Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 15, 2004 | 09:50 PM
  #76  
smackkk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 472
From: Texarkana, Tx
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Is it just me or does it seem that everybody that was privy to inside info and embargoed pictures is on the defensive for GM and those that arent are a little upset at GM for coming down like this when a pic is leaked out?
Old Nov 15, 2004 | 10:02 PM
  #77  
Josh452's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,496
From: Roseville, MI, USA
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

I'm not privy on anything (anymore) and I agree with General Motors 100%.

The ones that are not siding with General Motors are people who have no reason to bitch and complain. People say "they should have an image on them, there should be a copyright on them." Umm NO. You MUST agree to GM's terms before you even receive access, in there you MUST promise to not post the embargoed imagery/information.

It's over with. The fun is done. Lucky for me I live just outside of Detroit and I'm lucky enough to see these cars out on the open road. That's just about all I have going for me after this stunt.
Old Nov 15, 2004 | 10:31 PM
  #78  
Magnum Force's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 578
From: N. Providence, RI
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Originally Posted by Doug Harden
The original thread linked to in this thread was just locked by the moderator...."Scissors" pretty much OWNED that jerk "RC45"...basicly called him a liar about the "visit" from GM and RC45 just wussed out on the thread....LOL!!
yeah, now his whole ordeal is just getting weird
Old Nov 15, 2004 | 10:37 PM
  #79  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Originally Posted by Doug Harden
And that's the difference here.....GM is going after Paul and his source.

All GM has done otherwise is to tell websites to remove their copyrighted property.

GM isn't threatening the average Joe....just a self righteous thief and his source.
Thanks Doug for doing the work necessary to show the real picture of what's happening. The guy's an ***, and if there were no lawyers on his doorsteps, he just sent waves across messageboards to bash GM for his stupid clutch problem. And he does come across as an arrogant jerk.

Half of this thread's comments then are misdirected.
Old Nov 15, 2004 | 11:36 PM
  #80  
stars1010's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,121
From: Houston
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Originally Posted by Evil Turbo SS
BS... Do you have to goose step to work at GM...

Its Public Domain the moment it was posted on the internet. The only person who commit a crime was the orignal theft of the pictue.... Is it Illegal to film a crime in progress.... thats what hosting a pic onlin e is.
thats a good point hmmmm

Originally Posted by smackkk
Is it just me or does it seem that everybody that was privy to inside info and embargoed pictures is on the defensive for GM and those that arent are a little upset at GM for coming down like this when a pic is leaked out?

Wow very good point


I'm ganna have to say I miss the old days at this site. Like 3 years ago...

Last edited by stars1010; Nov 15, 2004 at 11:54 PM.
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 07:06 AM
  #81  
2K1SunsetSS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 649
From: Clinton TWP, MI
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Couple questions:

Where did this guy find the pics?

Did GM have them on a public server? If so, that is GM's fault for being that stupid because someone would have found them eventually. If it was not a PUBLIC server, this guy should be charged with theft.

Did this guy work for GM and say screw it I am going to post this information?

Anyone else find it interesting the PIC was taking down but not the rest of the post was not?

Was anyone surprised about the pic? I wasn't, every detail of the car had been discussed many times before.

If GM doesn't want information leaked, why send out anything early? Keep a tighter handle on things.

If GM cannot figure out who is leaking info, maybe they should be rethinking how many people are in the loop of sensitive information.
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 07:30 AM
  #82  
Doug Harden's Avatar
Prominent Member
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Angry Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

The picture was on a password protected site....given out to those who were "supposed" to abide by embargoes....someone leaked it to a buddy and "Paul" took it upon himself to be the "hero" and post it....damned near broke his own arm patting himself on the back about it too....

He claims to be a "rabid enthusiast"...but really just had an axe to grind with Chevy over getting his "modded" Z06's clutch fixed under warrantee no less.....

He's ruined it for those of us who were able to get some infromation to share with all of you....but no longer......THANKS PAUL!!
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 08:49 AM
  #83  
OutsiderIROC-Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,688
From: Middle of Kansas
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

I have read the pages of this topic, and I really don't care to read anymore...
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 09:30 AM
  #84  
Meccadeth's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,472
From: South Bend, Indiana
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Originally Posted by 2K1SunsetSS
Couple questions:

Where did this guy find the pics?

Did GM have them on a public server? If so, that is GM's fault for being that stupid because someone would have found them eventually. If it was not a PUBLIC server, this guy should be charged with theft.

Did this guy work for GM and say screw it I am going to post this information?

Anyone else find it interesting the PIC was taking down but not the rest of the post was not?

Was anyone surprised about the pic? I wasn't, every detail of the car had been discussed many times before.

If GM doesn't want information leaked, why send out anything early? Keep a tighter handle on things.

If GM cannot figure out who is leaking info, maybe they should be rethinking how many people are in the loop of sensitive information.
Guy has nothing to do with it...
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 10:13 AM
  #85  
2K1SunsetSS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 649
From: Clinton TWP, MI
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Originally Posted by Doug Harden
The picture was on a password protected site....given out to those who were "supposed" to abide by embargoes....someone leaked it to a buddy and "Paul" took it upon himself to be the "hero" and post it....damned near broke his own arm patting himself on the back about it too....

He claims to be a "rabid enthusiast"...but really just had an axe to grind with Chevy over getting his "modded" Z06's clutch fixed under warrantee no less.....

He's ruined it for those of us who were able to get some infromation to share with all of you....but no longer......THANKS PAUL!!

Well the LEAK is the problem, you know damn near anyone would have posted this pic of they got their hands on it.

As I said, it seems that to many people are given access to sensitive information. I think GM needs to rethink this to avoid future problems.
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 10:27 AM
  #86  
Bearcat Steve's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 210
From: Cincinnati, OH
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

MANY of you are NOT going to like my post - so be it....

I am constantly surprised by the number of morons I see on the Internet. BTW, I am not speaking baout this site.

There seems to be a question of whether GM went after someone who posted a picture. Assume for the moment that this indeed happened, although at this point, there is NO proof whatsoever that it ever actually happened.

IF it did happen, then GM had no choice - literally. Have you ever heard of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act? That was the non-trivial legislation passed by Congress after the Enron/Tyco debacles. GM officers and directors have the legal responsibility to distribution of information that has not been disclosed to investors (not enthusiasts) that management feels could have a material impact on company and financial performance.

Here is the part where I see some "local" morons. Why bash GM for something that no one has been able to confirm if something happened at all? And why bash them for somethng that if it did, they are legally required to pursue?

Here is another "local" reference. Red loves the f-car more than nayone else on this Planet and spends almost no time with his family so he can help us "keep the faith". If I were Red, I would never post on another Internet board the rest of my life. He gives of himself, he takes risks with his employer so we will keep the faith, and his family gets to see a picture of him every once in a while. In exchange for that, his employer is subjected to a cyber version of a "lynch mob hanging" and his job is put in jeapordy. To top that off, people are posting personal address information about GM employees. Morons I tell you!!!

BTW, accessing a server that has insufficient protection to download a picture is still a felony under Federal law. There is case law to support that.

My advice - chill out. We have no credible information that GM has done anything. If they did, they had no choice - they had to. I do believe appologies are in order now......
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 10:43 AM
  #87  
Doug Harden's Avatar
Prominent Member
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Originally Posted by 2K1SunsetSS
Well the LEAK is the problem, you know damn near anyone would have posted this pic of they got their hands on it.

As I said, it seems that to many people are given access to sensitive information. I think GM needs to rethink this to avoid future problems.

That process is well underway.....but it's going to leave us a little less informed.
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 10:50 AM
  #88  
AronZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,276
From: Chattanoga & Franklin
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Well, I think the lesson to be learned here is that GM needs to do a better job of covering its a@@. I can only speculate why GM is going ballistic over this issue. My speculation is that they already know who the leak is, and his head is most likely on the silver platter. I bet they are trying to figure out if he/she leaked any other info. Also, I would imagine that it would be much easier and less expensive to tighten security measures rather than spend all this money to investigate, hire lawyers, and show up at people's door steps like secret government CIA agents. And GM should let whoever leaked the info burn at the stake, along with people who knew that they were posting illegal pics.

Also, it doesn't suprise me that Red Planet is going away. He takes too much of a risk by posting on here. I wouldn't risk my job over this site.

And that guy on RC45 on corvetteforum seems like a less than flattering character. If GM agents did show up on his door step, I am sure that he is greatly exageratting what exactly took place.

Last edited by AronZ28; Nov 16, 2004 at 10:55 AM.
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 11:55 AM
  #89  
Bobby1Kenobby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 43
From: Austin
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Originally Posted by AronZ28
Well, I think the lesson to be learned here is that GM needs to do a better job of covering its a@@. .
My problem is with logic like this. Some people are aying that because GM didn't protect the images properly, it is okay for people to steal them. This is equivalent to the cops telling you, "Well, since you left your window rolled down on your car, it's not a crime to reach in and steal your wallet." If this RC guy got the info like it has been argued, he is at fault and GM has a right to investigate him. I haven't read the posts on other sites but, as far as I know, no lawsuits have been filed. This is just a case of GM investigating. GM has every right to investigate this matter.
Old Nov 16, 2004 | 12:23 PM
  #90  
krazzycowgirl's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,446
From: Yelm, Wa USA
Re: a little legal 'strong-arming' from GM???

Sorry guys for my posts yesterday if I went alittle over board, I got really upset when someone (not naming names) starting saying stuff about GM Trying to not listen to the fans, when they are trying to. I saw red & I am sorry, I really think guys like that should be delt with behind a garage or something.


Scott Settlemire leaving made it worse, For Scott & I are friends like some of you other guys, JasonD for one. & you Guy lol. When you see him or if you get a chance to see him Ask him about me see what he says lol.


But the truth about it all is No Car company is going to release information about what they are building or even thinking about building until they are ready to. Its not just GM, its all of them.

Ford didnt release information about the new Mustang until just before (or after) it went in to production.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.