| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
Let me be the first to say HOLY (expletive deleted for your protection)
The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
Wow.
Adrian
--
www.brickfrenzy.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through various
links from the main links that began this thread, but did not find anything
along the lines of the above comment. Plus, what can I say, a lot of the
content at those links merely repeats old lugnet content (blech!). Can you
save some of us the trouble of searching for ourselves?
Thanks in advance,
Richard
|
|
| |
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:G54K0r.7vy@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is • truly
> > mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
>
> Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through various
> links from the main links that began this thread, but did not find • anything
> along the lines of the above comment. Plus, what can I say, a lot of the
> content at those links merely repeats old lugnet content (blech!). Can • you
> save some of us the trouble of searching for ourselves?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Richard
It is described on this page: http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
This is pretty amazing IMHO.
Mike - mike_walsh@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> > mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
>
> Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through various
> links from the main links that began this thread, but did not find anything
> along the lines of the above comment. Plus, what can I say, a lot of the
> content at those links merely repeats old lugnet content (blech!). Can you
> save some of us the trouble of searching for ourselves?
I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
This is getting exciting! :)
Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> > mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
>
> Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through various
Read down the left side of:
http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
It's just above Eric's arm. :)
Ben Roller
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
> Let me be the first to say HOLY (expletive deleted for your protection)
> The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> mind-bendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
> Wow.
> Adrian
In the year 2002 the LEGO Renaissance will be upon us…
The possibilities will be endless!
(Unless quantity, size, color or piece availability restrictions occur.)
I do believe that this concept has been proposed in the past, but it appears
as though this new development is now fully endorsed and scheduled for 2002.
Its amazing to fathom a creation that I designed could be available to the
general public!
> Pretty dang cool!!!
> Time to start designing some sets.
> Eric Kingsley
Sincerely,
Richard Noeckel
You can reach me @ SHROUD_OF_KUNG_FU@Hotmail.com
-Lego good, Canada great-®
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
>
> I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
> and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
> purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
> and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> This is getting exciting! :)
>
> Bryan
|
|
| |
This is great news, it look like people are getting recognize by the LEGO
Company. There is a new hope for AFOL in the future... Maybe more support
for LUGs, LTCs, group events and conventions? Who knows, time will tell?
Robin Werner
Greater Florida LEGO Train Club and Users Group
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
Hooray!
Hmmm, LEGO is using Quicktime for their video.
Hopefully they aren't going to leave us Mac users out in the cold when the
Design-your-own software comes out.
Still, I stand and applaud their support of... US!
Yahoo!
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego(R) Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
> From: "Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com>
> Organization: LUGNET
> Newsgroups: lugnet.announce,lugnet.lego.direct,lugnet.org,lugnet.robotics
> Followup-To: lugnet.lego.direct
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:38:09 GMT
> Subject: LEGO Company Welcomes Adult LEGO Enthusiasts
>
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Robin Werner writes:
> This is great news, it look like people are getting recognize by the LEGO
> Company. There is a new hope for AFOL in the future... Maybe more support
> for LUGs, LTCs, group events and conventions? Who knows, time will tell?
Hey Robin,You are right about helping LTCs,Brad has offered help(plates
etc.)for our train show next month.He said they are have helped train shows
in the past(PNTLC and others)and will increase this help in 2001.
> Robin Werner
> Greater Florida LEGO Train Club and Users Group
>
>
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > There's a new TLC press release at:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
> >
> > here's the good stuff:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/
> >
> > -Suz
|
|
| |
This is the part that gets me excited!
"In 2002 LEGO builders will be able to build any three dimensional creation
using free software to create building instructions for their model - and
then order the appropriate number and type of bricks."
Torben Ballegaard Sørensen, Executive Vice President, The LEGO Company
Things are certainly going to change, now we just have to wait and see
exactly how. No more will buying a set for pieces be necessary. Lego's
going to have some more competition, us. This will probably be a large
source of income for TLC.
Hundreds of people sending in 'prescription' Lego plans, not
over-the-counter Lego, wonderful!
Free, 3D Lego building software is mentioned...LDraw's prosperity?
Nathan Falslev
nfalslev@netscape.net
AIM: ExplorienCommand
_____________________
Explorien Command
www.go.to/explorien
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
"Nathan Falslev" <nfalslev@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:G54o7E.GuF@lugnet.com...
> This is the part that gets me excited!
> "In 2002 LEGO builders will be able to build any three dimensional • creation
> using free software to create building instructions for their model - and
> then order the appropriate number and type of bricks."
How about the part where it states that all instructions to sets from 1955
onward will be available online?
Second paragraph on this page: http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
Mike - mike_walsh@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
Quoting from the article:
"...builders will be able to build any three dimensional creation
using free software to create building instructions for their model -
and then order the appropriate number and type of bricks"
-- Torben Ballegaard Sørensen
I have a question for Mr. Justus,
regarding the above quotation.
This "free software" which is to be used
for building models, will it be compatible
with LDraw/LEdit? That is, will it be able
to read in and interpret the LDraw/LEdit DAT file format?
I sincerely hope this will be the case,
as there are hundreds (if not thousands) of CAD models
already built using the LDraw/LEdit DAT format,
and it would be a sincere loss if these files
were not available for use in this endevour
of yours (and of the Lego Company's).
If this "free software" will not be able
to directly read in files constructed using
the LDraw/LEdit DAT format,
would you consider the creation and release
of a translation/import program, to convert
from LDraw/LEdit DAT format to your program's format?
Thank you.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin W. Cain
"http://fcain.tripod.com/"
"http://fcain.tripod.com/lego/"
"http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/fwcain/"
"http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/fwcain/castle123/" (under construction)
(quoted from previous messages):
>
> > > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color
> > > is truly mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
> >
> > Where precisely did you see this?
>
> Read down the left side of:
> http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
> It's just above Eric's arm. :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Plus they have links to quite a few LUG's (but no LTC's?).
Hmm, that is odd. It looks like the list came from the dates page listing[1],
which lists train clubs as well as general local user groups. Well, on that
page I just added a graphic and a link to the world LUG Map, which includes
the new changes Eric Kingsley made last week for MichLUG and MonLUG. The
LEGO page gives the URL of the org dates page[1] so hopefully visitors will
find their way to the graphical map from there.
--Todd
[1] http://news.lugnet.com/org/dates
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
Well, as exciting as this is (and it's a HUGE step in the right direction --
one can see that at last TLC is starting to "get it"), one has to wonder at
the limitations. I presume that the software/sets will be limited by brick
type and color selections. But, we shall see...
If this is the news of all brick types being made available in all colors
and in any quantity that many have been waiting for, it's practically too
good to be true! Consequently, I doubt it.
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
Oh. My. I just can't help but feel that everything is about to change
WAY to quickly for any of us to keep up. OK, I have to much to write, and
to little time to write it (or type-who cares). Don't you guys realize what
this means for all of us? OK, sure this means everyone can own a
Spiffcraft, or the Neverwhere. But what about the BAD effects? I hate to
say this, but do you know how many people are going to be selling cheap
copies of any old set without a specialty printed part? MILLIONS! I was
about to buy a $20 Solar Power Transporter on eBay, but now that I read the
press release, I might not. All of a sudden the distinguishing factor in a
Lego auction is the instructions, which can be ordered from Lego at $2 each
(in color for recent ones). So much for Lego eBay. And there goes
Sanburnsystems, and Brickbay, and any other loose part selling site. Also,
what will happen to LUGNET? I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
don't understand. Lugnet is a (relatively) small community. How will it be
affected by being exposed to the rest of the Internet? I wish Henry or Todd
would have told everyone about this sooner.
