To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.legoOpen lugnet.lego in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 LEGO Company / *606 (+10)
  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)

Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more
Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR