| |
In lugnet.adventurers, Mark Lindsey writes:
> I think that my
> nationality is more of a stigma in some cases (I travel overseas alot), and
> the perception in many places is that Americans are a loud and extremely self
> centered people, with which I must generally agree with ;-)
If you think about the vast number of television programmes that spew forth
from America and pollute the rest of the world.. then it isn't that suprising
that people have this opinion. Almost every other idiot on television is an
American, same for selfish, mean and loud. I propose that if American TV
featured more intelligent, hard working Americans then the rest of the worlds
population would think that of them too. Unfortunately that doesn't make good
television.
And the possibility of the fact that Americans are, generally, the same as
everyone else doesn't appeal to either side that much. As it's much more fun to
believe otherwise!
> Like us, and the
> right of free speech, or not we are going to tend towards releasing any gossip
> we can get our hands on. I am in no way saying that those AFOLs who have a
> problem with the 2000 scans being posted are opposed to free speech, I am
> merely pointing it out as my justification for openly sharing them.
Freedom of speech is a worthy thing indeed, but what about when it violates
copyright?
It was my perception that you couldn't just say anything and that would be okay
as it was freedom of speech.
<http://www.lugnet.com/announce/?n=415>
"Therefore, if such a catalog or other trade material does happen to fall into
your hands, you may NOT publish this off- or on-line in any form. (Note: even
the digitization of analog material is itself a copyright violation.)"
> > A URL is a means to access information, emailling you gains the same
> > information - I don't see that there is much difference. Certainly, many
> > people would consider emailling them to 200 people as publicly distributing
> > them.
>
> To this I say, "Read the TLC fairness statement."
Which one? The TLC "Fair Play" document, or the recent policy clarification
quoted from above?
> > > And most importantly, no messages from either TLC
> > > (which is looking on) or Todd Lehman (who has had plenty to say about
> > > everything and has closely monitored it all).
> >
> > I wouldn't assume silence is acceptance. I'd interpret it as a weary silence
> > trying not to cause greater ripples in the community.
>
> If this threatens the community I would say the community is already in
> trouble. I see this as not a polarizing agent, but a strengthening one.
In what way is it strengthening? Judging from some of the posts of the last
week I think that our community is in trouble. Nothing that we can't get
over, but definately something to learn from!
> > I think you are quite lucky - LUGNET is specifically not a leak club, and by
> > using LUGNET to advertise your leak you are on *very* thin ice - by my
> > understanding of the rules.
>
> I am in no way threatening the well being of LUGNET or TLC. Think
> realistically about my sharing information with other AFOLs. What could it
> possibly do to TLC to bring down fire and brimstone on LUGNET, specifally
> Todd.
Bearing in mind that I don't claim to know all the rules :) But - if leaks
aren't allowed on LUGNET, and your offer to pass on leaked information is
against the TOS (Using LUGNET to transmit information which invades publicity
rights), then by condoning this, the Admin of LUGNET could be in a difficult
position. Mainly because if they did take any action against you, the resulting
ripples that it would cause would probably outweigh the small damage that your
distributation of the scans would create.
Note that - I don't know if your scans are against the TOS, and these are just
my thoughts, which may or may not be based in reality.
> > > If you still question this I think it is due to your own personal thoughts
> > > and beliefs, to which you are abundantly entitled.
> >
> > Wow, do you mean that I don't have to become an American citizen to be
> > entitled to my own thoughts and beliefs? ;)
>
> Easy there :o
Sorry! I was just playing with the stereotype - hence the emoticon.
> > My one line comment was that I didn't see much evidence of wisdom behind your
> > original post - I still don't!
>
> To each his/her own.
Fair enough!
> > > P.S. Do you want the scans?
> >
> > What makes you so sure that I'm not sitting on a stack of retailer catalogs
> > going back to 1983? The scans that you are offering are small fry my friend.
> > I object to the antagonistic nature of your post - if this was a cause worth
> > rebelling against then I'd be there all the way.
>
> Well throw me a big fish then.
I couldn't possibly, as I'm a vegetarian. Would you like a lump of marinated
tofu instead?
> And if my post is such a small fry then why do you even care?
Because to me, your post read:
"Haha, I have the scans, and I will publically flout the express wishes of
LUGNET and TLC by making them available to anyone who wants them."
You probably intended:
"Hey guys, any fans still desperate for the info? Let me know and I'll share
the wealth."
I think anyone with reason can make those seperate interpretations, it's just a
case of deciding which one (or another) to take.
> You're a rebel are you?
Not as such, no. But I am prepared to work for what I believe in. I don't think
antagonising LUGNET and/or TLC just so that a few fans can see pictures a
couple of months early is worth it.
> > Play well and wait for your 2000 LEGO sets like a good LEGO fan! :)
>
> This is mystifying to me. Please explain how having a scan makes me a bad
> lego fan. Maybe an informed lego fan is more like it? Did you look at the
> scans? Are you a bad lego fan? And while you are at it please tell us all
> what a good lego fan is.
The emoticon was supposed to show that itwas tongue-in-cheek. But - I didn't
say that you were a bad LEGO fan.
IMO a good LEGO fan plays well and has respect for others, including (but not
limited to) the publicity rights of the company we all adore.
Or maybe that's the idealistic LEGO fan, or an almost-perfect LEGO fan?
Either way, I'm in no position to make such a value judgement, which is why I
didn't try to make one!
> > Cheers,
> > Richard
>
> Same to you my friend,
I'd be pleased to have you as my friend, that doesn't mean that I can't tell
you if I think what you're doing is a little squiffy though :)
Richard
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: 2000 scans
|
| <sarcasm> yes it just pleases me to no end that shows like 'Dawson's Creek', 'Friends' and 'Beverly Hills 90210' go to other countries. </sarcasm> They're bad enough in this country where we know there is no way someone lives like that, let alone (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: 2000 scans
|
| (...) I dunno. I've seen some pretty awful American tourists. That might not mean (...) It's all a balancing act -- the issue of "your rights end where my nose starts" writ large. Generally, it's been acknowledged that certain intellectual property (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2000 scans
|
| (...) do (...) The right of free speech is a cornerstone of American ideology. I did sound a bit preachy however, and for that I apologize. I was simply illustrating that I thought someone telling me not to share information I have with interested (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.adventurers)
|
16 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
|
|
|
|
