 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
