To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 7106
7105  |  7107
Subject: 
Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:22:10 GMT
Viewed: 
1587 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:

> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article
> <G3oFGo.JED@lugnet.com>...
> > Since the BoL UA doesn't say that the mosaic you assemble has to be the
> > one
> > that BoL creates for you, and it doesn't say that you can't use an
> > alternate
> > pixellator to create the real final image, this sounds like a genuine
> > loophole worth exploiting*.
> 
> Todd, your last statement has an odd ring to it.  Perhaps you can
> elaborate.
> 
> You are a person who (rightly so) defends your own trademarks with great
> vigor.  And yet, you seem to be inviting others to 'exploit' a loophole in
> the LEGO(TM) company's claim to intellectual property rights.

I'm guessing that you're reading negative connotations into Todd's
statement that he didn't intend.

From what I know of Todd (which is only via online communication, primarily
on RLT and LUGNET), he meant 'exploit' as 'use', not 'unfairly use'.

> 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?  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.

His response was swift and stern because it is clearly stated in the Terms
of Service that posting to LUGNET under someone else's identity is
forbidden.  It's not a loophole at all--the ToS says don't do it, somebody
did it, they got the consequences.  The fact that it is easy to commit this
act doesn't matter.

Steve



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement)
 
(...) Yup! The question of circumventing the ambiguities in the LMBOLUA[1] is an amoral issue (not moral, and not immoral, but amoral, meaning not in the realm of morality or immorality) and if you find an obvious loophole in an agreement that you (...) (26 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement)
 
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <G3oFGo.JED@lugnet.com>... (...) it. (...) it, (...) do (...) one (...) alternate (...) Todd, your last statement has an odd ring to it. Perhaps you can elaborate. You are a person who (rightly so) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

61 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR