Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:43:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1999 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> > 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?
Sometimes that's hard. Misunderstandings and differing expectations
happen all the time and largely it's because of different world-view
which is kind of the same as having accepted different implied
contracts. I (sort of) keep track of what implied contracts I have
accepted, and when I notice surprising examples of others not accepting
the ones that I normally expect people to have, I try to remember
theirs. (e.g. If someone cheats me in a trade I remember it.)
> > 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?
Right, and Todd wrote:
> I'm curious: Do you consider intellectual property rights to be a subset
> of property rights, or something totally separate? The original issue, I
> think, was at least partially about intellectual property rights.
And I figured that would come up.
I haven't worked all of my own opinions up to 'presentation and defense'
level on intellectual property rights. I know that IPR need to be
protected some times because we (as a society - or at least I hope so)
want to promote innovation. I think that sometimes IPR are carried too
far - but I don't have any good way of backing that up. The song _Happy
Birthday_ seems like an example...restaurants all have to make their own
Bday song up to avoid paying royalties to the owner of rights to _Happy
Birthday_. At first glance that seems unreasonable since it's so much a
part of our culture, but I can't really defend that stance.
I certainly think that they (TLC or anyone) should have the right to try
to protect their IP. I'm not sure how much we or the law should support
them. What if they electronically publish and distribute a picture and
then change their minds and demand that everyone erase it? Am I obliged
to do so?
Now to the specific case of Huw's catalog scans, I've just reread TLG's
(What's with TLC instead of TLG?) fairplay policy. In reference to
"building instructions, publications...photographs used in our catalogs"
TLG says "at the present time the LEGO Group does not object to scanning
of limited extracts of these materials in unaltered form for
non-commercial purposes of exchange of information or good faith commentary."
I'm thinking that this pretty clearly endorses the positioning of
catalog scans on web sites. Right?
Now, if the dealer catalog says something different, like "don't let
*anyone*, *ever* see any part of this, or we will land on you with both
feet and as we arrive we'll be spewing so many contract, tort and
criminal actions that you'll be lost in a morass of litigation for
hundreds of years and your progeny, if our corporate ninja hit squad
slips up and allows any to live, will wish that they (and more
specifically you) were never born, while living out their remaining
years in a meager shanty on the edge of a polluted swamp" then maybe
it's different for that document.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
