to disclose this information publicly?
>
> We give out dpci's and prices on regular basis. All I listed was name
> of item, price of item, and dpci of item. If a guest had walked in the
> store and askes me to punch in a dpci to check on an item I will give
> him the same info.
LEGO has respectfully requested that the leaked information on this thread be
deleted or otherwise removed from view. Since this was a formal request and
TLC's privacy rights are in question here, this is a legal issue and I will be
deleting what I can find related to this. BradJ might post and explain more.
Please help by not propagating the leaked information any further. (And
remember: LUGNET is not a leak club.)
Thanks,
--Todd
[followups to lugnet.lego.direct]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Oh OK. Sorry LEGO
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:49:41 GMT, "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jorge Rodriguez writes:
> > > Assuming this is not a hoax, did you get permission from the LEGO Company
> > > or from Target Stores to disclose this information publicly?
> >
> > We give out dpci's and prices on regular basis. All I listed was name
> > of item, price of item, and dpci of item. If a guest had walked in the
> > store and askes me to punch in a dpci to check on an item I will give
> > him the same info.
>
> LEGO has respectfully requested that the leaked information on this thread be
> deleted or otherwise removed from view. Since this was a formal request and
> TLC's privacy rights are in question here, this is a legal issue and I will be
> deleting what I can find related to this. BradJ might post and explain more.
>
> Please help by not propagating the leaked information any further. (And
> remember: LUGNET is not a leak club.)
>
> Thanks,
> --Todd
>
> [followups to lugnet.lego.direct]
Jorge Rodríguez
rodriguez.136@osu.edu
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Well, at least that proves it wasn't a hoax...
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jorge Rodriguez writes:
> > > Assuming this is not a hoax, did you get permission from the LEGO Company
> > > or from Target Stores to disclose this information publicly?
> >
> > We give out dpci's and prices on regular basis. All I listed was name
> > of item, price of item, and dpci of item. If a guest had walked in the
> > store and askes me to punch in a dpci to check on an item I will give
> > him the same info.
>
> LEGO has respectfully requested that the leaked information on this thread be
> deleted or otherwise removed from view. Since this was a formal request and
> TLC's privacy rights are in question here, this is a legal issue and I will be
> deleting what I can find related to this. BradJ might post and explain more.
>
> Please help by not propagating the leaked information any further. (And
> remember: LUGNET is not a leak club.)
>
> Thanks,
> --Todd
>
> [followups to lugnet.lego.direct]
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> LEGO has respectfully requested that the leaked information on this thread be
> deleted or otherwise removed from view.
Ahh, hmm. So, the information has been released to Target Stores, and Target
has placed it in their computer. An employee of Target who has access to that
information legally (ie, he was not sneaking into his bosses' offices) shared
it with us, just as he could by store policy if we walked into the store, and
Lego says we can't discuss it?
That's more than slightly ridiculous.
If LEGO feels so strongly about this, I'd be interested to know if they are
going to be speaking to Target about changing when the information gets placed
into their computers. For that matter, I'd like to know if they will be
speaking to Toys R Us, who has been the source of this kind of information in
the past as well.
My guess, of course, is that neither Brad nor anyone else from Lego Direct will
address this issue here and now, nor will anyone at LEGO speak to these stores
about their policies. In other words, we are being asked to not talk about
something that is well within the public domain, by LEGO's own actions.
I wonder if LEGO would or would not feel it was important to speak to Target,
TRU et al if the information from this thread found its way into the hands of
the admins of several Star Wars Fansites, where it could still be easily
confirmable by having their contacts in these stores look it up in their
computer. My guess is that even with the wide distibution that would give the
info, LEGO *still* wouldn't take thoe actions- after all, that's real work,
whereas just asking us to not talk about it is a simple decision they don't
have to do anything to enforce.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > LEGO has respectfully requested that the leaked information on this thread be
> > deleted or otherwise removed from view.
>
> Ahh, hmm. So, the information has been released to Target Stores, and Target
> has placed it in their computer. An employee of Target who has access to that
> information legally (ie, he was not sneaking into his bosses' offices) shared
> it with us, just as he could by store policy if we walked into the store, and
> Lego says we can't discuss it?
>
> That's more than slightly ridiculous.
Gotta agree with Eric here.
And wow, I guess I either need to spend more time reading various groups again
or give up entirely. In fact, I'm a little scared after looking at the little
dots view of this thread. Most of what I'm seeing are "cancelled" messages.
Coming to all of this late (I never saw the original message, don't much care
about it one way or the other - but anyone who has it feel free to e-mail it
to me, I'll keep quiet) I guess I just have to trust that Todd either got
permission from all those posters to zap their messages, doesn't need it
(probably true, according to the tos), and exercised some good judgement in
this wholesale deletion of a discussion.
I know Todd's a good guy, so I guess I can hope that he exercised good
judgement, but I guess if we were waiting for a more obvious answer to
the "will Lego have any sort of influence here" we just got it.
Opinions may differ on that, of course, and if Todd says he was acting to
protect Lego's privacy, I guess I have to believe him, but this sounds a lot
like grabbing some of the fur off the cat after he's out of the bag and trying
to shove that back in, realizing the cat is still running around in plain site
elsewhere.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Stanley writes:
> ...but this sounds a lot like grabbing some of the fur off the cat after he's
> out of the bag and trying to shove that back in, realizing the cat is still
> running around in plain site elsewhere.
Well said.
~Nick
http://members.aol.com/swatlego
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I guess I just have to trust that Todd either got
> permission from all those posters to zap their messages, doesn't need it
> (probably true, according to the tos), and exercised some good judgement in
> this wholesale deletion of a discussion.
Oh, and P.S.: Todd only deleted a lot of the reply messages because the
original message was in with the reply, which makes a lot of sense. Most of
the replies were mostly "Wow, that's cool" so, personally, I feel Todd did
exercise good judgement and complied with TLC fully. I would have done the
same thing.
~Nick
http://members.aol.com/swatlego
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Nick Crocco writes:
> Oh, and P.S.: Todd only deleted a lot of the reply messages because the
> original message was in with the reply, which makes a lot of sense. Most of
> the replies were mostly "Wow, that's cool" so, personally, I feel Todd did
> exercise good judgement and complied with TLC fully. I would have done the
> same thing.
Yes, I deleted as few messages as possible -- only the ones which contained
references to the materials which were asked to be deleted.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Stanley writes:
> [...]
> I know Todd's a good guy, so I guess I can hope that he exercised good
> judgement, but I guess if we were waiting for a more obvious answer to
> the "will Lego have any sort of influence here" we just got it.
Well, you know, the same exact thing would have happened if LEGO had asked
the same thing a year ago. The only difference now is that they're paying
attention, so they notice things like this. And they use e-mail, which
makes things go faster. (Obviously they'd still need someone reading on
weekends if they wanted to catch all leaks.)
There's no doubt in my mind that If I had refused this first formal non-
legal (actually semi-legal) request, that it would not have taken long for
that to turn instead into a full formal legal request.
Thus, the messages were cancelled on the good faith understanding that they
infringed upon TLC's privacy rights (or something) -- Brad will have to
explain exactly what the problem is -- I can't explain it from an official
position.
> Opinions may differ on that, of course, and if Todd says he was acting to
> protect Lego's privacy, I guess I have to believe him, but this sounds a lot
> like grabbing some of the fur off the cat after he's out of the bag and
> trying to shove that back in, realizing the cat is still running around in
> plain site elsewhere.
I wish I hadn't had to, and I agree with basically what you're saying.
BTW, I wasn't acting to protect their privacy per se, I was acting on a
formal request -- just like when someone on the VLC list's private home
address was posted by someone. The person who's rights were infringed
requested that it be deleted, and there was documentation of the request.
I have a copy of Brad's email and I will post it for documentation if he
doesn't happen to come forward to explain more.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> There's no doubt in my mind that If I had refused this first formal non-
> legal (actually semi-legal) request, that it would not have taken long for
> that to turn instead into a full formal legal request.
I don't really have a problem with your reasons for canceling the various
posts that began this thread. My problem is that TLC seems to be asking you
to replace their clothing when *they* are the ones walking about nude! If
they have a problem with the way information gets leaked, then they should
retain information until they are themselves prepared to publicize the
information in a manner suitable to their purposes.
The first group to blame in the information pyramid is the group at the top:
TLC itself!
The idea that anyone should be policing these newsgroups for the purpose of
discovering leaks seems ridiculous to me. That Todd should be asked in ANY
manner whatever to cover for TLC's own failure to retain control of the
information so leaked seems just as ridiculous.
TLC: exhibit a modicum of professionalism or step off!
-- Richard
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
However, In reality LEGO was only doing their usual pre-sale marketing
prep... ie: updating retail store databases in preparation for the upcoming
December release...
This however should be a problem directed at Target abd its handling of said
databases. I worked retail, did stock management, and used these handheld
computers. You would be amazed. Some of them (held by any average employee
at any given time) show WHOLESALE prices, NOT RETAIL. This may be the
problem -? doesn't seem so, but who knows. Nevertheless, the problem is
Target. Along the same line of 'anyone could walk in off the street and
retrieve this info' - Target wouldn't want it's customers knowing pricing
information before the release date because it probably (if it is anything
like Wal-Mart) may change the prices before December, but is held to any
quoted, advertised or competitor prices.... Thus if someone 'leaked the
prices now, the person they leaked to could hold Target to these prices...
Does this make any sense?
Gene Weissinger
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Gene Weissinger writes:
> However, In reality LEGO was only doing their usual pre-sale marketing
> prep... ie: updating retail store databases in preparation for the upcoming
> December release...
>
> This however should be a problem directed at Target abd its handling of said
> databases. I worked retail, did stock management, and used these handheld
> computers. You would be amazed. Some of them (held by any average employee
> at any given time) show WHOLESALE prices, NOT RETAIL. This may be the
> problem -? doesn't seem so, but who knows. Nevertheless, the problem is
> Target. Along the same line of 'anyone could walk in off the street and
> retrieve this info' - Target wouldn't want it's customers knowing pricing
> information before the release date because it probably (if it is anything
> like Wal-Mart) may change the prices before December, but is held to any
> quoted, advertised or competitor prices.... Thus if someone 'leaked the
> prices now, the person they leaked to could hold Target to these prices...
> Does this make any sense?
>
> Gene Weissinger
Uh, kinda...
NICK #:^<
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Eugwe Coral <eugwecoral37@cs.com> schrieb: FyyoI7.MJ1@lugnet.com...
> This may be the
> problem -? doesn't seem so, but who knows. Nevertheless, the problem is
> Target. Along the same line of 'anyone could walk in off the street and
> retrieve this info' - Target wouldn't want it's customers knowing pricing
> information before the release date because it probably (if it is anything
> like Wal-Mart) may change the prices before December, but is held to any
> quoted, advertised or competitor prices.... Thus if someone 'leaked the
> prices now, the person they leaked to could hold Target to these prices...
> Does this make any sense?
What you wrote makes a lot of sence for me, but if this was the case, why
did TLC ask Todd to cancel the message and not Target. Note that only Target
would be affected if it's just a "WHOLESALE prices, NOT RETAIL"-problem.
Bye, Christian --- xTI@N.
P.S.: Note that I usually reply slow...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World is full of AFOLs - gech1@t-online.de
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
exactly...
I think Todd did the right thing in responding to LEGO's wishes (formally or
informally legal).
However, LEGO should have directed this 'problem' at Target - NOT at
LUGNET...
Just my 2 cents..
Gene
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Gene Weissinger writes:
> exactly...
> I think Todd did the right thing in responding to LEGO's wishes (formally or
> informally legal).
> However, LEGO should have directed this 'problem' at Target - NOT at
> LUGNET...
Why would you think TLC haven't already complain to Target also?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ka-On Lee writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Gene Weissinger writes:
> > exactly...
> > I think Todd did the right thing in responding to LEGO's wishes (formally or
> > informally legal).
> > However, LEGO should have directed this 'problem' at Target - NOT at
> > LUGNET...
>
> Why would you think TLC haven't already complain to Target also?
Even if they have directed it at Target- and all their other retailers- it's
ridiculous for them to try and stick the cat back in the bag. What possible
purpose does it serve? Why does it benefit them to have people on Lugnet not
talk about upcoming sets? That's what I'd really like to know. What is so
hurtful to Lego about fans discussing these upcoming sets, which does nothing
but generate publicity, that it is worth it to TLC to actually request that we
cease and desist discussing it, thereby creating bad vibes between Lego and
their fan community?
I really have been mulling over this point over and over and over, and I simply
cannot come to a decent conclusion. Anyone have any ideas? Brad Justus, would
you like to explain?
I do understand that sometimes there are cases where companies must
aggressively defend certain rights or lose them. I find it difficult to
beleive this is the case with their actions vis a vis Lugnet- otherwise, why
would there be no formal request from LSI Legal to cease and desist? Why only
an "affable", "genial" email asking for action? I'm not saying that politeness
isn't appreciated, and a nice accompaniment to a formal request, but my
understanding about these situations is that strongly worded legal papers are
needed to demonstrate the company's desire to defend their rights. And to that
end, wouldn't the actions taken with Target and other retailers to reinforce
this policy be enough to demonstrate a desire to protect their rights?
So, Lego, Brad, anyone- What's the deal? What's the purpose behind creating
bad will between yourself and your fans?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> Even if they have directed it at Target- and all their other retailers- it's
> ridiculous for them to try and stick the cat back in the bag. What possible
> purpose does it serve? Why does it benefit them to have people on Lugnet not
> talk about upcoming sets? That's what I'd really like to know. What is so
> hurtful to Lego about fans discussing these upcoming sets, which does nothing
> but generate publicity, that it is worth it to TLC to actually request that we
> cease and desist discussing it, thereby creating bad vibes between Lego and
> their fan community?
>
> I really have been mulling over this point over and over and over, and I • simply
> cannot come to a decent conclusion. Anyone have any ideas? Brad Justus, • would
> you like to explain?
I'd say the simple answer is that the competition is watching also. If Sony,
Nintendo, Disney, and K-nex all catch wind of next year's release at an early
enough time, they can adjust their marketing strategies to combat TLC's
success.
Strategize well,
Andreas Stabno
http://www.megsinet.net/~stabno/SimiLego.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Andreas Stabno writes:
> I'd say the simple answer is that the competition is watching also. If Sony,
> Nintendo, Disney, and K-nex all catch wind of next year's release at an early
> enough time, they can adjust their marketing strategies to combat TLC's
> success.
I think that's too simple an answer. The list didn't contain any really
shocking information. It had some Star Wars sets, which are fairly
recognisable by their names- and then it had some other set names which could,
frankly, be just about anything. Certainly nothing earth-shattering, and
nothing the competition couldn't have figured on Lego doing without the aid of
a very non-specific[1] list.
eric
1] The list was certainly specific about the names, set numbers, and estimated
prices of new sets- but that's not a whole lot to go on, except in the case of
Star Wars sets.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Andreas Stabno writes:
>
> > I'd say the simple answer is that the competition is watching also. If Sony,
> > Nintendo, Disney, and K-nex all catch wind of next year's release at an early
> > enough time, they can adjust their marketing strategies to combat TLC's
> > success.
>
> I think that's too simple an answer. The list didn't contain any really
> shocking information. It had some Star Wars sets, which are fairly
> recognisable by their names- and then it had some other set names which could,
> frankly, be just about anything. Certainly nothing earth-shattering, and
> nothing the competition couldn't have figured on Lego doing without the aid of
> a very non-specific[1] list.
I think that's too simple a dismissal. See my previous post about isolated
facts and how they can add up to Really Big Secrets. "this fact by itself
doesn't tell you much" is not a valid defense in and of itself. Besides,
unless we're in the penalty phase of a suit, evaluating damages, who cares
about value?
The information was secret because it is TLC information and because TLC said
it's secret. That's good enough for me. Either you respect property rights or
you don't, it's a matter of kind, not degree. If TLC says a gum wrapper is
theirs you don't get to nick it because it's not worth very much.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Andreas Stabno writes:
>
> > I'd say the simple answer is that the competition is watching also. If Sony,
> > Nintendo, Disney, and K-nex all catch wind of next year's release at an early
> > enough time, they can adjust their marketing strategies to combat TLC's
> > success.
>
> I think that's too simple an answer. The list didn't contain any really
> shocking information. It had some Star Wars sets, which are fairly
> recognisable by their names- and then it had some other set names which could,
> frankly, be just about anything. Certainly nothing earth-shattering, and
> nothing the competition couldn't have figured on Lego doing without the aid of
> a very non-specific[1] list.
I am not sure if anyone major could change there production runs now. I suppose
knowlege at the lower end of the food chain is much more powerful:
If I were a toy shop and I knew TLC had an impressive range on the way - I may
not buy megablocks.
Or, as a consumer, if I bought Lego at full retail (I seldom do), I might not
by the current product range, if I knew the one next year would be what I
_really_ wanted.
Scott A
>
> eric
>
> 1] The list was certainly specific about the names, set numbers, and estimated
> prices of new sets- but that's not a whole lot to go on, except in the case of
> Star Wars sets.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Scott A" <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Fz1A7r.MI3@lugnet.com...
> Or, as a consumer, if I bought Lego at full retail (I seldom do), I might • not
> by the current product range, if I knew the one next year would be what I
> _really_ wanted.
> Scott A
Very true - imagine this scenario -
You want a particular mini-figure, "Timmy", that is only available in a very
large, very expensive set this year. (1)
But you know that "Timmy" will be in a set in next year's assortment at a
significantly reduced price point. Seems to me you would wait until the next
assortment comes out if you just want mini-figure "Timmy."
Bryan
(1) Poor Timmy takes so much abuse.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Kinkel writes:
> You want a particular mini-figure, "Timmy"*snip* • Who would?:)
> *snip*But you know that "Timmy" will be in a set in next year's assortment at
> a
> significantly reduced price point. Seems to me you would wait until the next
> assortment comes out if you just want mini-figure "Timmy."*snip* • Again, who would? 8)
> *snip*(1)Poor Timmy takes so much abuse :)
And I'm adding to it!!!!!!!!!!!!! HaHA!!!!!!!!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Very true - imagine this scenario -
>
> You want a particular mini-figure, "Timmy", that is only available in a very
> large, very expensive set this year. (1)
>
> But you know that "Timmy" will be in a set in next year's assortment at a
> significantly reduced price point. Seems to me you would wait until the next
> assortment comes out if you just want mini-figure "Timmy."
One such example would be the Y-Wing+TIE set featuring Darth Vader on the box
cover. It was the only source for that figure for over a year until the figure
sets came out. The number of Y-Wing set sold would be greatly reduced if the
figure sets were released in the same year.
Another example in the silver body part set listed in LEGO's Noth American
web catalogue about a month ago but removed recently. I certainly have less
desire to buy that expensive silver championship F1 car set after knowing that
there is going to be a less expensive source for those body parts.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> [...]
> hurtful to Lego about fans discussing these upcoming sets, which does
> nothing but generate publicity, that it is worth it to TLC to actually
> request that we cease and desist discussing it, thereby creating bad vibes
> between Lego and their fan community?
A quick tangent:
I didn't hear TLC request that anyone cease and desist from discussing this
information or anything else. To the best of my knowledge, the sole request
was expungement of preexisting posts containing TLC-sensitive information.
You can be sure on gut instinct of course that TLC would rather that people
not discuss the information, but I'm almost positive that no edict has been
issued. Maybe you weren't implying that they had, but it kinda sounded that
way and I just want to make sure the record is straight.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> > [...]
> > hurtful to Lego about fans discussing these upcoming sets, which does
> > nothing but generate publicity, that it is worth it to TLC to actually
> > request that we cease and desist discussing it, thereby creating bad vibes
> > between Lego and their fan community?
>
> A quick tangent:
> I didn't hear TLC request that anyone cease and desist from discussing this
> information or anything else. To the best of my knowledge, the sole request
> was expungement of preexisting posts containing TLC-sensitive information.
> You can be sure on gut instinct of course that TLC would rather that people
> not discuss the information, but I'm almost positive that no edict has been
> issued. Maybe you weren't implying that they had, but it kinda sounded that
> way and I just want to make sure the record is straight.
I'm just a little confused, I guess.
A list of (possible) upcoming set names, set numbers, and prices was posted.
TLC asked you to remove them. Are you really saying that if I went over to
lugnet.space and said "well, I wonder what set number XXXX 'Blah blah blah' is
going to be like? It's a set that costs around $Y, so it should have around Z
pieces..." that they wouldn't be equally annoyed, and want that post removed
just as much?
Certainly this doesn't stop us from discussing things like the upcoming Star
Wars sets- after all, guessing which models were next has always been a staple
of lugnet.starwars, and now was can all just wink and nod at each other, but
discussing things like what might be included in some of the Movie Maker
expansions will be difficult to justify.
Oooh, dear. I just realised that the list was the first mention of these
expansion packs, so I honestly don't know if this post now violates what TLC
would and wouldn't like to see posted. I'll post it, though, mostly because
I'm too lazy to think of a non-specific example.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> I'm just a little confused, I guess.
>
> A list of (possible) upcoming set names, set numbers, and prices was posted.
> TLC asked you to remove them. Are you really saying that if I went over to
> lugnet.space and said "well, I wonder what set number XXXX 'Blah blah blah' is
> going to be like?
Err, oops. That sentence makes no sense.
I meant is, if I did that, TLC wouldn't care? If not, why not? The same info
from the list could then just end up repackaged and still getting out there.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> > I'm just a little confused, I guess.
> >
> > A list of (possible) upcoming set names, set numbers, and prices was
> > posted. TLC asked you to remove them. Are you really saying that if I
> > went over to lugnet.space and said "well, I wonder what set number XXXX
> > 'Blah blah blah' is going to be like?
>
> Err, oops. That sentence makes no sense.
>
> I meant is, if I did that, TLC wouldn't care? If not, why not? The same
> info from the list could then just end up repackaged and still getting out
> there.
You'll have to ask TLC -- post to lugnet.lego.direct and see if/how they answer
that. Or write via e-mail directly to Brad.
I can only speculate that, while they may be annoyed, they may not have any
legal grounds for getting upset in the legal sense if you talked about it
in uncertain terms because, if you don't quote your source, any facts and
figures are arguably just speculation or rumors on your part -- it gives them
plausible deniability or something like that. In other words, I think when
sensitive leaked information comes from a verifiably accurate source (i.e.,
from a person working retail and extracting the information from computer at
a known store chain), it may be quite different from the same information
being talked about informally. Again, I am not a lawyer and this should not
be interpreted as qualified legal advice. I'm just guessing. My personal
advice, as always, is to err on the safe side. Don't piss LEGO off, don't
do things that get yourself in trouble with LEGO or make the community look
bad. You can take that advice or ignore it -- it's not edict. Just make
sure that whatever you do, you don't violate TLC's legal rights to privacy or
whatnot. If it's unclear how to do that, consult a qualified attorney or
just steer clear to be safe.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> I have a copy of Brad's email and I will post it for documentation if he
> doesn't happen to come forward to explain more.
Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J.
(or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his
email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row)
TLC's reasoning behind this request.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > I have a copy of Brad's email and I will post it for documentation if he
> > doesn't happen to come forward to explain more.
>
> Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J.
> (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his
> email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row)
> TLC's reasoning behind this request.
>
> eric
I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone
at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the
legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of a
'please remove this, we are displeased' notice, but not a true legal warning.
In which case, you are CENSORING someone by removing info which they have
posted.
From the LUGNET Plan:
2.
To help people share information about LEGO products
and LEGO-related resources on the World Wide Web by
setting in motion a community-driven knowledge-base.
Where in there does it say that something that a non-TLC employee cannot
distrbute info which he picked up by using a computer at work, instead of by
going for a walk down the isle with the lego in it?
This is what Jorge did, in his digital eq. It is the same thing as TLC putting
up photos, and then getting angry at us for finding them on the web page.
LS James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> >
> > > I have a copy of Brad's email and I will post it for documentation if he
> > > doesn't happen to come forward to explain more.
> >
> > Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J.
> > (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his
> > email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row)
> > TLC's reasoning behind this request.
> >
> > eric
>
> I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone
> at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the
> legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of
> a 'please remove this, we are displeased' notice, but not a true legal
> warning. In which case, you are CENSORING someone by removing info which they
> have posted.
Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion
since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in this
case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest of the
LUGNET/TLC relationship.
>
>
>
> From the LUGNET Plan:
>
> 2.
> To help people share information about LEGO products
> and LEGO-related resources on the World Wide Web by
> setting in motion a community-driven knowledge-base.
>
> Where in there does it say that something that a non-TLC employee cannot
> distrbute info which he picked up by using a computer at work, instead of by
> going for a walk down the isle with the lego in it?
It is in the spirit of good will between LUGNET and TLC. They give us some
legal leeway in what we do here on LUGNET (Set Reference pictures and
Brickshelf Instruction Scans for example). The information that Jorge posted,
although exciting, is not in the reach of the general public IMO. Neither are
photos on TLC's website. I would rather have them maintain a blind eye to the
blatant copywrite infringements in those databases above in exchange for a
little curtesy, than post some pre-release facts about future sets which will
become public knowledge in a matter of time and suddenly enforce the copywrite
protection that they are entitled to. That's the crux of the matter.
The information is PRE-RELEASE information, not something that can be picked up
by walking down the LEGO isle at Target. As a Target employee Jorge is exposed
to information that is generally not shared with the general public. Yes, I
know he said that it is standard operating procedure to give out that
information when asked, but how many individuals know to ask? In my line of
work, I'm required to sign a non-disclosure statement reinforcing the hold each
company has on their proprietary edge. Maybe TLC should require Target to start
using one as well.
> This is what Jorge did, in his digital eq. It is the same thing as TLC
> putting up photos, and then getting angry at us for finding them on the web
> page.
>
> LS James Powell
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Duane Hess writes:
> Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion
> since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in this
> case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest of the
> LUGNET/TLC relationship.
Whoa whoa whoa! Watch what you say, please.
For the record, I have *NEVER* censored a message here and never will.
Any message I have ever removed has been under one of four cases:
1. Someone is unable to cancel their own message for whatever reason and
specifically requests that it be admin-canceled, and gives the message
URL or quotes the message in a reply asking that it be cancelled --
leaving nothing up to interpretation. This has happened about 10 or 20
times in the past 2 years.
2. By request from LEGO, as just happened yesterday, on legal grounds.
3. Someone accidentally posts two exact copies of the same message to a
group. If I happen to notice a pair of messages like this, I do a 'diff'
and verify that they are identical, and remove the latter. I do this by
hand because I haven't put in an automated way to do it. This isn't
censorship because it's a purely technical process which corrects for a
purely technical -- it's currently too easy to accidentally click the
"Post Message" button twice on the same message in the web interface.
4. And of course, as a regular user, I have canceled a few of my own
messages containing typos and replaced them with newer versions.
Please note that asking someone to consider voluntarily cancel their own
message (I think this has only happened twice), with an explanation as to why,
is very very very different from censoring.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Duane Hess writes:
> > Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion
> > since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in
> > this case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest
> > of the LUGNET/TLC relationship.
>
> Whoa whoa whoa! Watch what you say, please.
>
> For the record, I have *NEVER* censored a message here and never will.
>
> Any message I have ever removed has been under one of four cases:
>
> 1. Someone is unable to cancel their own message for whatever reason and
> specifically requests that it be admin-canceled, and gives the message
> URL or quotes the message in a reply asking that it be cancelled --
> leaving nothing up to interpretation. This has happened about 10 or 20
> times in the past 2 years.
>
> 2. By request from LEGO, as just happened yesterday, on legal grounds.
>
> 3. Someone accidentally posts two exact copies of the same message to a
> group. If I happen to notice a pair of messages like this, I do a 'diff'
> and verify that they are identical, and remove the latter. I do this by
> hand because I haven't put in an automated way to do it. This isn't
> censorship because it's a purely technical process which corrects for a
> purely technical -- it's currently too easy to accidentally click the
> "Post Message" button twice on the same message in the web interface.
>
> 4. And of course, as a regular user, I have canceled a few of my own
> messages containing typos and replaced them with newer versions.
>
> Please note that asking someone to consider voluntarily cancel their own
> message (I think this has only happened twice), with an explanation as to why,
> is very very very different from censoring.
>
> --Todd
<sheepish>
Um... OK... I didn't mean that the way it sounded. :-|
</sheepish>
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Duane Hess writes:
> The information is PRE-RELEASE information, not something that can be picked • <clip>
> Maybe TLC should require Target to start using one as well.
I can say with confidence (because I am in a business where we frequently get
prerelease product info and training material that is covered by a non-
disclosure agreement) that LEGO has this in place between themselves and
Target. The only reason the Target employeee thinks it is ok to post this pre-
release info is that someone in the chain between LEGO, the Target purchasing
reps, the regional managers, the store managers, the dept managers, or his
direct supervisor failed to accurately communicate this to the employee or the
employee doesn't care or follow company policy to abide by the agreement
between Traget corporate and LEGO corporate.
BEN GATRELLE
(my 2.5 cents worth)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by
> someone at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET),
> release the legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was
> in the form of a 'please remove this, we are displeased' notice, but not a
> true legal warning.
I obtained clarification from LSI Legal today on the telephone and it was
indeed also true legal request and represented LSI Legal's position.
> In which case, you are CENSORING someone by removing info which they have
> posted.
No, it was a formal legal request. And the phone call confirmed this.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In which case, you are CENSORING someone by removing info which they have
> > posted.
He wasn't censoring as he was not removing material for moral or political
reasons... he was exercising editorial control. A very important distinction.
> No, it was a formal legal request. And the phone call confirmed this.
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:29:25 GMT, "James Powell"
<wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> >
> > > I have a copy of Brad's email and I will post it for documentation if he
> > > doesn't happen to come forward to explain more.
> >
> > Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J.
> > (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his
> > email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row)
> > TLC's reasoning behind this request.
> >
> > eric
>
> I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone
> at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the
> legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of a
> 'please remove this, we are displeased' notice, but not a true legal warning.
> In which case, you are CENSORING someone by removing info which they have
> posted.
>
>
>
> From the LUGNET Plan:
>
> 2.
> To help people share information about LEGO products
> and LEGO-related resources on the World Wide Web by
> setting in motion a community-driven knowledge-base.
>
> Where in there does it say that something that a non-TLC employee cannot
> distrbute info which he picked up by using a computer at work, instead of by
> going for a walk down the isle with the lego in it?
>
> This is what Jorge did, in his digital eq. It is the same thing as TLC putting
> up photos, and then getting angry at us for finding them on the web page.
>
> LS James Powell
I will counter with the info from this post that I made that applies
to me, Jorge or anyone else who has "accepted the conditions for
posting" here at Lugnet..
see http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=236
The post referenced is about some Castle set info I had, not anything
else but applies here for the info Jorge posted also.
I applaud Todd's removal for the non-public information from Lugnet, I
suspect that John Q Public would have a hard time picking up one of
those machines that Jorge uses and get information from it.....
If you are going to quote parts of the Terms and Conditions from
Lugnet, you should read them ALL....
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Brazenly oversnipping for humorous effect...
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Timm writes:
> If you are going to quote parts of the Terms and Conditions from
> Lugnet, you should read them ALL....
> All other themes are just spare parts for Castle!
I Dispute that the T&C say this! In fact I'm pretty sure they say:
"All other themes are just scenery or spare parts for Trains!".
YCLIU.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 23:09:55 GMT, "Larry Pieniazek"
<lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> Brazenly oversnipping for humorous effect...
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Timm writes:
>
> > If you are going to quote parts of the Terms and Conditions from
> > Lugnet, you should read them ALL....
>
> > All other themes are just spare parts for Castle!
>
> I Dispute that the T&C say this! In fact I'm pretty sure they say:
>
> "All other themes are just scenery or spare parts for Trains!".
>
> YCLIU.
>
> ++Lar
Ok, so I messed up my sig a bit, I fixed so it obvious that its NOT
part of the body text.
Mike
--
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Mike Timm writes:
> Ok, so I messed up my sig a bit, I fixed so it obvious that its NOT
> part of the body text.
>
>
> Mike
> --
> All other themes are just spare parts for Castle!
Well, it's *positioned* better now but it's still factually wrong <GD&R>...
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> I will counter with the info from this post that I made that applies
> to me, Jorge or anyone else who has "accepted the conditions for
> posting" here at Lugnet..
>
> see http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=236
>
> The post referenced is about some Castle set info I had, not anything
> else but applies here for the info Jorge posted also.
>
> I applaud Todd's removal for the non-public information from Lugnet, I
> suspect that John Q Public would have a hard time picking up one of
> those machines that Jorge uses and get information from it.....
It depends, could a "reasonable" person find them, if they had "reasonable"
knowlage of how it worked? (in other words, if Jorge left his price scanner
and I picked it up, and tried looking at _all_ the 71xx series lego, would I
have found the info?...I suspect, that had I been the one doing so, I would
have found it without too much difficulty.)
>
> If you are going to quote parts of the Terms and Conditions from
OK, but...
Jorge _said_ that if a costomer had come into the store and asked about those
items, and had a idea (even a vague one) and he had some experience with where
the new sets were likely to be (IE, if the customer said, can you look in the
71xx sets, and tell me if anything new is showing), that he has been authorized
to do that. In other words, he (Jorge) has been authorized to release that
info, by his employer. If his employer is mistaken in this ability, then that
is a problem that LSI should take up with Target, and NOTHING to do with
LUGNET or the posts.
I think that we have a admin who is fearful of the legal consiquences of not
removing something that he legally probably could have left up...yes, I do
understand that there are other considerations on Todd's part than just this
one incident.
I want to see a _CLEAR_ policy from LUGNET (and LSI!!!) on this issue, since it
has shown its head now 3 times here. In other words, what is banned from here?
1. Direct info that has been obtained about retail catalogs?
2. Links to such info?
3. Discussion including information about sets contained in those catalogs?
4. Any promo/non widely distributed info?
5. Info on the public side of a firewall?
Please note, I do agree that LSI has a right to release info whenever they
choose to do so. However, if the info is available to the public (1), then _I_
consider it fair game.
James Powell
(1)-in this I mean _anyone_ who is not signed to a Non Disclosure Agreement
with LSI, including retail staff. In other words, Suzanne would not be allowed
to "leak" info, but if I got a local TRU clerk to dig up the same info that
Jorge dug up, then it is _fair_ game.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> From the LUGNET Plan:
>
> 2.
> To help people share information about LEGO products
> and LEGO-related resources on the World Wide Web by
> setting in motion a community-driven knowledge-base.
>
> Where in there does it say that something that a non-TLC employee cannot
> distrbute info which he picked up by using a computer at work, instead of
> by going for a walk down the isle with the lego in it?
James,
Above, as Mike Timm just pointed out, you quoted something which has
absolutely nothing to do with the Terms and Conditions here or the Terms
of Use Agreement. What you quoted was from a plan document -- a manifesto
-- a public declaration of intentions. This is a historical document which
is separate from the rules.
Hope this clears up the confusion,
--Todd
[followups to .admin.terms]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > I have a copy of Brad's email and I will post it for documentation if he
> > doesn't happen to come forward to explain more.
>
> Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J.
> (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his
> email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row)
> TLC's reasoning behind this request.
Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. I sent a polite request to Brad
today asking for his permission to post a verbatim copy of his email, and cc'd
the LSI attorney who he originally cc'd on his request, and also left a phone
message with her. Brad never gave out his phone number of business card so
I sent email instead of calling on the phone. I also wrote to Brad yesterday
that his posting a brief message explaining how/why these were leaks would be
extremely helpful.
If Brad doesn't give permission to repost his messages, or doesn't post
something himself directly which is equivalent, I'll repost it without his
permission (which, AFAIK, would be improper rather than illegal since his
message contained no indication that the message itself was sensitive or was
a privileged legal communication). I've also asked for a more formal legal
request, which I had proceeded yesterd under the good faith assumption that
one would be forthcoming without having to ask.
If LEGO declines to provide a formal legal request stating that the articles
about the 2001 product line contained legally sensitive information, then it
may just come to pass that the articles get restored in their former glory
and LEGO can then politely ask people to voluntarily cancel them or ask that
they be canceled. LUGNET's policy is not to censor messages, but of course
if something specifically has to be removed for clear (and well documented)
legal reasons, then its removal is of course appropriate.
In the future, it would probably be good for us to have a more formalized
system for handling requests of this type. I would feel much less
uncomfortable, for example, if a request came from a LEGO attorney via a
public posting and identified specific messages and justified the request.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. [...]
Actually, probably a few days. Just spoke with the LSI attorney who Brad
consulted with before sending the request, and I got the distinct sense that
this is a issue which LEGO wishes to address quickly and devote whatever time
and resources to that it can (meaning talking with Target about this, etc.).
In other words, if Brad happens to post about it anytime early this week,
I'll be surprised, because he's probably extra-extra busy in light of this.
> [...]
> If Brad doesn't give permission to repost his messages, or doesn't post
> something himself directly which is equivalent, I'll repost it without his
> permission (which, AFAIK, would be improper rather than illegal since his
> message contained no indication that the message itself was sensitive or was
> a privileged legal communication).
In light of the size of this discussion (wow) I can't actually imagine Brad
not making a post explaining things as soon as he gets time. When he does
that, he'll want to clear it with LEGO attorneys, which will also add to the
time. I probably shouldn't post a copy of it unless I have no other choice.
I can certainly paraphrase, though...give me a bit of time to put something
together.
> I've also asked for a more formal legal
> request, which I had proceeded yesterd under the good faith assumption that
> one would be forthcoming without having to ask.
I learned on the phone that a more formal legal request won't be coming.
I'm OK with that because Brad consulted with LSI Legal before sending his
message. Thus, it was truly a formal legal requst, and LSI Legal was cc'd.
Also, in the mind of the attorney I spoke with on the phone, Brad's message
accurately represented the legal point of view and noted that, as a general
rule of thumb, Brad consults with LSI Legal before making a public posting.
I asked if Brad's message was a polite request or a legal request and she said
that it was both. Thus, on the grounds of it being a legal request, it is
valid to carry out the request. I respect the polite aspect for what it is,
but I would also not ever remove a message based on solely a polite request;
I need legal reasons to remove a message. She said that I was welcome to call
and confirm anything with her prior to carrying out such a request if it ever
happens again. In this case I used my gut judgment and it was correct.
> If LEGO declines to provide a formal legal request stating that the articles
> about the 2001 product line contained legally sensitive information, then it
> may just come to pass that the articles get restored in their former glory
> and LEGO can then politely ask people to voluntarily cancel them or ask that
> they be canceled. LUGNET's policy is not to censor messages, but of course
> if something specifically has to be removed for clear (and well documented)
> legal reasons, then its removal is of course appropriate.
What I heard on the phone was sufficient to satisfy me that a legal request
had already been made. I asked if I could get an email from LSI Legal that
I could post publicly, and was told that one would not be coming. I can
understand that position, since it is not legally necessary that they do so,
and I can imagine that LEGO might be at least a tiny embarassed to admit that
this had happened. Anyway.
> In the future, it would probably be good for us to have a more formalized
> system for handling requests of this type. I would feel much less
> uncomfortable, for example, if a request came from a LEGO attorney via a
> public posting and identified specific messages and justified the request.
In the future, I think I will, as a matter of protocol, call LSI Legal and
confirm any email request, even if it comes from LSI Legal, as a formality,
prior to carrying out the legal request -- assuming they can be reached by
phone within a reasonable amount of time. Today was quick -- phone call was
returned within 20 minutes, and the action taken yesterday was the correct
one.
--Todd
p.s. LSI = LEGO Systems Inc. in Enfield -- these are the people we have met
in person and have an open channel with to discuss issues that come up.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> [...]
> In light of the size of this discussion (wow) I can't actually imagine Brad
> not making a post explaining things as soon as he gets time. When he does
> that, he'll want to clear it with LEGO attorneys, which will also add to the
> time. I probably shouldn't post a copy of it unless I have no other choice.
> I can certainly paraphrase, though...give me a bit of time to put something
> together.
I just received an email reply from Brad to my earlier message to him today.
He reiterated that the original request was a formal legal request and noted
that he could not give permission for me to post the contents of the message.
He said they are conducting an investigation of why the information was not
safeguarded properly (at the retailer, I assume) and he doesn't feel it is
appropriate to post an explanation publicly until they've had time to learn
more. He said he'll post an explanation when he has the full facts.
Brad reassured that the information contained in the original post that began
the thread is indeed considered "sensitive" and privileged information between
TLC and its trade partners.
Brad said he appreciates the swift action and feels it is indicative of good
relations between LEGO and the community and welcomes suggestions as to how
LEGO can handle such situations in the future.
In a way, it's a tough position they're in -- from a legal and competitive
standpoint, they have to be protective of their business, yet in doing so
they potentially risk looking like the eight hundred pound gorilla throwing
their weight around.
I can completely understand the alarm they must be feeling over this. I
don't know if calling for the removal of already leaked information is in
their long-term best interests, but it's certainly their legal right and
it's not my place to judge their legal decisions. Anyway, I love the hobby
too much to worry about something this small; I know I'll be able to see
the stuff in a couple or three months and in the meantime I'd rather spend
time building and playing.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> Brad said he appreciates the swift action and feels it is indicative of good
> relations between LEGO and the community and welcomes suggestions as to how
> LEGO can handle such situations in the future.
My primary suggestion is to start with the person who posted the
information, rather than talking to Todd first. Don't send a threatening
legal letter, but nicely say that Lego prefers to keep that information
secret, and and ask the poster to please delete the message and post a
retraction.
If that doesn't work, *then* talk to Todd. Going to him first puts him in a
non-fun situation, and it can make the original poster (who isn't
intentionally being bad, but rather just being excited about Lego's
products) feel censored.
Of course, if that doesn't work, there are stricter options available. But
why start with them?
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In the future, I think I will, as a matter of protocol, call LSI Legal and
> confirm any email request, even if it comes from LSI Legal, as a formality,
> prior to carrying out the legal request -- assuming they can be reached by
> phone within a reasonable amount of time. Today was quick -- phone call was
> returned within 20 minutes, and the action taken yesterday was the correct
> one.
>
> --Todd
Why are you so afraid of nuking posts on your own system? Do you
really have a legal obligation not to delete posts without a formal
legal request?
I would only call to confirm if you *disagree* with the request, and
want to see if they *really* mean it. OTOH, if you think it shouldn't
be on Lugnet and you don't hear from TLC, why not nuke it anyway?
KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
How about we just call TLG's reaction BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS? I mean, the info
has already leaked out, no matter how accurate it is, and having Todd cancel
all posts containing a word about the sets is a really POOR idea. Either we're
just a couple of freaks chatting about LEGO, then I don't see why TLG even
bothers about it, or we're a bit more than that ... and TLG should probably
treat this forum with a little more respect.
LEGO Mechcommander: www.muenster.de/~bus1503
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> How about we just call TLG's reaction BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS? I mean, the info
> has already leaked out, no matter how accurate it is, and having Todd cancel
> all posts containing a word about the sets is a really POOR idea. Either we're
> just a couple of freaks chatting about LEGO, then I don't see why TLG even
> bothers about it, or we're a bit more than that ... and TLG should probably
> treat this forum with a little more respect.
I've got to champion Todd on this one. He's in a difficult position, given that
he's admin of what is not only the most prominent fan site devoted to LEGO, but
the *only* one that handles LEGO writ large (FBTB [1] and the like are theme
sites, the former connected to Yakface (IIRC) which is one of many Star Wars
sites). That means that TLG takes a special interest in this one site, and is
going to be touchy about what appears here. Todd is walking a tightrope between
his stated goal of being as open as possible and as independent as possible about
information and his other stated goal of respecting the legal rights of TLG that,
in part, are designed to keep it in (effective) business. Any one "leak" might
not damage the market share, but over time, such lost information and
inconfidentiality might set a dangerous legal precedent and chip away at it.
Ritvik et al. may not try to rush out an answer to new SW sets (They can't,
legally, as they don't have the licence) but what about the other lines
mentioned? We don't know competitors' product development cycle time, but we do
know that their representatives read LUGnet.
As for respect: In a twisted sort of way, TLG *is* respecting this forum by
making the request. They respect it as the widest disseminator of information,
ideas, etc. to the online public--sort of the way a lion tamer respects the lion
as both beneficial to his employ *and* potentially dangerous. I'd be interested
to know what the language was like in the request--if it was friendly but
concerned, or cordial and peppered with lightly veiled threats. I'd hope it was
the former, because all it took was an email and a phone call rather than a
registered letter and a summons. But did TLG make an error in making the request
at all? I don't feel that they did. In the case of the SW sets, Lucasfilm might
have had a fit over a leak; in the case of other lines, TLG might have considered
the cost/benefit ratio to be too high at this moment in time. This is all
hypothesis, but I don't think it's a case of "heavy-handed, heartless corporate
lackeys versus honest, hardworking free-speech/free-information advocates."
Has anyone considered asking Dayton Hudson (Target Stores, Inc) if advance pricing
information is protected from open dissemination? Most corporate information is,
at some level.
Pardon the ramble, hope some of it makes sense (My train of thought is spun in the
roundhouse at about 300kph when I'm on this allergy medication).
best
LFB
[1] I believe Tim also got a legal request to remove 2001 info--correct me if I'm
wrong?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> [...] I'd be interested to know what the language was like in the request--
> if it was friendly but concerned, or cordial and peppered with lightly
> veiled threats. [...]
It was friendly yet concerned, and extremely respectful and gracious. There
were no veiled threats of any kind. It was also cordial and affable in spots,
without being genial. A large part of it was explanatory. To be sure, it was
not offensive in any way whatsoever. However, it was 100% clear that a formal
request for removal was being made. Brad also volunteered in a subsequent
message that he understood the awkward position I was being put in.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> It was friendly yet concerned, and extremely respectful and gracious. There
> were no veiled threats of any kind. It was also cordial and affable in spots,
> without being genial. A large part of it was explanatory. To be sure, it was
> not offensive in any way whatsoever. However, it was 100% clear that a formal
> request for removal was being made. Brad also volunteered in a subsequent
> message that he understood the awkward position I was being put in.
That's great. But it should have been sent to the poster, not you. Or,
understanding the desire for a quick response, sent to both.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In the future, I think I will, as a matter of protocol, call LSI Legal and
> > confirm any email request, even if it comes from LSI Legal, as a formality,
> > prior to carrying out the legal request -- assuming they can be reached by
> > phone within a reasonable amount of time. Today was quick -- phone call was
> > returned within 20 minutes, and the action taken yesterday was the correct
> > one.
>
> Why are you so afraid of nuking posts on your own system?
Because, all things being equal, I think it's morally wrong to delete things,
unless required to do so. It can also open you up to legal issues.
> Do you really have a legal obligation not to delete posts without a formal
> legal request?
I believe that it's wiser and safer to require specific documentation and
only to delete based on requests by original poster or someone whose rights
are being demonstratably violated -- never to delete on whim. I don't want
ever to open that door.
> I would only call to confirm if you *disagree* with the request, and
> want to see if they *really* mean it. OTOH, if you think it shouldn't
> be on Lugnet and you don't hear from TLC, why not nuke it anyway?
A phone call lays to rest any possibility of e-mail having been forged.
Although SMTP message headers can say a lot about a message's origin, there's
nothing like talking to a real person to confirm something. At the very
least, it's an additional step in which to gather information which would be
helpful to the community, even if the request is not disagreed with.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
It can also open you up to legal issues.
By the way what are the legal issues ?
I printed out the new set Information when it briefly appeared on the Lego Site
I could scan it and publish it in Lugnet. Is this is a problem for you Legalo
men
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Wilkins writes:
> [...] Is this is a problem for you Legalo men
What is a Legalo man?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> What is a Legalo man?
A Legalo man is a man who likes Lego but is concerned with Lego Legal matters.
A Lego man isn't. His world is building Lego and unless Lego bring out minifig
lawyers he has no interest in Lego Legal issues.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Wilkins writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> It can also open you up to legal issues.
>
>
> By the way what are the legal issues ?
One of them I have heard of is the distinction between an open forum and an
edited publication. In an open forum, slander or libel is not the fault of the
proprietor, but an edited one creates an expectation of an editorial standard
and the editor stands responsible for what is published. Prodigy was in court
over this in 1991 because they heavily patroled their online service. Since they
were imposing an editorial standard they became liable for lapses. So if someone
posted pornographic material on Prodigy that offended some local law somewhere
and they didn't take steps, Prodigy was liable. Many people assumed the
corollary, that if you were running an open forum then you could disclaim
liability, but I doubt it. I'm not sure the Supreme Court ruling on the CDA
clarified this very much. ISPs now try to steer clear of any presumption of an
editorial standard, intervening only where some law is being broken by a user.
