| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Jasper Janssen writes:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 06:18:02 GMT, "James Brown"
> <galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Jasper Janssen writes:
>
> > No, you're defining webserver differently. I'm not going to bother quibbling
> > semantics with you.
>
> Gee. That's rather a cop-out, isn't it?
If you insist. But no amount of sniping is going to convince me that
"webserver"=public. What about firewalls? They're on an unsecured webserver,
too - does that make them "public?"
> > Ah! I see the problem here - you're arguing legalities. I don't care two
> > hoots for the legalities of the issue, I'm talking common courtesy.
>
> This is not about courtesy. At all.
>
> This is about a claim Brad made that it was _legally_ so. I am not
> saying it isn't impolite (though I don't agree..), I am saying it
> isn't illegal. _That_ is the claim that needs to be challenged. I am
> not going to let some clueless corporate lawyer (whichever company he
> is from) and an equally clueless judge completely screw up the
> internet as we know it, if I can help it.
And I am saying I don't care about the legalities. I don't think the
legalities are an issue. There is sufficient established precedent (IMHO) to
knock down anyone attempted to claim more under copyright law than they are
entitled to.
As I said to Matthew very early on, molehills do not equal mountains.
> > > > Certainly it is the originators right to determine "intent to publish", not
> > > > Joe Public.
> > >
> > > Oh. So if I print a few hundred folders, crop-dust them over the inner
> > > city, then say that everyone who's read it, or shown it to friends, or
> > > given it away has violated my copyright because I didn't intend to
> > > publish it, I have a leg to stand on?
> >
> > You're being ridiculous - the analogy fails on several levels. For one
> > thing, the actions you describe are intent to publish.
>
> Oh, really? I thought it was the originators' right to determine
> intent to publish, not Joe Public's? You're contradicting yourself.
No. It was assumed that you are the originator - you said "my copyright"
You print several hundred copies of whatever, and distribute them randomly to
the public, in a methed which can't even remotely be construed as accidental,
then you are either demonstraing "intent to publish" or some form of insanity.
> > Joe Web Designer snaps and decides he hates his boss. He removes the • firewall
> > protection, and posts a URL to the accounts receivable information.
> >
> > Joe Hacker decides to have a little fun, and hacks around on foo.com until he
> > finds a hole through the firewall, or a password that gets him through the
> > incryption. He pulls the information through, and turns foo.com into a • splash
> > page with next years product line.
>
> Note that these both involve criminal actions, and thus are ineligible
> as examples.
How so? You wanted examples of how something could be on a webpage without the
author/company/whatever intending it to be there. Illegal means are as valid
as any other.
> Joe Web Designer mistypes a line in a script, and loads all the employee's
> payroll information to the wrong server, and now it's on the www page.
Tough. Life sucks sometimes.
Life sucks != intent to publish.
> > But it doesn't really matter. You're talking legalities - Yes, I agree, if
> > it's on the public side of a firewall, it's "legally" public. But like I
> > said above, I don't care about the legalities of it, I'm talking about • politeness.
>
> Again, politeness is not the issue here.
I think it is. I don't think anyone here, Brad included, honestly believes
that LEGO would have a legal leg to stand on. BUT claiming more legally than
one can necessarily enforce is a standard coporate tactic, and just about every
company in the world uses it. The possibility prevents the bulk of
infractions, which is the point anyway.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
93 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
|
|
|
|