And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part availability
service becomes available? Will a few dozen theme designers be out of a
job? I have had high hopes for quite a while about working for Lego
designing new sets. Now it seems I need to look for different career
posibilities. Overall Lego will be making millions, because now I can
custom build anything I want, for a nice fee of course. Anyways, what will
happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine. Will anything ever be the same? All
of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
P.S. Does this mean all of these Lego sites will be able to remove those
"not affiliated with the Lego Group" signs?
|
|
| |
What you said, Baby!
I wondered upon these issues almost immediately. Are they reinventing the
wheel, or reusing the wheel that has already been made?
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Walsh writes:
> How about the part where it states that all instructions to sets from 1955
> onward will be available online?
>
> Second paragraph on this page: http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
This makes me wonder about the future of set instruction scans on
www.brickshelf.com. It seems like LEGO (if they do it right) is going to make
those scans obsolete. I'd like to hear from Kevin on this issue.
Ben Roller
|
|
| |
Jonathan Wilson wrote in message <3A2DBF9B.B4FBF12F@tpgi.com.au>...
> Definatly cool!
> Of course there is bucklies chance of this coming down under for the
> forseeable future.
Look here: http://www.lego.com/press/facts.asp#2 and you'll see this:
"The LEGO Shop at Home, the largest LEGO store in the world, offers
consumers from Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States the
largest LEGO assortment anywhere. This includes approximately 450 different
LEGO sets, 67 different types of bulk bricks and products not available at
retail e.g. bulk bricks, LEGO Mosaic, LEGO Mini-figure and the Statue of
Liberty.
In 2001 the LEGO Shop at Home will be made available to consumers from
Southern Europe and Asia/Pacific."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2001 is not so far off.
Kevin
|
|
| |
"Ben Roller" <broller@mail.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:G54pu9.KEz@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Walsh writes:
> > How about the part where it states that all instructions to sets from • 1955
> > onward will be available online?
> >
> > Second paragraph on this page: http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
>
> This makes me wonder about the future of set instruction scans on
> www.brickshelf.com. It seems like LEGO (if they do it right) is going to • make
> those scans obsolete. I'd like to hear from Kevin on this issue.
Perhaps Kevin's site will somehow be involved.
|
|
| |
"Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> wrote in message
news:G54HvL.382@lugnet.com...
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
So that's what having your mind blown feels like. The possibilities become
endless. The quest for the holy grail is at an end. I'm sitting here trying
to get this to sink in. Wow!!!
|
|
| |
Suzanne D. Rich wrote in message ...
> There's a new TLC press release at:
> here's the good stuff:
> http://www.lego.com/press/
Great stuff!
But the way they implement their press releases is just WEIRD. All the video
and hi-res pictures are zipped (and of course since the original file
formats are already compressed, they only get about 5 or 6% compression) so
you have to download the zip, unzip it, and then open the file you're trying
to get at. Not only that, but once you click on the link to download the
file, the original web page goes away completely so you can't go back to
where you were!
Kevin
|
|
| |
In article <G54r47.n3p@lugnet.com>, Kevin Wilson
<kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> wrote:
> But the way they implement their press releases is just WEIRD. All the video
> and hi-res pictures are zipped (and of course since the original file
> formats are already compressed, they only get about 5 or 6% compression) so
> you have to download the zip, unzip it, and then open the file you're trying
> to get at.
Indeed... I don't know if I'm alone here, but the zip files are
corrupted and won't decompress fully. I'm using a Mac, and LEGO hasn't
been very friendly to Mac-users in the past, so maybe everything's just
normal... <shrugs...>
> Not only that, but once you click on the link to download the
> file, the original web page goes away completely so you can't go back to
> where you were!
Odd... on the Mac, the file just downloads itself... the webpage
doesn't go away... =)
C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> > Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> > doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> But, we shall see...
