2009 Camaro? Where is it?
12-07-2005, 01:44 PM
#141
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue is that the pics are GM's property, and even though LS1tech was not under a contractual obligation of confidentiality, the pics did not come into their posession lawfully.
Not saying Nineball did anything intentionally unlawful, but he did in fact post pics he had no legal permission to even have, much less share publicly.
I think that's where the legal issues are. Just trying to explain what I see as the issues.
Not saying Nineball did anything intentionally unlawful, but he did in fact post pics he had no legal permission to even have, much less share publicly.
I think that's where the legal issues are. Just trying to explain what I see as the issues.
12-07-2005, 01:46 PM
#142
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Conroe, TX
Posts: 3,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by abadss
good question, i am not sharing them, nor do i plan to, but that is an interesting note. there is no way for them to monitor emails and PM's for the pics, so i dont see how they could stop it, but then again, i dont see how it is any less illegal than posting them up. this would definately be a good quuestion for tony to answer, although i am sure he would not want them spreading, just as he was told by the GM security.
12-07-2005, 01:55 PM
#143
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Conroe, TX
Posts: 3,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6
The issue is that the pics are GM's property, and even though LS1tech was not under a contractual obligation of confidentiality, the pics did not come into their posession lawfully.
Not saying Nineball did anything intentionally unlawful, but he did in fact post pics he had no legal permission to even have, much less share publicly.
I think that's where the legal issues are. Just trying to explain what I see as the issues.
Not saying Nineball did anything intentionally unlawful, but he did in fact post pics he had no legal permission to even have, much less share publicly.
I think that's where the legal issues are. Just trying to explain what I see as the issues.
12-07-2005, 01:58 PM
#144
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChrisL
..... When things like this happen, believe it or not, there is a cost to GM for it.....
12-07-2005, 02:04 PM
#145
Anyone else that replies in this thread asking for someone to email them will have their account suspended for no less than 30 days. If you want to see them so bad, do a google search or something. We do not want a thread full of requests here.
Personally, I am not sharing them with anyone. I deleted the original email and all the images off of my computer, as well as the LS1TECH server. I did this out of respect for GM's request to us. We are GM supporters here, in case you didn't notice this site is based on GM performance cars.
Personally, I am not sharing them with anyone. I deleted the original email and all the images off of my computer, as well as the LS1TECH server. I did this out of respect for GM's request to us. We are GM supporters here, in case you didn't notice this site is based on GM performance cars.
12-07-2005, 02:05 PM
#146
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ling_650vette
This more/less sums it up
Its not so much that the pics were leaked being once they are in public view its overwith as we've seen. But the downside of that is in this case (as using the previous example) say the contract St Theriese (or however its spelt) had a contract on the Camaro and Firebird/TA/F-hawk names untill Dec 31st 2005. And within that contract it stated that in now-way shape or form was GM allowed to develop a vehicle with that name untill after the contract was up. These pics = a breach of contract (unless GM can prove its not going to be named Camaro) and GM can be held liable. Thats more/less my take on what the legallity reasoning is behind this.
We're just the guy who got caught w/ the loaf of bread, we arent the thief.
Its not so much that the pics were leaked being once they are in public view its overwith as we've seen. But the downside of that is in this case (as using the previous example) say the contract St Theriese (or however its spelt) had a contract on the Camaro and Firebird/TA/F-hawk names untill Dec 31st 2005. And within that contract it stated that in now-way shape or form was GM allowed to develop a vehicle with that name untill after the contract was up. These pics = a breach of contract (unless GM can prove its not going to be named Camaro) and GM can be held liable. Thats more/less my take on what the legallity reasoning is behind this.
We're just the guy who got caught w/ the loaf of bread, we arent the thief.
12-07-2005, 02:12 PM
#147
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nine Ball
Anyone else that replies in this thread asking for someone to email them will have their account suspended for no less than 30 days. If you want to see them so bad, do a google search or something. We do not want a thread full of requests here.
12-07-2005, 02:21 PM
#149
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Conroe, TX
Posts: 3,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hylton
No, this scenario is not possible if they are planning to show a model of the car in January. Think about it - they would have had to work on the model in the year 2005 in order to bring something to the Detroit show in January. The St-Therese thing involved manufacturing and that's it. When did they say they are coming out with this thing? 2009?
