Subject:
|
Re: How much is enough?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:47:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
788 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Tim Saupé writes:
> I just wanted to make this clear - I'm not blaming LUGNET. I had just
> always thought that the admins here had made it clear that they worked
> towards the best interest of LSI - perhaps I misunderstood though, that is
> entirely possible. I'm thinking now that perhaps they work towards the best
> interests of the LEGO community?
Well-- yes and no. In this case I don't think there's much the admins can
do. In the case of the last leaking scenario, the actual *info* was posted
*on* Lugnet-- information that lugnet.com hosts. Hence, since Lugnet had
"control" over the offensive data, they worked (when asked by Lego) to
conceal the leaked set information.
This time, the information isn't being hosted anywhere in relation to Lugnet
(to the best of my knowledge)-- It's being hosted on a separate site.
Granted, I suppose the Lugnet admins could reap any posts containing that
URL, but then that brings up the issue of when something is in direct
violation of copyrighted material or not. For example, if Lugnet reaped all
posts with the URL, then I put up a *link* to the HP site on *my* web page,
would Lugnet then be responsible for removing *my* URL from Lugnet's posts?
I guess what I'm saying is there's not much Lugnet as a "company/legal
entity" can do without violating its own Terms of Use, since no (to the best
of my knowledge) actual copyrighted and/or private information is *really*
being sourced on Lugnet. It's just indrectly linked.
As for LUGNET's interests? They are its own. As evidenced in the case I
referenced earlier, Lugnet acted swiftly and completely to aid The Lego
Company, when it was requested to do so. But also, the admins have always
tried to make it clear that this site is not under any legal obligation to
TLC, and may act without TLC's approval. But I've never seen the admins act
in a manner that actually goes against TLC's wishes.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: How much is enough?
|
| (...) For the HP stuff, yes. But for the new train cars, there was a period of a day or two where that was not exactly true. I pointed that out in this post: (URL) sank without a trace. (...) This is a bit broad, isn't it? That is, TLC isn't (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: How much is enough?
|
| (...) I just wanted to make this clear - I'm not blaming LUGNET. I had just always thought that the admins here had made it clear that they worked towards the best interest of LSI - perhaps I misunderstood though, that is entirely possible. I'm (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
