LEGO Direct : 497


LEGO Company / LEGO Direct / 497

Re: 2001 Set info —Mike Stanley

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Nick Crocco

(...) Well said. ~Nick (URL) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Nick Crocco

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) Yes, I deleted as few messages as possible -- only the ones which contained references to the materials which were asked to be deleted. --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Richard Marchetti

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Gene Weissinger

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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Nick Cameron

(...) Uh, kinda... NICK #:^< (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Christian Gemuenden

Eugwe Coral <eugwecoral37@cs.com> schrieb: FyyoI7.MJ1@lugnet.com... (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Gene Weissinger

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 (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Ka-On Lee

(...) Why would you think TLC haven't already complain to Target also? (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Eric Joslin

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Andreas Stabno

(...) simply (...) would (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Eric Joslin

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Scott Arthur

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Bryan Kinkel

"Scott A" <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Fz1A7r.MI3@lugnet.com... (...) not (...) 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) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Timothy Jones

(...) Who would?:) (...) Again, who would? 8) (...) And I'm adding to it!!!...!!! HaHA!!!!!!!! (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Ka-On Lee

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Eric Joslin

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Eric Joslin

(...) 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 (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Eric Joslin

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —James Powell

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Duane Hess

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Duane Hess

(...) <sheepish> Um... OK... I didn't mean that the way it sounded. :-| </sheepish> -Duane (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Ben Gatrelle

(...) <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. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) He wasn't censoring as he was not removing material for moral or political reasons... he was exercising editorial control. A very important distinction. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Mike Timm

(...) 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 (URL) post referenced is about some Castle set info I had, not anything else (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

Brazenly oversnipping for humorous effect... (...) 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 (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: 2001 Set info —Mike Timm

(...) Ok, so I messed up my sig a bit, I fixed so it obvious that its NOT part of the body text. Mike (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, it's *positioned* better now but it's still factually wrong <GD&R>... ++Lar (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: 2001 Set info —James Powell

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Kevin Loch

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Burkhard Schloemer

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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: 2001 Set info —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller

(...) 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. (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Tim Wilkins

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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) What is a Legalo man? --Todd (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Tim Wilkins

(...) 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 (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Erik Olson

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —John Robert-Blaze Kanehl

(...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Re: 2001 Set info —John Robert-Blaze Kanehl

(...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like. (...) Ding ding ding! Yes! (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Scott Arthur

(...) control (...) I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were the legal grounds for the censorship? Scott A (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Scott Arthur

(...) My apologies. (...) I won't sleep tonight (...) Nope. (...) Perhaps that is the problem. I found no firm legal argument, only opinion. I a seminal post perhaps? (...) I'd agree, what Todd did is more important than what you/he calls it. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Scott Arthur

(...) I hate replying to my own posts and quoting dictionaries, today I shall do both: From: (URL) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So you're agreeing, then? Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the very definitions you quote. Do be clearer in future, hmm? (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Scott Arthur

(...) Nope. Nothing here was censored, which is confirmed by the (...) Really? (...) A thread? (...) Secret - TLG would say so, or at least that is what I am told :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) This is a very interesting read, IMHO: (URL) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Scott Arthur

(...) sway (...) censor's (...) <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, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Scott Arthur

(...) Thanks to those who mailed me. (...) *Sigh* (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Richard Marchetti

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —James Powell

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) You will have to consult an attorney specializing in Intellectual Property or ask LEGO and trust what they say back. (...) It may be and it may not be. Intellectual Property case law is changing every day. Months ago, it was not illegal to (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Todd Lehman

(...) 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: (URL) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish)

Re: 2001 Set info —Geoffrey Hyde

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... (...) (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish)

Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller

(...) 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. (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish)

Re: 2001 Set info —Matthew Miller

(...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish)

Re: 2001 Set info —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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? (...) ++Lar (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Scott Arthur

(...) You, he and I can call it what we want. Actions speak louder than words. Scott A (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —James Powell

(...) 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 (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)

Re: 2001 Set info —Jeff Elliott

(...) <snip> (...) 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> (...) That's _belabour_. Ooog ooog ooog :) Jeff Elliott (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)