Subject:
|
Re: Art? or Theft? or just signs that NPR is damaged.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:05:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
502 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> She intended to do something disruptive, and then profit from it (by selling
> photos in galleries) without giving HD any benefit (based on her own
> statements, but who knows what her real intent is, maybe she's secretly an
> HD flack trying to drum up media attention and get the likes of Bruce to
> patronise HD more often).
I can't comment on Mr. Schlkbrnd's patronage, but I think you've otherwise made
your strongest point. If she's making a profit at HD's expense, then HD is
within its rights to try to recoup its share of that profit (and that's in
addition to any restrictions on in-store photography).
> So measure what was done, I guess. Your waltzing around with sets in your
> cart for an hour was inconvenient but not quite the same as using up every
> paver of a certain sort to construct an aisle blocking hazard and make a
> statement about HD's inhumanity which is then sold for profit.
If she indeed used every paver, then she's definitely in the wrong (guilty of a
DOS attack on HD, perhaps?) But I figured that she'd only grabbed a portion of
the available selection. For comparison, my local HD keeps about 32X the number
of pavers that the "artist" used in the photo shown, and that's not counting any
storeroom inventory.
> > That's a well-spun summary of the issue, I think.
>
> Why thank you. But you agree that spin or not, it's correct?
Heh. Substitute "heavily" for "well" in my statement, and my meaning will be
more clear. Sorry for the ambiguity.
> > Obviously this person isn't free to engage in largescale alterations of
> > inventory, but that's not what she's doing.
>
> Your small scale may be my large scale.
This, from the guy who owns 2000 copies of the UCS ISD?!?
> > I expect that, at some point, you've done something very similar, and
> > you've therefore committed the same "crime" as the "artist" in question.
> > The difference between your crime and hers is in degree, not kind.
>
> I want to disagree but right now I can't put my finger on exactly how. More
> late if time permits, gotta think about this. Measure the outcomes.
How about this--what if the "artist" came back later and restored "her" artwork
to its original configuration? Not saying that she did, but hypothetically.
That would seem more closely in line with my above example about the
LEGO-in-one's-cart.
I'll summarize what I think are (so far) your strongest points, but I'm happy to
amend this list:
1. She's making a profit (however small) on HD's property, and HD is within
its rights to restrict such activity
2. She's deliberately creating more work for HD employees, thereby causing
a loss of wage value
3. She's creating a disturbance/obstacle/disruption to other customers while
she's creating her "art."
I'd add the potential for injury to herself or others, but I'm not sure
if you mentioned that already.
Is this the meat of it? I'm not as keen on the "social mores" angle, because
that doesn't seem germane to the issue. Likewise, the "anti-corporate" swipe at
NPR seems off-point, though neither is an invalid argument in its own right.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