> If this is the news of all brick types being made available in all colors
> and in any quantity that many have been waiting for, it's practically too
> good to be true! Consequently, I doubt it.
>
> -- Richard
My sentiments exactly!!
> The possibilities will be endless!
> (Unless quantity, size, color or piece availability restrictions occur.)
Price my also be a factor...
Sincerely,
Richard Noeckel
You can reach me @ SHROUD_OF_KUNG_FU@Hotmail.com
-Lego good, Canada great-®
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
After the behaviour that followed the release of the MOSAIC facility,
one wonders what wacky set designs people will come up with.
Those naughty naughty parts dealers !
But it certainly is a great leap forward. Hopefully TLC will keep trawling
the community for talent and rewarding with recognition the brightest.
A just reward for Todd, Suzanne, Henry and Eric.
Not quite how I imagined Brad.J looking.
pete.w
|
|
| |
Claus Thiim wrote in message <051220002144501196%Chunky@trideja.com>...
> Indeed... I don't know if I'm alone here, but the zip files are
> corrupted and won't decompress fully. I'm using a Mac, and LEGO hasn't
> been very friendly to Mac-users in the past, so maybe everything's just
> normal... <shrugs...>
The zip files are OK for me... I just object to the pointless extra step.
Kevin
|
|
| |
I have my browser set not to accept cookies so I cannot access the page.
Could someone possibly copy the relevant text and post it here?
Thanks!
Dave
|
|
| |
David Simmons wrote:
> I have my browser set not to accept cookies so I cannot access the page.
Why not just enable it?
-John
>
> Could someone possibly copy the relevant text and post it here?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
Will this reverse the 'juniorization' trend in our Train sets? Only time
shall tell. I was just about to post a message saying that TLC has truly
given up on trains (my opinion). But when I came across this, it really
lifted my spirits. Perhaps TLC has realized the true power of LUGNET after
all and once again, I wish to thank LUGNET and it's creators for reawakening
me from a 12-year slumber...-Harvey
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, David Simmons writes:
> I have my browser set not to accept cookies so I cannot access the page.
> Could someone possibly copy the relevant text and post it here?
There's a lot to copy, and little benefit to most from doing so, I suggest
that the most efficient thing to do may be for you to go to the front page,
turn cookies on, read the stuff, then turn them off again.
Or just leave them on.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
>
> >
> > I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
> > and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
> > purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
> > and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
> Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> > This is getting exciting! :)
> >
> > Bryan
Alrite!! I can finally 'design' a Metroliner and order all the bricks on-line.
And how about all those classic space sets that are missing from my
collection....
Mark "my bank-account sgonna faint in 2002" de Kock
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> What you said, Baby!
>
> I wondered upon these issues almost immediately. Are they reinventing the
> wheel, or reusing the wheel that has already been made?
One hopes for the latter but fears for the former. We have a licensing
problem with the parts library, which we need to address, quickly, IMHO, or
stumbling blocks of our own making could prevent TLC legal from approving
use of the LDraw format. This is being discussed in the CAD groups (work
faltered on a license, it's a hard problem. I'm arguing that the matter all
of a sudden got more urgent)
I am sure that most of us would not like to see a Creator style interface or
Creator format data files... but rather would prefer the 100 flowers of the
many different LDraw compatible programs to continue to bloom rather than
wither on the vine, so that users have a choice of interface styles, etc.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > Plus they have links to quite a few LUG's (but no LTC's?).
>
> Hmm, that is odd. It looks like the list came from the dates page listing[1],
> which lists train clubs as well as general local user groups. Well, on that
> page I just added a graphic and a link to the world LUG Map, which includes
> the new changes Eric Kingsley made last week for MichLUG and MonLUG. The
> LEGO page gives the URL of the org dates page[1] so hopefully visitors will
> find their way to the graphical map from there.
>
> --Todd
>
> [1] http://news.lugnet.com/org/dates
May I suggest: Be more specific in your statement!
