Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:14:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1288 times
|
| |
|
|
<snipped .admin.general - this is getting obviously into the realm of just
debate>
In lugnet.admin.general, Jasper Janssen writes:
> > 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?"
>
> What do you mean "firewalls are on an unsecured webserver"? I think
> you need some more grounding in the terminology, cause I can't make
> head nor tail of what you're trying to say.
A firewall must exist (at least in part) on a machine that serves the internet
at large. Like I said before, a couple posts ago: "you're defining webserver
differently. I'm not going to bother quibbling semantics with you."
IMHO, Webserver=Machine that serves files to the web.
> > As I said to Matthew very early on, molehills do not equal mountains.
>
> Windmills need to be charged sometimes.
Fair enough. But tilt at windmills that don't grind our flour, please. :)
<yes, that is mildly tounge-in-cheek>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Yes, absolutely. So your claim that it is the originator's right to
> determine what constitutes "intent to publish" is clearly and utterly
> wrong. You are, as I said, contradicting yourself with every post.
<grumble> If I didn't KNOW that the web is well-known for propagating
misunderstandings, I'd accuse you of deliberately mis-reading what I said.
The originator is who demonstrates intent to publish. OBVIOUSLY "publish" is
something defined by common rules. Maybe my problem in getting this idea
across is that I keep assuming we're operating in the same linguistic
framework.
In plain terms: Society defines what "publish" means, but the originator of a
work is the only one who can legitimately (IANAL) publish that work. If you
dump a bunch of leaflets over town, that's fairly clearly publishing them. If
I dump a bunch of your leaflets over town without your permission, it's
illegal/wrong/whatever. If you dump a bunch of leaflets over town and can
reasonably demonstrate that it was a mistake, then you didn't 'intend to
publish'. Is that clearer?
> > 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.
>
> No, they're not.
I would really like to hear why you think that illegal means can't result in
something being on the web (which, as far as I can tell you think means 'is
published') as easily as legal means.
> > > > 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.
>
> Attribute and quote properly, please. You claimed to have written some
> things I did here, and you claimed I'd written some things you did.
>
> That is not good in a debate.
Sorry, my bad. Typo of the cut & paste variety, now fixed.
> > > 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.
>
> Oh, great. So just because "everyone" in the "corporate" world uses a
> blatantly illegal tactic, we should be happy to see lego do it.
Did I say "happy"? Did I anywhere imply "happy"? No. Resigned, yes - happy,
no. For myself, if I am going to slam a company for blatantly illegal
tactics, there's a lot bigger fish out there to fry.
> Whatever dude. I'm finished here, come back when you have solid
> arguments instead of straw men.
If I'm setting up straw men, please do me the courtesy of knocking them down.
"No, they're not." doesn't generally consitute logical argument in my books.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) A firewall is generally a machine on the internet at large, yes. The things protected by it aren't, in the sense that some things are filtered out by said firewall. A firewall is logically, and usually physically, not a webserver, or a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
