 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
