| |
In lugnet.inst, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.inst, Christopher Masi wrote:
> > Steven lane wrote:
> >
> > > 1. The builder buying bricks he doesn't need due to errors in the instructions
> > > (although the author has a duty of care to keep errors to a minimum).
> >
> > If you are selling instructions you should make _certain_ that they are
> > correct. If you are giving instructions away for fun, then do you really
> > need this kind of protection?
>
> If the instructions are sold containing an error, then I agree that the author
> isn't accountable for buyers who purchase additional bricks from a separate
> source.
But only because the buyer has signed up to the terms of the disclaimer.
> but if the author is also selling the bricks to make the set, then the
> author is liable for charges stemming from the inclusion of the unnecessary
> bricks (since the author, of all people, should know that they shouldn't be
> included!)
I only actually meant for the disclaimer to cover instructions.
> I would further assert that the author has a responsibility to distribute
> errata, to the extent that is practical to do so, but such distributions needn't
> be of the same high-quality printed format as the original, flawed instructions.
> > > 2. Injuries caused to the builder while playing with/using the design.
> >
> > Wow, what a great, litigious world that we live in, huh?
>
> If you say that again, I'll sue you! 8^)
>
> > > The buyer is basically licensing the design.
> > >
> > > The buyer cannot lend his instructions to anyone.
> >
> > Completely and totally disagree with this stipulation. If I am not using
> > something I don't see why I cannot share it with my friend. However, I
> > do understand that people shouldn't "share" copies electronically
> > because this usually turns into making an electronic copy for your friend.
>
> I absolutely agree with you, Chris. In essence, this "non-lending"
> qualification implies that the buyer of the instructions must not allow the
> completed model to be viewed by anyone who might be able to reconstruct the
> model by sight.
Now your just being daft, and anyway these viewers cannot see the interior of
the model.
> This is an entertaining conversation, though; it reminds one of the old "what
> constitutes a set?" discussions on RTL.
Well at least I've entertained you if nothing else! :-)
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Disclaimer
|
| (...) Sir, I was being daft long before this conversation began! 8^) Actually, I think my point is worth exploring. If I view your model and am able to reproduce it with a fair degree of accuracy, would you object if I sold it as my design? After (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Disclaimer
|
| (...) If the instructions are sold containing an error, then I agree that the author isn't accountable for buyers who purchase additional bricks from a separate source, but if the author is also selling the bricks to make the set, then the author is (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.general)
|
17 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
|
|
|
|