And I'm not a lawyer.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> > Do you really have a legal obligation not to delete posts without a formal
> > legal request?
>
> I believe that it's wiser and safer to require specific documentation and
> only to delete based on requests by original poster or someone whose rights
> are being demonstratably violated -- never to delete on whim. I don't want
> ever to open that door.
We may have to agree to disagree on this but there is no difference in kind
between "deleting on whim" (which I agree you should not do) and "enforcing
the T&Cs" (which I think most of us strongly WANT you to do) from a legal
sense. In my somewhat informed opinion. There's a difference in degree but not
in kind. If you think that you're protecting yourself by saying you're not
exercising editorial control, go ahead and think that, but it's a tissue, not
a protection.
(You can make the argument that the T&Cs are "whim" in a sense. It's a
community driven whim to a certain extent, but they are still arbitrary to a
certain extent as well)
To reiterate: You do exercise editorial control here, please keep doing so.
> > I would only call to confirm if you *disagree* with the request, and
> > want to see if they *really* mean it. OTOH, if you think it shouldn't
> > be on Lugnet and you don't hear from TLC, why not nuke it anyway?
>
> A phone call lays to rest any possibility of e-mail having been forged.
> Although SMTP message headers can say a lot about a message's origin, there's
> nothing like talking to a real person to confirm something. At the very
> least, it's an additional step in which to gather information which would be
> helpful to the community, even if the request is not disagreed with.
Seems prudent.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> [...]
> To reiterate: You do exercise editorial control here, please keep doing so.
I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial control
is being or has ever been exerted.
Perhaps we are working from different definitions of the term...? My working
definition of "editorial control" is to edit or delete all or portions of
something based on its content on non-technical or non-legal grounds. Thus,
manually deleting accidental duplicate messages is not exterting editorial
control. Deleting messages which allegedly contain IP-infringing materials
upon specific request is not exerting editorial control.
Asking someone to please consider canceling their message or offering to help
them cancel it if they want to is not exerting editorial control, although it
may be exerting some sort of guiding influence.
Also, asking people not to use profanity -- on penalty of possibly losing
posting privileges -- is not exerting editorial control any more than asking
people not to post auction announcements in non-auction groups on penalty of
same would be. Rather, it is asking people to exert editorial control
voluntarily upon their own messages. Very different: They can still choose
to ignore it and their messages will stay unedited and undeleted and
uncensored. They may lose the privilege to post further messages, but the
messages in question stay put unless the poster chooses to remove them.
To exert editorial control, one must forcibly and unilaterially edit or remove
something based on qualitative judgments. LUGNET does not review the content
of messages, manually or automatically, prior to their publishing. (Except
obviously to make sure that they are standard plain-text ASCII and are
addressed to newsgroups which actually exist, etc. -- but absolutely no
squelching of free speech.)
Please Note:
LUGNET does not remove messages which violate its guidelines. LUGNET must
of course messages if specificaly required to do so based on legal grounds.
Such messages may (or may not) coincidentally violate its guidelines.
Make no mistake: The messages removed yesterday were ***NOT*** removed
because they violated LUGNET's T&C guidelines. Let me repeat that. The
messages removed yesterday were ***NOT*** removed because they violated
LUGNET's T&C guidelines. They *were* removed because of a legal request
from LEGO which has absolutely nothing to do with LUGNET's T&C guidelines.
LUGNET does not manage, review, delete, edit, or otherwise control the
contents of the messages posted to its discussion groups. This is what I
mean when I say that editorial control is not exerted. You may have a
different definition of the term and I would be curious to hear it.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [...]
> > To reiterate: You do exercise editorial control here, please keep doing
> > so.
>
> I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial
> control is being or has ever been exerted.
I should add one thing here to clarify the context of what I mean. I'm talking
of course about the newsgroups above.
In contrast, the sets database is a completely different story: editorial
control *is* and probably always will be exercised in the sets database --
and for obvious reasons: adding/updating data, correcting mistakes, etc.
Six people currently have access to change things in the sets DB and a fair
amount of editing goes on over time.
I think we're getting tripped up on wording here and I would personally rather
focus on what is happening and has happened and will continue to happen,
rather than trying to apply loaded labels like "censorship" or "editorial
control", etc.
The bottom line is that no newsgroup content is edited or removed on the basis
of its content, unless required to do by an outside party (i.e., LEGO in this
case) for clear and justified legal reasons. This ensures the continued
health and existence of the site while not passing judgment on the content.
If you want to call that editorial control, so be it, but it's just a label.
What occurs, and why, is far more important. (And I realize you have already
stated this a different way when you said "please keep doing so.")
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > [...]
> > > To reiterate: You do exercise editorial control here, please keep doing
> > > so.
> >
> > I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial
> > control is being or has ever been exerted.
>
> I should add one thing here to clarify the context of what I mean. I'm talking
> of course about the newsgroups above.
>
> In contrast, the sets database is a completely different story: editorial
> control *is* and probably always will be exercised in the sets database --
> and for obvious reasons: adding/updating data, correcting mistakes, etc.
> Six people currently have access to change things in the sets DB and a fair
> amount of editing goes on over time.
>
> I think we're getting tripped up on wording here and I would personally rather
> focus on what is happening and has happened and will continue to happen,
> rather than trying to apply loaded labels like "censorship" or "editorial
> control", etc.
>
> The bottom line is that no newsgroup content is edited or removed on the basis
> of its content, unless required to do by an outside party (i.e., LEGO in this
> case) for clear an
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> > The bottom line is that no newsgroup content is edited or removed on the
> > basis of its content, unless required to do by an outside party (i.e.,
> > LEGO in this case) for clear an
> [abrupt stop]
John,
Was that a cleverly timed joke (if so, nice work! :-) or was your content
clipped unintentionally by your WebTV browser? Looking at the incoming
HTML-form logs, your browser appears to have chopped the text after the
"an". Question: When you saw the preview screen, how much of your message
showed up? A few days ago someone was having trouble posting from WebTV
with the new preview screen because the WebTV browser was throwing away
ASCII character #10's. I worked around its browser bug by converting raw
10-bytes to strings.
All moot of course if this was a joke, but if not, I'd like to learn more.
Thanks,
--Todd
[followups to lugnet.admin.nntp]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > [...]
> > > > To reiterate: You do exercise editorial control here, please keep doing
> > > > so.
> > >
> > > I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial
> > > control is being or has ever been exerted.
> >
> > I should add one thing here to clarify the context of what I mean. I'm talking
> > of course about the newsgroups above.
> >
> > In contrast, the sets database is a completely different story: editorial
> > control *is* and probably always will be exercised in the sets database --
> > and for obvious reasons: adding/updating data, correcting mistakes, etc.
> > Six people currently have access to change things in the sets DB and a fair
> > amount of editing goes on over time.
> >
> > I think we're getting tripped up on wording here and I would personally rather
> > focus on what is happening and has happened and will continue to happen,
> > rather than trying to apply loaded labels like "censorship" or "editorial
> > control", etc.
> >
> > The bottom line is that no newsgroup content is edited or removed on th
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [...]
> > To reiterate: You do exercise editorial control here, please keep doing so.
>
> I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial control
> is being or has ever been exerted.
>
> Perhaps we are working from different definitions of the term...?
Ding ding ding! Yes!
> My working
> definition of "editorial control" is to edit or delete all or portions of
> something based on its content on non-technical or non-legal grounds.
I definitely and without a doubt agree that you do not do that specific thing
(whatever you or I call it) here and if anyone is thinking that I am implying
that you do, they would be incorrect. (except inasmuch as you do sort
of "delete" posts by people who have had their posting privs revoked... the
post is deleted by automatic mechanisms (that you, as "editor" have put in
place and administer) in that the server rejects it prior to it being
submitted and posted)
> You may have a
> different definition of the term and I would be curious to hear it.
Very briefly and subject to amplification later, the legal meaning of
editorial control is much broader than your definition. It is the act of
exerting influence over what sorts of things appear on a site. The mechanism
by which control is exerted is irrelevant. (to the definition of the term. It
matters a lot to us as recepients of that control, and I like your selected
mechanism...)
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like.
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > [...]
> > > To reiterate: You do exercise editorial control here, please keep doing so.
> >
> > I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial • control
> > is being or has ever been exerted.
> >
> > Perhaps we are working from different definitions of the term...?
>
> Ding ding ding! Yes!
>
> > My working
> > definition of "editorial control" is to edit or delete all or portions of
> > something based on its content on non-technical or non-legal grounds.
>
> I definitely and without a doubt agree
I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were the legal
grounds for the censorship?
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like.
> >
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > My working
> > > definition of "editorial control" is to edit or delete all or portions of
> > > something based on its content on non-technical or non-legal grounds.
> >
> > I definitely and without a doubt agree
What, are you TRYING to annoy me here? You've edited Todd's and my words by
trimming away most of the sentence to make it look like I am agreeing with
Todd's definition. Gentle readers, do not be fooled by Scott's action here.
Scott, I'm disappointed in you. Very.
> I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were
> the legal grounds for the censorship?
For what censorship? There was none. Nothing was removed on grounds of
political or moral unacceptability, which is what censorship is.
As to the grounds for the editorial action taken, I'd venture that either you
haven't been paying attention or you are being deliberately disingenious. Go
reread the entire thread. It was pretty clearly explained in mind numbing
detail.
Todd, subsequent to the post I responded to, suggested that we not focus on
whether what he does is editorial control or not, which is a narrow (but
important issue) but rather on the larger aspects of this.
I'm focusing on the narrow issue partly because it's about the only place that
I disagree with Todd w.r.t. this incident, and partly because I think it's
important for legal protective reasons to LUGNET that Todd get it straight in
his mind that what he does is indeed exert an influence and control on what
goes on here. (as he should! It's his property and most of us want him to, and
all of us agreed to abide when we agreed to the T&Cs) Insisting that it's
not "editorial" control is going to potentially cause him harm later, I feel.
Sites only have 2 choices. Either they control things or they don't. This is a
controlled site, using very effective and benign mechanisms, but it's
controlled nevertheless and thus does not have the "common carrier" defense
(in the US legal system, I'm not talking about barbarian states like Canada or
the UK :-) ) against libel and defamation that an uncontrolled site does (if
it still does, under CDA as another poster points out, it may be a moot
distinction).
With that said I'm ready to drop the whole (narrow issue of "editorial
control") thing. It's pretty clear to me that I'm right and Todd's wrong, and
he can ignore it at his peril, but I don't have to belabor the point. (more. :-
) ) After all the world can survive without LUGNET and Todd doesn't really
need his life savings, it's better that lawyers get it. (that's sarcasm)
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like.
> > >
> > > In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > > My working
> > > > definition of "editorial control" is to edit or delete all or portions of
> > > > something based on its content on non-technical or non-legal grounds.
> > >
> > > I definitely and without a doubt agree
>
> What, are you TRYING to annoy me here? You've edited Todd's and my words by
> trimming away most of the sentence to make it look like I am agreeing with
> Todd's definition. Gentle readers, do not be fooled by Scott's action here.
My apologies.
>
> Scott, I'm disappointed in you. Very.
I won't sleep tonight
>
> > I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were
> > the legal grounds for the censorship?
>
> For what censorship? There was none. Nothing was removed on grounds of
> political or moral unacceptability, which is what censorship is.
Nope.
>
> As to the grounds for the editorial action taken, I'd venture that either you
> haven't been paying attention or you are being deliberately disingenious. Go
> reread the entire thread. It was pretty clearly explained in mind numbing
> detail.
Perhaps that is the problem. I found no firm legal argument, only opinion. I a
seminal post perhaps?
>
> Todd, subsequent to the post I responded to, suggested that we not focus on
> whether what he does is editorial control or not, which is a narrow (but
> important issue) but rather on the larger aspects of this.
I'd agree, what Todd did is more important than what you/he calls it.
>
> I'm focusing on the narrow issue partly because it's about the only place that
> I disagree with Todd w.r.t. this incident, and partly because I think it's
> important for legal protective reasons to LUGNET that Todd get it straight in
> his mind that what he does is indeed exert an influence and control on what
> goes on here.
If you are worried about Todd standing legally perhaps you should suggest he
seeks legal advise, rather spouting opinion (informed or otherwise)?
> (as he should! It's his property and most of us want him to, and
> all of us agreed to abide when we agreed to the T&Cs) Insisting that it's
> not "editorial" control is going to potentially cause him harm later, I feel.
>
> Sites only have 2 choices. Either they control things or they don't. This is a
> controlled site, using very effective and benign mechanisms, but it's
> controlled nevertheless and thus does not have the "common carrier" defense
> (in the US legal system, I'm not talking about barbarian states like Canada or
> the UK :-) ) against libel and defamation that an uncontrolled site does (if
> it still does, under CDA as another poster points out, it may be a moot
> distinction).
>
> With that said I'm ready to drop the whole (narrow issue of "editorial
> control") thing. It's pretty clear to me that I'm right and Todd's wrong, and
> he can ignore it at his peril, but I don't have to belabor the point. (more.
This is the problem with debates here - conclusions are seldom drawn, "debates"
just die. In ten years time to get anything out of this thread some poor sap
will have to sift through this sprawl... and sigh.
:-
> ) ) After all the world can survive without LUGNET and Todd doesn't really
> need his life savings, it's better that lawyers get it. (that's sarcasm)
Todds too long to have life savings :-)
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > For what censorship? There was none. Nothing was removed on grounds of
> > political or moral unacceptability, which is what censorship is.
>
> Nope.
I hate replying to my own posts and quoting dictionaries, today I shall do
both:
From:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=censor*1%2B0
censor verb [T]
to remove parts of (something to be read, seen, or heard) because it is
offensive or considered morally
wrong, or because it is secret
She opposes efforts to censor the Internet.
censor noun [C]
a person whose job is to read books or watch movies or television programs in
order to remove
anything offensive from them
censorship noun [U]
Censorship was imposed on state-run television and radio.
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > For what censorship? There was none. Nothing was removed on grounds of
> > > political or moral unacceptability, which is what censorship is.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> I hate replying to my own posts and quoting dictionaries, today I shall do
> both:
>
> From:
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=censor*1%2B0
>
> censor verb [T]
> to remove parts of (something to be read, seen, or heard) because it is
> offensive or considered morally
> wrong, or because it is secret
> She opposes efforts to censor the Internet.
>
> censor noun [C]
> a person whose job is to read books or watch movies or television programs in
> order to remove
> anything offensive from them
>
> censorship noun [U]
> Censorship was imposed on state-run television and radio.
>
> Scott A
So you're agreeing, then? Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the
very definitions you quote.
Do be clearer in future, hmm?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> So you're agreeing, then?
Nope.
Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the
> very definitions you quote.
Really?
> censor verb [T]
> to remove parts of (something to be read, seen, or heard) because it is
A thread?
> offensive or considered morally
> wrong, or because it is secret
Secret - TLG would say so, or at least that is what I am told :-)
Scott A
>
> Do be clearer in future, hmm?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> So you're agreeing, then? Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by
> the very definitions you quote.
I think Scott is right on this one. While censorship usually has the
implication of morality-judgements, it's also used in the sense of keeping
things secret. Think of a military censor, watching the media to keep out
any information that might give away important tactical information (or sway
public opinion). Same sorta thing.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> I think Scott is right on this one. While censorship usually has the
> implication of morality-judgements, it's also used in the sense of keeping
> things secret. Think of a military censor, watching the media to keep out
> any information that might give away important tactical information (or sway
> public opinion). Same sorta thing.
I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did
not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although
retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has
occurred here) may still be contain the word "censorship," it certainly isn't
censorship in the usual sense. To the military example, the military censor's
job is to make sure that the media doesn't get any sensitive information in
the first place. Since there is no automatic or manual review mechansim on
lugnet for ensuring that posts do not contain sensitive information, I don't
think the military example applies here.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did
> not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although
> retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has
> occurred here) may still be contain the word "censorship," it certainly isn't
> censorship in the usual sense. To the military example, the military censor's
True, that is usually the case. However, according to M-W, to censor is to
"[...] suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". "Suppress"
certainly has connotations of "before publication", but "delete" doesn't.
Anyway. It's not censorship in the normal sense, I agree -- that'd be if you
(or Lego) read the messages before they were posted and removed bits.
However, it is censorship in that "objectionable" (in this case, for legal
or at least legalistic reasons) matterial is being deleted.
Really, at this point I'm just arguing about language, which is beside the
point, so I'll stop.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> [...]
> Really, at this point I'm just arguing about language, which is beside the
> point, so I'll stop.
This is a very interesting read, IMHO:
http://www.cyberlaw.com/cylw0595.html
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> > I think Scott is right on this one. While censorship usually has the
> > implication of morality-judgements, it's also used in the sense of keeping
> > things secret. Think of a military censor, watching the media to keep out
> > any information that might give away important tactical information (or sway
> > public opinion). Same sorta thing.
>
> I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did
> not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although
> retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has
> occurred here) may still be contain the word "censorship," it certainly isn't
> censorship in the usual sense. To the military example, the military censor's
> job is to make sure that the media doesn't get any sensitive information in
> the first place. Since there is no automatic or manual review mechansim on
> lugnet for ensuring that posts do not contain sensitive information, I don't
> think the military example applies here.
>
> --Todd
Agreed. And thanks for digging up the cyberlaw cite, those were the very cases
I was referring to, although I was incorrect in referring to Compuserve as a
common carrier, their defense was the library defense. (Believe it or not, I
think there was a case very early in the history of the telephone in which a
telephone company was allegedly held to be party to a libel suit but it was
quickly established that telephone companies are carriers, not publishers, and
therefore not liable for what is transmitted through them, but conversely not
protected by freedom of speech protections that publishers enjoy.)
It's clear to me that Lugnet is more like the Compuserve model than it is the
Prodigy model, which featured active editing and enforcement actions against
individual postings. But is it enough like Compuserve to be free of "editorial
control"? I don't think so. Hence my concern. You have to be VERY close to
unrestricted flow to be the library model. It helps that Lugnet disclaims
copyright on material authored by participants, but it's not enough.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> > > I think Scott is right on this one. While censorship usually has the
> > > implication of morality-judgements, it's also used in the sense of keeping
> > > things secret. Think of a military censor, watching the media to keep out
> > > any information that might give away important tactical information (or • sway
> > > public opinion). Same sorta thing.
> >
> > I have always believed that censorship was something which happened (or did
> > not happen) before something is published (or not published). Although
> > retroactive censorship by a third party (if that is what you consider has
> > occurred here) may still be contain the word "censorship," it certainly isn't
> > censorship in the usual sense. To the military example, the military • censor's
> > job is to make sure that the media doesn't get any sensitive information in
> > the first place. Since there is no automatic or manual review mechansim on
> > lugnet for ensuring that posts do not contain sensitive information, I don't
> > think the military example applies here.
> >
> > --Todd
>
> Agreed.
<SNIPPED>
So if it is not "censorship", what is it? I missed the posts (e-mails welcome),
so I have no real ideal what was in the post. So to me this denial of
information, for no solid reason as far as I can see, feels like censorship. I
really think LUGNET needs a solid framework for dealing with this sort of issue
- as I expect it will happen again, just as it has happened before. If one can
be sure that there are risks involved, then act. Otherwise, just keep up the
good work. Hiding under the bed every time we get a rumble from TLG makes us
look like some sort of primitive civilisation worshipping some great lumbering
angry deity.
Scott A
BTW : Am I the only one here that thinks LUGNET was better before Brad showed
up and started making his pronouncements?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> I missed the posts (e-mails welcome),
Let's be clear here, are you asking for someone to mail you a description of
the contents (which you've already seen if you've read the thread, but
briefly, it's proprietary marketing and pricing information that is the
property of TLC), or were you asking for someone to mail you the posts
themselves? I suspect the latter but certainly welcome correction.
If so, what other stolen goods were you planning on soliciting for on Lugnet?
Seriously, I'm not sure it's a good idea to make Lugnet a party to your
conspiring to receive, as Lugnet can't assert the library or common carrier
defense, IMHO.
> so I have no real ideal what was in the post. So to me this denial of
> information, for no solid reason as far as I can see, feels like censorship.
It might feel like censorship, and in the broad meaning the public uses, you
might think it is, but in the narrow, legalistic and definitionally correct
view, it's not. Censorship is a priori. This was a postiori, among other
important differences. My take on this is that editorial control is a very
broad meaning and we're stuck with it for good or ill, while censorship is a
very narrow one and we don't have it here, thank goodness.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > I missed the posts (e-mails welcome),
Thanks to those who mailed me.
>
> Let's be clear here, are you asking for someone to mail you a description of
> the contents (which you've already seen if you've read the thread, but
> briefly, it's proprietary marketing and pricing information that is the
> property of TLC), or were you asking for someone to mail you the posts
> themselves? I suspect the latter but certainly welcome correction.
>
> If so, what other stolen goods were you planning on soliciting for on Lugnet?
>
> Seriously, I'm not sure it's a good idea to make Lugnet a party to your
> conspiring to receive, as Lugnet can't assert the library or common carrier
> defense, IMHO.
*Sigh*
>
> > so I have no real ideal what was in the post. So to me this denial of
> > information, for no solid reason as far as I can see, feels like censorship.
>
> It might feel like censorship, and in the broad meaning the public uses, you
> might think it is, but in the narrow, legalistic and definitionally correct
> view, it's not.
Substantiate this please, if you can. I see this time and time again here.
Words are words. They not not suddenly change their meaning when one employs
seeks legal advise... they are just the same old words I'm afraid.
> Censorship is a priori. This was a postiori, among other
> important differences.
I'm not sure what you mean(?)
> My take on this is that editorial control is a very
> broad meaning
Is that the normal, legal, bar, or your own meaning? :-)
I think you are right, but think the phrase is used because it _is_ vauge.
> and we're stuck with it for good or ill, while censorship is a
> very narrow one and we don't have it here, thank goodness.
Well, what do we have (concisely please)?
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Censorship is a priori. This was a postiori
Is anyone else finding this discussion a small pain in the "a postiori"?
You guys are now revolving in tighter circles than even Justice Scalia
normally attempts. AND arguing in TWO languages about the meaning of a
particular word (arguing in latin helps no one).
Sheeesh! Get over it...
For what little it may be worth, I agree with Scott inasmuch as Brad J. is of
no help on Lugnet if his primary function here will be to stifle expression of
ideas, knowledge, etc.
If I have a secret and I tell Larry my secret, and then Larry tells everyone
my secret even though I asked him not to -- who is to blame, me or Larry?
All this mumbo jumbo about the LAW and so forth is just sorta interesting
gyrating at best or silly posturing at worst. Lego does not have control of
its business -- if it did we'd have far less to complain about. I happen to
notice yesterday that they were screwing up EVEN the URLs on their own web
site (I think Todd or someone posted about it). These TLC clowns are just not
professional no matter what the company earns as a whole. AND I blame TLC for
all of it -- why worry about the bottom bits when all the significant lack of
control starts at the top? If they cannot control their own proprietary
information in the manner in which they would wish to do so, they cannot come
here and ask us to do it for them.
Todd acted reasonably for a person who essentially owns the information here.
If there was fear of a legal rumble over something Todd could easily just
remove from viewing and therefore quash the issue, then so be it. It becomes
David v. Goliath, and I don't see that Todd wants to slay Goliath or even
attempt it. Fine. So the offending posts were removed.
Don't like it? Take it to RTL -- it remains useful for some things, as Lugnet
itself cannot be all things to all Lego fans. And that's a fact too!
-- Richard
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
> Don't like it? Take it to RTL -- it remains useful for some things, as Lugnet
> itself cannot be all things to all Lego fans. And that's a fact too!
Some of us just want to know what _is_ acceptable here, so that we are not
subject to arbitrary deletions.
For example, if I post the URL of where I have 'the list' (hehehe, making it
sound evil!), is that a violation of the LUGNET T&C?
How about if I post that there is a interesting discussion on this issue on
RTL, is that a violation?
_I_ don't know where I would stand with these issues right now, and _I_ want
some clarification.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> > Don't like it? Take it to RTL -- it remains useful for some things, as
> > Lugnet itself cannot be all things to all Lego fans. And that's a fact too!
>
> Some of us just want to know what _is_ acceptable here, so that we are not
> subject to arbitrary deletions.
You will have to consult an attorney specializing in Intellectual Property or
ask LEGO and trust what they say back.
> For example, if I post the URL of where I have 'the list' (hehehe, making it
> sound evil!), is that a violation of the LUGNET T&C?
It may be and it may not be. Intellectual Property case law is changing
every day. Months ago, it was not illegal to post links to things containing
illegally obtained information. I seem to remember hearing or reading
somewhere recently that some court somewhere recently decided the opposite.
You never know. It's better (IMHO) to err on the safe side.
> How about if I post that there is a interesting discussion on this issue on
> RTL, is that a violation?
That would definitely not be a violation of the LUGNET newsgroup T&C, no.
(Assuming your post was a generic informative statement and did not refer to
any specific post in RTL. If it did refer to a specific post which contained
illegally obtained materials and courts found that making such a referral was
illegal as well, then it would be a violation of the T&C.) The bottom line is
that you do anything here at your own risk. There are no black and white
guarantees, nor has it ever been said or implied that there were.
> _I_ don't know where I would stand with these issues right now, and _I_ want
> some clarification.
Don't we all.
--Todd
p.s. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the above is not legal advice.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> It may be and it may not be. Intellectual Property case law is changing
> every day. Months ago, it was not illegal to post links to things containing
> illegally obtained information. I seem to remember hearing or reading
> somewhere recently that some court somewhere recently decided the opposite.
No such decision yet. The DeCSS case is in progress right now, and those of
us who care about freedom of speech and the web in general sure hope it'll
come down the other way. In fact, an important question in that case is
whether source code is speech, with the strong implication (from both the
defendants and the court) that if it is decided to be speech (as opposed to
being equivalent to a mechanical device), prohibiting linking runs against
first amendment issues.
> p.s. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the above is not legal advice.
Ditto, of course.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > It may be and it may not be. Intellectual Property case law is changing
> > every day. Months ago, it was not illegal to post links to things
> > containing illegally obtained information. I seem to remember hearing or
> > reading somewhere recently that some court somewhere recently decided the
> > opposite.
>
> No such decision yet. The DeCSS case is in progress right now, and those of
> us who care about freedom of speech and the web in general sure hope it'll
> come down the other way. In fact, an important question in that case is
> whether source code is speech, with the strong implication (from both the
> defendants and the court) that if it is decided to be speech (as opposed to
> being equivalent to a mechanical device), prohibiting linking runs against
> first amendment issues.
James Powell mentioned the bad news already on another thread (or was it
another sub-branch of this huge thread?), but it bears repeating here for
posterity...
Here's a link to the Slashdot story for those who haven't seen it yet:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/17/1827208
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd - what the judge said appears to be totally useless and irrelevant to
the case that was being judged. I reckon they'll appeal though.
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:FzKMoI.92M@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > > It may be and it may not be. Intellectual Property case law is • changing
> > > every day. Months ago, it was not illegal to post links to things
> > > containing illegally obtained information. I seem to remember hearing • or
> > > reading somewhere recently that some court somewhere recently decided • the
> > > opposite.
> >
> > No such decision yet. The DeCSS case is in progress right now, and those • of
> > us who care about freedom of speech and the web in general sure hope • it'll
> > come down the other way. In fact, an important question in that case is
> > whether source code is speech, with the strong implication (from both • the
> > defendants and the court) that if it is decided to be speech (as opposed • to
> > being equivalent to a mechanical device), prohibiting linking runs • against
> > first amendment issues.
>
> James Powell mentioned the bad news already on another thread (or was it
> another sub-branch of this huge thread?), but it bears repeating here for
> posterity...
>
> Here's a link to the Slashdot story for those who haven't seen it yet:
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/17/1827208
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Geoffrey Hyde <ghyde@ledanet.com.au> wrote:
> Todd - what the judge said appears to be totally useless and irrelevant to
> the case that was being judged. I reckon they'll appeal though.
Yeah. They were actually expecting this ruling. One advantage of having this
before the Supreme Court is that any ruling will be effective nationally,
not just in New York.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> James Powell mentioned the bad news already on another thread (or was it
> another sub-branch of this huge thread?), but it bears repeating here for
> posterity...
> Here's a link to the Slashdot story for those who haven't seen it yet:
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/17/1827208
Yes, I saw that. I hope the appeal goes better.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> If you are worried about Todd standing legally perhaps you should suggest he
> seeks legal advise?
That's precisely what I'm doing. As long as he's convinced that what he's
doing isn't editorial control he's never going to seek legal advice about it,
is he?
> , rather spouting opinion (informed or otherwise)?
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > If you are worried about Todd standing legally perhaps you should suggest he
> > seeks legal advise?
>
> That's precisely what I'm doing. As long as he's convinced that what he's
> doing isn't editorial control he's never going to seek legal advice about it,
> is he?
You, he and I can call it what we want. Actions speak louder than words.
Scott A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Sites only have 2 choices. Either they control things or they don't. This is a
> controlled site, using very effective and benign mechanisms, but it's
> controlled nevertheless and thus does not have the "common carrier" defense
> (in the US legal system, I'm not talking about barbarian states like Canada or
> the UK :-) ) against libel and defamation that an uncontrolled site does (if
> it still does, under CDA as another poster points out, it may be a moot
> distinction).
To claify, this distinction was reiterated in DCMA (sorry don't have USs # for
it), so is still offerable as protection (witness Napster as a example)
James P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
> Sites only have 2 choices. Either they control things or they don't. This is a
> controlled site, using very effective and benign mechanisms, but it's
> controlled nevertheless and thus does not have the "common carrier" defense
> (in the US legal system, I'm not talking about barbarian states like Canada or
> the UK :-) ) against libel and defamation that an uncontrolled site does (if
Ooog ooog ooog :) Actually, I believe that Canadian case law is similar
to the US on this point. You either exert no control, or you're
responsible.
<snip>
> he can ignore it at his peril, but I don't have to belabor the point. (more. :-
That's _belabour_. Ooog ooog ooog :)
Jeff Elliott
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Lorbaat <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote:
> Ahh, hmm. So, the information has been released to Target Stores, and
> Target has placed it in their computer. An employee of Target who has
> access to that information legally (ie, he was not sneaking into his
> bosses' offices) shared it with us, just as he could by store policy if we
> walked into the store, and Lego says we can't discuss it?
What if someone goes in to Target, asks an employee for that info, gets it,
and then posts it here?
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> Lorbaat <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote:
> > Ahh, hmm. So, the information has been released to Target Stores, and
> > Target has placed it in their computer. An employee of Target who has
> > access to that information legally (ie, he was not sneaking into his
> > bosses' offices) shared it with us, just as he could by store policy if we
> > walked into the store, and Lego says we can't discuss it?
>
> What if someone goes in to Target, asks an employee for that info, gets it,
> and then posts it here?
Interesting question. The info is out there. It WILL be discussed. I've
received numerous copies of it already. I could simply post it on my website
or to RTL or any number of places (either taking credit for it or as
anonymously as possible) and it could spread from there, as I'm sure it
already has.
I respect Todd's desire to not be the source of leak's, but this sort of thing
is going to happen - it happens with every industry, every product. And
usually only insanely arrogant companies like Apple decide to make fools of
themselves (and in some cases, draw more attention to the leaks) by demanding
removal of info like this from fan sites.
Sorry, but I never agreed with the "you can't talk about it if you come across
it in a vendor catalog" debate last year, and I don't agree with this. If
Lego doesn't want the info floating around it shouldn't be releasing it into
retailer systems. Only if it doesn't release it those retailers probably
won't commit to stocking it, and round and round we go.
Todd's going to have to keep playing policeman for this one site, while
numerous others will probably reprint the info, either now or soon. In fact,
I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't end up as an anonymous coward posting on
Slashdot or something - especially the Star Wars set info. Who wouldn't want
to know that they're releasing (picture a nice black line here) or (another
black line) or heck, especially the (black line, double strength) - for the
low price of (black line), (black line), and (black line)?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
> I respect Todd's desire to not be the source of leak's, but this sort of
Me too. But in this case, *Target* is the source of the leak. At this point,
it's fair game.
The only issue that comes into it for me is the one of respect for Lego.
Out of respect for them, I personally will avoid posting data that I might
have (theoretically -- I don't actually have any) that they don't want
public.
However, asking Todd to delete posts is *not* the way for Lego to continue
to have my respect. They should have contacted the original poster *nicely*
and in a non-threatining way and asked politely. Then, *he* could have asked
Todd to remove the posts.
Or, Lego could start at the source of the problem and ask Target to change
their policies (or to formulate some -- my guess is that the actual case is
that Target hasn't bothered with this issue at all).
Either way, once a something has been revealed to the public -- by whatever
means -- it's not a secret. Trying to squelch conversation brings up freedom
of speech issues. Companies who don't have respect for that shouldn't expect
much respect in turn.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Or, Lego could start at the source of the problem and ask Target to change
> their policies (or to formulate some -- my guess is that the actual case is
> that Target hasn't bothered with this issue at all).
The problem here is that target is so big that they could take action
against efforts by TLG to tell them how to run their stock systems or
whatever (e.g. discontinuing the sale of lego) and that would loose
sales for TLG.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Or, Lego could start at the source of the problem and ask Target to change
> > their policies (or to formulate some -- my guess is that the actual case is
> > that Target hasn't bothered with this issue at all).
> The problem here is that target is so big that they could take action
> against efforts by TLG to tell them how to run their stock systems or
> whatever (e.g. discontinuing the sale of lego) and that would loose
> sales for TLG.
This cuts both ways, Target can't NOT sell Lego at all or they will lose sales
too. However they can deemphasize it or cut shelf space for it (which seems to
be happening at Target and Kmart at least)
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > Or, Lego could start at the source of the problem and ask Target to change
> > > their policies (or to formulate some -- my guess is that the actual case is
> > > that Target hasn't bothered with this issue at all).
> > The problem here is that target is so big that they could take action
> > against efforts by TLG to tell them how to run their stock systems or
> > whatever (e.g. discontinuing the sale of lego) and that would loose
> > sales for TLG.
>
> This cuts both ways, Target can't NOT sell Lego at all or they will lose sales
> too. However they can deemphasize it or cut shelf space for it (which seems to
> be happening at Target and Kmart at least)
Which again would cause them to loose sales/profit? In the UK there is a phrase
"cut your nose off to spite your face" - that is what target would be doing if
they even deliberatelly reduced lego sales by 1%.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Scott A <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
> Which again would cause them to loose sales/profit? In the UK there is a
> phrase "cut your nose off to spite your face" - that is what target would
> be doing if they even deliberatelly reduced lego sales by 1%.
Not if they can then push Mega Bloks more and make up for it....
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Lorbaat <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote:
> > > Ahh, hmm. So, the information has been released to Target Stores, and
> > > Target has placed it in their computer. An employee of Target who has
> > > access to that information legally (ie, he was not sneaking into his
> > > bosses' offices) shared it with us, just as he could by store policy if we
> > > walked into the store, and Lego says we can't discuss it?
> >
> > What if someone goes in to Target, asks an employee for that info, gets it,
> > and then posts it here?
>
> Interesting question. The info is out there. It WILL be discussed. I've
> received numerous copies of it already. I could simply post it on my website
> or to RTL or any number of places (either taking credit for it or as
> anonymously as possible) and it could spread from there, as I'm sure it
> already has.
>
> I respect Todd's desire to not be the source of leak's, but this sort of thing
> is going to happen - it happens with every industry, every product. And
> usually only insanely arrogant companies like Apple decide to make fools of
> themselves (and in some cases, draw more attention to the leaks) by demanding
> removal of info like this from fan sites.
Apple's quiet crackdown began more than two years ago. Heads rolled, because
they leaked bogus information that was planted to detect the leak. Apple may
have gotten "better publicity" for last month's crackdown on photos of "the
cube", but it was Adobe that changed the leak scene this summer.
Adobe Illustrator 9 is out now, but for rumors of it, Adobe sued Mac News
Network for <sum of death> and will likely extinguish that web publisher. The
chilling effect when real magazine publishers realized they were guilty under
the law for participating in the free-wheeling double standard of spreading this
stuff caused ZDNET to make a decision to discontinue their rumor-fence
columnists. One columnist decried the double standard--Adobe encouraged this
sort of thing not so long ago--but Mac the Knife became scrap last month.
Spencer J. Katt has probably spent his ninth life (I don't know.) By picking on
the little guy with a web site, Adobe has brought the whole trade press to heel.
Things are changing.
In defense of what Apple is doing right now, this guy they are trying to nail
got access to materials that were NEVER available to 1) journalists 2) resellers
or 3) developer partners. Apple can't be accused of having a double standard
(they're arrogant all the time anyway) but Adobe is the biggest bully this
season.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> and
> Lego says we can't discuss it?
No, Lego asked Todd not to publish information they consider "confidential",
and he agreed to not do that.
You're still free to discuss it. But, if you want to *publish* it somewhere,
you'll have to find a publisher that won't honor Lego's request.
> In other words, we are being asked to not talk about
> something that is well within the public domain, by LEGO's own actions.
Oh, really? You've read Lego's contract with Target, and verified that it
has no provisions for keeping advance information confidential? Or is it
possible that it was sloppy security at Target, in violation of their
agreement with Lego, that allowed it to leak out?
Ran
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ran Talbott <ran@netgate.net> wrote:
> Oh, really? You've read Lego's contract with Target, and verified that it
> has no provisions for keeping advance information confidential? Or is it
> possible that it was sloppy security at Target, in violation of their
> agreement with Lego, that allowed it to leak out?
Either way, the problem is at Target. Once it's out, it's news.
Frankly, I find it silly when companies "crack down" on things like this.
It's their own fans they're hurting -- and it's the most rabid fanatical
ones who *care* about stuff like this. I understand the desire to keep
things secret, but once they're out, why make bad publicity for yourself?
Instead, capitalize on the free *positive* publicity.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
> Frankly, I find it silly when companies "crack down" on things like this.
> It's their own fans they're hurting -- and it's the most rabid fanatical
> ones who *care* about stuff like this. I understand the desire to keep
> things secret, but once they're out, why make bad publicity for yourself?
> Instead, capitalize on the free *positive* publicity.
Exactly. What, precisely, is the point of telling us not to talk about it?
The sets might get cancelled? The prices might change? I think anyone reading
this information knows that might happen.
Competitors might get the info? Uh, so? I'm sure the competition knows this
stuff already, and not through Lugnet. Even so, what precisely is the
competition going to do with a list of set names and numbers?
Asking fans not to talk about it is just plain stupid, and hurtful to their
reputation with their fans.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Lorbaat <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote:
> Asking fans not to talk about it is just plain stupid, and hurtful to their
> reputation with their fans.
Even worse, they didn't even ask us. They asked the admin of the site to
remove the posts.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
>
> > Frankly, I find it silly when companies "crack down" on things like this.
> > It's their own fans they're hurting -- and it's the most rabid fanatical
> > ones who *care* about stuff like this. I understand the desire to keep
> > things secret, but once they're out, why make bad publicity for yourself?
> > Instead, capitalize on the free *positive* publicity.
>
> Exactly. What, precisely, is the point of telling us not to talk about it?
>
> The sets might get cancelled? The prices might change? I think anyone • reading
> this information knows that might happen.
Ooh, mabey they'll cancel the M****** T* M*** like sets and make pirats!!!
NICK #:^A
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Nick Cameron writes:
>
> Ooh, mabey they'll cancel the M****** T* M*** like sets and make pirats!!!
>
> NICK #:^A
Aw, nuts.... I was really looking forward to little Lego music stands in the
Minnie The Moocher sets....
JUST JOKING - NO ADVANCE SET KNOWLEDGE IS CLAIMED!!!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
i agree completely. i didnt get to see the set info before it was canceled, so
i dug around and got it from a confidentail source. This is outragues and i
think TLG needs to stop overreacting.
ps if you want the set info.. .email arghmemateyNO@SPAMjoymail.com
remove nospam, of course
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> Asking fans not to talk about it is just plain stupid, and hurtful to their
> reputation with their fans.
Possibly, but also consider that it is probably far worse to hurt their own
legal reputation by letting something like this slide. I can certainly
imagine that as part of their investigation and any actions they may take
in the future, they are keeping close records of their having requested the
removal of the confidential information and documenting the fact that it was
in fact removed. Failing to do that would probably hurt them in far worse
and longer lasting ways than worrying about hurting their reputation with a
few rabid fans. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't...so try to
see it from their point of view.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ran Talbott writes:
> > Lego says we can't discuss it?
>
> You're still free to discuss it. But, if you want to *publish* it somewhere,
> you'll have to find a publisher that won't honor Lego's request.
Is that your policy Todd? Can I talk all of the about the sets that I know
about? If we find out about leaked information (from some other site for
example), can we talk about that information in other casual conversations on
Lugnet?
Ben Roller
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ben Roller writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Ran Talbott writes:
> > > Lego says we can't discuss it?
> >
> > You're still free to discuss it. But, if you want to *publish* it
> > somewhere, you'll have to find a publisher that won't honor Lego's request.
>
> Is that your policy Todd? Can I talk all of the about the sets that I know
> about? If we find out about leaked information (from some other site for
> example), can we talk about that information in other casual conversations
> on Lugnet?
That's a question for Brad or LEGO Legal via Brad. I am not a lawyer, so I
can't give you legal advice on how not to break the law or how to avoid
infringing on the LEGO company's rights.
The policy is: Don't infringe on anyone's privacy or publicity rights. It's
up to you to decide how to avoid doing that.
My advice is: Err on the safe side. Use good judgment. Use common sense.
Ask Brad lots of tough questions.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Ben Roller writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Ran Talbott writes:
> > > > Lego says we can't discuss it?
> > >
> > > You're still free to discuss it. But, if you want to *publish* it
> > > somewhere, you'll have to find a publisher that won't honor Lego's request.
> >
> > Is that your policy Todd? Can I talk all of the about the sets that I know
> > about? If we find out about leaked information (from some other site for
> > example), can we talk about that information in other casual conversations
> > on Lugnet?
>
> That's a question for Brad or LEGO Legal via Brad. I am not a lawyer, so I
> can't give you legal advice on how not to break the law or how to avoid
> infringing on the LEGO company's rights.
Actually, it is the key question in a court case ongoing in NYC right now...Is
a link to a site that contains something illegal if a cease and decease order
has been granted?
I am refering to DeCSS, and www.2600.com, it makes for interesting reading.
> The policy is: Don't infringe on anyone's privacy or publicity rights. It's
> up to you to decide how to avoid doing that.
OK, then _why_ are you making decisions (Todd) on what publishing is? You have
protection (as far as I can tell, again IANAL) because you, and LUGNET are the
ISP, not the person posting the msg.
> My advice is: Err on the safe side. Use good judgment. Use common sense.
> Ask Brad lots of tough questions.
That is _advice_, and as such is good.
(I'd follow it, I am in some other things which I am more disturbed about,
such as the DeCSS case, I could set up a mirror, but have not, because of job
concerns...I cannot afford to get into a legal pissing match, and I am sure I
am stubborn enough to let it go that far)...but, you removing postings by
someone is far more than advice.
James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> > The policy is: Don't infringe on anyone's privacy or publicity rights.
> > It's up to you to decide how to avoid doing that.
>
> OK, then _why_ are you making decisions (Todd) on what publishing is? You
> have protection (as far as I can tell, again IANAL) because you, and LUGNET
> are the ISP, not the person posting the msg.
Do you mean why does LUGNET have this policy/requirement as part of the T&C?
Because it benefits the community more in the long run to have this
requirement in place than not to have it. Or, from a site survivalist point
of view, it benefits LUGNET more in the long run to have this requirement in
place than not to have it.
It's far easier to say "if you want to play in the sandbox here, don't do
this" and have 99.9% of people abide by that than not to say "don't do this"
and have LEGO making legal requests every two days. In either case, sensitive
or infringing information would have to removed upon legal request...so why
not discourage it in the first place. That is the basic rationale.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> That's a question for Brad or LEGO Legal via Brad. I am not a lawyer, so I
> can't give you legal advice on how not to break the law or how to avoid
> infringing on the LEGO company's rights.
Todd:
I realise that your best answer for this is the first thing you said here- that
you aren't a lawyer- but are you really implying that discussing this
information- in any way, in any forum- violates the law or infinges on TLC's
rights?
I didn't sign any sort of confientiality agreement with LEGO. That's the
bottom line here. While I do respect your request not to discuss the specific
information here on Lugnet, I have certainly shared it with my non-Lugnet
friends, and will continue to do so.
A lot of talk has gone around about the way Lego's handled this, and I really
hope that someone from Lego Direct- be it Brad or anyone else- is reading all
of this and seeing that there could have been a better way to handle it.
Trying to put the genie back into the bottle is impossible, and frankly makes
them look both foolish and draconian at the same time. Simply saying "yes,
that is preliminary information, but it's all subject to change" and then
getting in touch with Target and other retailers to ensure it doesn't happen
again would have been a much more sensible and graceful way of handling it.
Without legal agreements, Lego can't stop us from discussing it, or make us
forget it, or go elsewhere to discuss it. But they can make as sure as
possible that it doesn't happen in the future.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> I realise that your best answer for this is the first thing you said here-
> that you aren't a lawyer- but are you really implying that discussing this
> information- in any way, in any forum- violates the law or infinges on TLC's
> rights?
No, I'm not implying that. I believe that it's possible that some things
related to this might possibly potentially violate some privacy law somewhere,
and I believe that it's potentially likely that some things related to this
may be construed by TLC as infringement, but unfortunately, I think only TLC
is in the position to know for sure whether a given thing infringes upon their
privacy rights or not -- which makes it very difficult for us to judge how far
we can go. I don't know about "cat's outta the bag" laws. I don't know what
the wording was in their contract with Target or other trade partners and of
course I wouldn't know how to interpret it decisively anyway.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> may be construed by TLC as infringement, but unfortunately, I think only
> TLC is in the position to know for sure whether a given thing infringes
> upon their privacy rights or not -- which makes it very difficult for us to
Gotta disagree with that one. If it were companies (or individuals, for that
matter) who got to decide what their own rights were, we'd all be in
trouble. What if they said that "All four-digit numbers are trade secrets.
Don't use them."? Of course, that's ridiculous, but you see the point.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ran Talbott writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> > and
> > Lego says we can't discuss it?
>
> No, Lego asked Todd not to publish information they consider "confidential",
> and he agreed to not do that.
No, LEGO asked Todd to remove certain messages on a thread containing
confidential information, thus causing them to discontinue to be published,
and he complied with that particular specific legal request.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
You've got a point. IF Jorge Rodriguez was honest about Targets policy I don't
think Lego would be so tight up about their sets for next year. Of course,
Lego seems pretty bottled up abut everything now a days. ANY WAY, someone's
gonna be really pissed at the end of this. (Either Lego, Target, or Jorge
Rodriguez)
Chef
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Jorge Rodriguez writes:
> > > Assuming this is not a hoax, did you get permission from the LEGO Company
> > > or from Target Stores to disclose this information publicly?
> >
> > We give out dpci's and prices on regular basis. All I listed was name
> > of item, price of item, and dpci of item. If a guest had walked in the
> > store and askes me to punch in a dpci to check on an item I will give
> > him the same info.
>
> LEGO has respectfully requested that the leaked information on this thread be
> deleted or otherwise removed from view. Since this was a formal request and
> TLC's privacy rights are in question here, this is a legal issue and I will be
> deleting what I can find related to this. BradJ might post and explain more.
>
> Please help by not propagating the leaked information any further. (And
> remember: LUGNET is not a leak club.)
>
> Thanks,
> --Todd
>
> [followups to lugnet.lego.direct]
I apoligize for adding to this bandwidth burning, even though I do enjoy a
good debate. However, one thing about this bothers me and, for better or
worse, I'd just like to throw it out: Will high bidders from the last
Auczilla(s) receive their winnings before these 2001 sets hit the shelf?
Todd is providing a great resource/service to the Lego community, and I can
see him doing no less for TLG. Todd, do what you believe is right, but in
the back of my mind I guess I feel you might have a better way to spend your
time than defending yourself. I'm not saying you must take care of old
business today!, but moving on from this thread seems overdue.
If Brad posts to this NG, I would much rather read about how we can make a
bulk request to TLG rather than a press statement on marketing policy.
JMO - Mark
| | | | | | |
