Subject:
|
Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:13:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
831 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> [...] And yet, you seem to be inviting others to 'exploit' a loophole in
> the LEGO(TM) company's claim to intellectual property rights.
Inviting it? No. Drawing attention to the fact that it is possible? Yes.
Would I do it myself? Yes. If I buy the product and the agreement hasn't
changed to clarify the confusion, yes, I will construct the actual mosaic
with a separate program first, then upload bands of color so that I'm sure
that I haven't unintentionally given away the copyright to the mosaic and
given up my right to display such a mosaic in public.
> I seem to remember a couple of weeks ago someone making a joke about
> posting to LUGNET(TM) under a false name. Your response was swift and
> stern. And yet the ability to make such a posting is really a loophole
> isn't it?
That's not the same kind of loophole, Allan. You're talking about a technical
loophole that attempts to circumvent the system. If you succeed in posting
under a false name, you've exploited a technical loophole but you are still
breaking the Terms of Use Agreement. That's bad.
Contrast this with the mosaic issue. If you make your own mosaic and upload
a special color-band image to the Brick-o-Lizer[tm], you're circumventing the
system in a way which does not break the LEGO Mosaic User Agreement. That's
not-bad.
> I know why you don't want it exploited, but I can't figure out
> why you don't honor the LEGO(TM) company with the same respect.
I don't advocate breaking the LEGO Mosaic User Agreement. I offered (rather
Jeff Elliott offered, and I chimed in saying I thought it was brilliant) a
way for a user to obtain elements for a mosaic of their own design in a way
which does not break the LEGO Mosiac User Agreement and does not dishonor
TLC in any way. If I were to agree to the LEGO Mosaic User Agreement, I would
respect it and I would not break it. However, I think it could stand to be
more clear on some things, and therefore I would make sure that I shuffled
the up-front work outside of the scope of the Agreement, so that the unclear
portions of the Agreement were moot.
> The legal text which you reposted (with permission I assume?)
I believe that the good-faith commentary I offered in my post with questions
was interleaved closely enough to avoid copyright infringement issues.
> seemed formal
> and stale. Probably drawn up by a bunch of lawyers, so we can forgive the
> company itself. But it seems that everyone's first reaction to the legal
> statement was to see how they could bend and bash it to fit their own
> needs. Or to simply outright question the validity of certain parts of it.
Are you more surprised by that or disappointed?
> The LEGO(TM) company *finally* seems to be listening to this group of
> consumers, who for years have begged to be listened to. I think it's only
> fair to meet the company half way and not attempt to exploit grey areas
> that may arise along the way.
I think we need to get the gray areas nailed down as soon as possible.
> I think everyone who wants to do so should simply go ahead and order your
> set with 5 shades of grey or whatever variation you need for your other
> projects. But don't make a big deal of it. It's doubtful that the
> LEGO(TM) company is going to be dropping by your home anytime soon to see
> how you are putting its products to use. A little mutual respect between
> the consumer and a company can go a long way; and perhaps get more of these
> type of products release in the future.
I hope so too. But I also think that we, as consumers, are actually helping
TLC by asking tough questions about wordings in user agreements and pointing
out gray areas.
--Todd
p.s. I am not a lawyer.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