And yes, the scenario is possible depending upon what the contract stated. If they saw these pics, and saw it said Camaro and it specifically stated that between 1993 and 2005, GM was in no way shape or form was allowed to work on another one w/o the plants approval then that would be a breach of contract. If GM could prove it was called something else and waited untill the contract was up then said "HA! It is a Camaro!" then thats not a breach. This is the way I understand it anyway. Im not a lawyer, I dont write contracts, but thats just the way I see things with my limited experience of contracts
12-07-2005, 02:35 PM
#151
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if it is in breach? It was all about jobs anyways. The players in St. Therese (union, Quebec and Canadian Govts.) only care about jobs, not what car was being built. If there was a breach, do you really think they would be sued if they offered another model or another shift of an existing model to be built there as compensation?
Last edited by Hylton; 12-07-2005 at 02:42 PM.
12-07-2005, 02:42 PM
#152
I ruin the end of films...
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Taking back some video tapes
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pro Stock John
The pictures that were sent, and the fact they were sent anonymously, makes me us think they were sent by someone who got laid off or someone who wanted to leak the photos to elicit public feedback. I mean we've gotten pics before of stuff, but nothing like this... it was like a press kit of pictures.
I doubt it was a laid-off employee. I'd like to think it's a work by GM to generate more buzz, but I don't think their marketing department is that sharp.
Also, no e-mail is "anonymous". Even freemail can be traced.
Anywho, I just saw the pictures on a different site. Not bad. The car looks decent and the LS1Tech logo emblazoned over the "CONFIDENTIAL" made me giggle a little.
12-07-2005, 02:43 PM
#153
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The St. Therese contract issues are all gone now. The plant was raized like last year, and all the employees that wanted jobs were transfered to other Canadian GM plants.
12-07-2005, 02:46 PM
#154
Guys, lets not speculate or pretend to know the details of GM's contracts. I can assure you that nobody emailed copies of those to us. You guys are just wasting your typing skills trying to discuss that stuff. BTW, the word "Camaro" wasn't on any of those images. There was no text at all in fact. The clay model had no emblems.
12-07-2005, 02:50 PM
#156
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton, California
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How come on the photos nothing says "Property of General Motors" Just marking them confidential doesnt mean anything. I really think it was a big marketing scam. Look at all the buzz it has created. For all we know it could be disinformation.
And to that guy(Doug was it) who thinks he is so important, learn some people skills.
And to that guy(Doug was it) who thinks he is so important, learn some people skills.
12-07-2005, 02:51 PM
#157
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nine Ball
BTW, the word "Camaro" wasn't on any of those images. There was no text at all in fact. The clay model had no emblems.
12-07-2005, 02:58 PM
#158
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Conroe, TX
Posts: 3,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I do. Why? Because they breached the contract. Its legally binding. Jobs or not on the line. They wont care whether 50 or 50,000 people get their jobs back, what they care about is making their wallet bigger and a breach of contract does just that.
12-07-2005, 03:04 PM
#159
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Beaumont, TX USA
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nine Ball
If you want to see them so bad, do a google search or something. We do not want a thread full of requests here.
Personally, I am not sharing them with anyone. I deleted the original email and all the images off of my computer, as well as the LS1TECH server. I did this out of respect for GM's request to us. We are GM supporters here, in case you didn't notice this site is based on GM performance cars.
Personally, I am not sharing them with anyone. I deleted the original email and all the images off of my computer, as well as the LS1TECH server. I did this out of respect for GM's request to us. We are GM supporters here, in case you didn't notice this site is based on GM performance cars.
Seriously, I can see both sides of this and I think that Tony & LS1Tech.com are doing the right thing. I would of put them on web site to share most likely if someone sent them to me just like anyone else would of. Bottom line, I want a new RWD vehicle from GM one day... with more then 2 seats... and it not be a SUV or Truck.
12-07-2005, 03:04 PM
#160
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nashville, Indiana
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TOO Z MAXX
.....
And to that guy(Doug was it) who thinks he is so important, learn some people skills.
And to that guy(Doug was it) who thinks he is so important, learn some people skills.
I simply told PSJ who he was talking to...and some of the reading challenged on here attacked me.....and for the record I was attacked first.
Let it go......
