Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:47:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1960 times
|
| |
| |
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> My comment about understood commitments above is fraught with peril. I
> have on a number of occasions been told that I am contractually obliged
> to, for instance, pay income taxes because there is an implied contract
> between the US gubmint and myself. I don't buy it. I never will. I
> have the right not to enter that contract and my silence on the matter
> doesn't automatically shove me into it. On the other hand, I am allowed
> to enter these 'implied' or 'understood' contracts when I want to. And
> I consider them equally binding on my behavior.
One interesting question is how does one determine that someone has
accepted an implied or understood contract?
> Does that cover it? If not, feel free to ask again or point out holes.
> This helps me to formalize my opinions.
Ok, now how are TLC's intellectual property rights different from the
property rights of me for my LEGO collection? Or is the argument you are
making that since their "fair use" statement doesn't preclude certain
items, that it automatically covers every piece of their IP?
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
116 Messages in This Thread: (Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|