 | | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) At what point do I agree to their "fair use" policy? When I purchase a product, as long as I am not violating any copyright, or patent issues where does TLC have any sway over how I use these products. I sign no agreement at time of purchase, (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Grumble. Well, your assessment is correct (based on precedent), but I still don't like it! Here's a more abstract question--if I buy a LEGO product, am I automatically entering into a "fair use" contract respecting TLG's ideas of propriety? (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) I think the issue is one of *propriety ownership*. The "minifig" image is intellectual property of TLC and a direct reflection of their brand, and we all know how protective TLC is about their brand (rightly and justifiably so). If they see (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I'm addressing three of Frank's notes here, not just the one upline from where I'm posting. As a result of my use of "good and just" coupled with the assertion that rights are merely a legal construct, Frank pointed out that we need to know the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) First, your stance seems to assume that notions like 'competent,' 'fraudulent,' and 'fully informed' are binary in nature and that a person is on one side or another of a clearly demarked line. I don't think that's so. Second, It's still my (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Regarding the US, I have no insight. Regarding France, two things take place: a) the vast majority of the muslim citizens has a feeling of distance towards politics (to which a number of explanations concurr); b) the extremists who do exist (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Buying allegiance is not restricted to the "Muslim world". Right now I expect Bush is horse-trading all over. His case is that strong. (...) Part of the problem is that the USA did not pay what it said it would last time around. Bush should (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Have you even looked? From Aug '98 [ie before the USA woke up to terrorism]: Fight terrorism, but not through Draconian laws (URL) Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the British Muslim community has no sympathy whatsoever for any act of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Paper Tigers [Re: What about the first?]
|
|
(...) I feared that quote may have been erroneous. I did some checking. It turns up only in one place on the web: (URL) someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Agreed. <snip> (...) Okay, but what about the vast Muslim population in free societies such as the US, or even, say, France? (...) Okay, I see your point. But realize that even within Christianity itself there are *vast* differences, to the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
