 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <sheepish> Um... OK... I didn't mean that the way it sounded. :-| </sheepish> -Duane (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <clip> (...) 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. (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
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 (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Island
|
|
"Mikohl Moree (The Lego Minifig Maniac)" <mikohl2@juno.com> wrote in message news:Fys54C.H80@lugnet.com... (...) System (...) what (...) not in (...) I still have my Lego Island and I even play it once in a while, catching the Brickster and all (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Why would you think TLC haven't already complain to Target also? (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Censors / information
|
|
(...) That's correct. (...) You can say whatever you like -- but if you post something that infringes on someone's privacy rights and they make a legal request that it be removed, it has to be removed. (...) yes, indeed. I don't know about other (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Clarrification needed
|
|
(...) It's really for however Brad and the community (working together) thinks it best suits the both together. Personally, I would take a debate analzying LD's actions elsewhere and come back and summarize concisely after it concluded, so as not to (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Legal Legal legal
|
|
I read with amusement some of the posts on legal matters concerning leaked information. I treat this site as a discussion group. People just talking about Lego etc just as if they were face to face. What has this got to do with lawyers ??? If (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I obtained clarification from LSI Legal today on the telephone and it was indeed also true legal request and represented LSI Legal's position. (...) No, it was a formal legal request. And the phone call confirmed this. --Todd (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
Tim, you're perfectly right. But that's the way it is in USA. It's ridiculous - noone cares about the impressive collection of automatic guns you may have at home, but one wrong word in a public forum, and a dozen of lawyers are breathing down your (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Legal,Legal Legal and another thing
|
|
A few weeks ago all of the new upcoming sets (including 2001 ones ) appeared in the Lego Online Catalog for Europe. I was so excited that I telephoned Lego in Switzerland asking about delivery and they said they did not know anything abou the new (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
Right on Burkhard ! We are Lego Men. Poor old Todd and his friends are Legalo men. (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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. (...) I believe that it's wiser and safer to require specific documentation and only to delete (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What is a Legalo man? --Todd (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) You're not seriously advocating that European companies and governments keep no secrets and allow the release of confidential corporate information pell-mell, are you? Bwahaha. best LFB (By the way, great troll!) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) with (...) no (...) are (...) No, but what he is saying is that LEGO has to contact each of us and _ask_ us to sign a NDA, which there is not a _thing_ they can do to make us sign. In other words, once the cat is out of the bag, it is too late (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) no (...) mell, are (...) Certainly not. A secret is only a secret if nobody knows about it. A leak is fair game and Target is hardly the CIA (...) By the way what is a troll ? Tim (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) Let's do an experiment. Why don't you scan and publish the information you lifted from TLG's website, and provide us publicly with the URL where it can be viewed? I'd certainly welcome it (and be the first visitor), but you'd be absolutely (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
"Tim Wilkins" <Tim.Wilkins@zurich.com> wrote in message news:Fyzz11.H3L@lugnet.com... (...) with (...) not (...) thing....we (...) I'm not sure if that is correct. I'm not a lawyer or anything but AFAIK there are European laws that safeguard (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) I definitely see your point. This sort of murkiness is, of course, what the civil courts of the world are for--someone has to decide if confidentiality was actually breached. I don't want to get into the wrinkles of Internet copyright law (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:Fz029E.At8@lugnet.com... (...) leaked (...) talking (...) do (...) it.....why not (...) thing....we (...) keep (...) pell-mell, (...) us (...) Hmm. I didn't make that out of Tim's (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) He wasn't censoring as he was not removing material for moral or political reasons... he was exercising editorial control. A very important distinction. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