Something like "if you wandered in here from the pressrelease <backlink>,
that list is incomplete and may be out of date, click on the globe for a
complete list"
Journalists aren't always the greatest at connecting dots and drawing
inferences, especially if they are rushed. Do their homework for them (this
is a special case of "don't do people's homework for them" :-) ) as if you
don't, you get burned. That's been my experience.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras writes:
> Perhaps Kevin's site will somehow be involved.
Perhaps. I have good reason to believe that TLC uses Kevin's site now,
internally.
Or perhaps (the scan part of) Kevin's site will be made obsolete. I suspect
that if TLC did a bang up job, it would not bother Kevin too much, running
brickshelf is a LOT of work and a lot of donated bandwidth.
++Lar
|
|
| |
"Franklin W. Cain" <fwcain@yahoo.com> writes:
> This "free software" which is to be used for building models, will it
> be compatible with LDraw/LEdit? That is, will it be able to read in
> and interpret the LDraw/LEdit DAT file format?
I'm guessing that TLC uses the word "free" in the meaning "gratis", not
"free" as in "Free Software Foundation".
I would be very surprised if TLC are going to use the LDraw format. It
has far too many difficult issues for them to use it. If we are lucky,
we can reverse engineer whatever format TLC comes up with to describe
the models to be submitted, and make a converter from LDraw to this
format. But I honestly doubt even that.
Difficult issues with LDraw include:
o Incomplete parts library. Obviously, many of the recent parts (and a
few old ones, too) are missing from the LDraw parts library. It is a
substantial job to fill in these.
o Some of the LDraw parts do not look like the real LEGO counterparts.
For example, the Technic axles are a bit too short, the Technic pins
do not have the "lips" on the ends, the 6558 Technic Axle Joiner has
the old style looks, meaning that the exterior is rotated 45° with
respect the part being used right now. Then there's a lot of details
which are left out on LDraw parts, for example the tubes under the
plates and bricks, ribs on Technic friction pins and much, much more.
o Some parts are difficult to model with LDraw. Take the flexible
element tubes, axles and other elements. These are difficult to model
with LDraw, and hence it is difficult to communicate exactly what
length is required.
o LDraw can be used to compose "impossible" part combinations. A lot of
LDraw parts come as multiple subparts. Some of these subparts reflect
the way the real parts are composed, and some don't. For example, you
can use LDraw to include odd elements in your models like the end part
of a Technic Pneumatic Airtank, a single 2x2/1x4 plate hinge element,
a minifig jack handle without the rest of the jack and so on.
o Parts in non-existing colour combinations. Let me just say chromed
minifigs and yellow rubber tires. I'm sure you can picture the
problems related to this.
I bet TLC prefer to make their own modeling software and parts library
to avoid problems like this.
It may be relevant to note that while LUGNET, Brickshelf, NQC and lots
of other fan created tools have received attention from TLC lately, I
haven't seen much of this for LDraw. LDraw may be something TLC do not
want to support.
The news we have heard lately is really exciting! 2002 is not that far
off. Let's just hope that this service is offered to the whole world
simultaneously, so that us from far away Europe don't have to wait
another year...
Fredrik (still waiting for LEGO Direct to appear i Norway)
|
|
| |
did i read that correctly ... does that say that all the instructions will
be available on line ... i can't wait .. that means instructions for
the 1817, 1475, old maersk truck etc.
i sincerely hope it includes all these promotion sets
oh it will be sooooo cool
i wonder will we be able to buy decals ... like the ones on
the 1772, 1773 etc.
I will be printing out instructions and buying loads of pieces from TLC !!
yippeee !
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
"Jonathan Mizner" <mizners@aol.com> writes:
> And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
> development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part
> availability service becomes available? Will a few dozen theme
> designers be out of a job?
I don't think you can expect any such effect. Keep in mind that there's
more to a LEGO set than the parts included and the main model. There's
also the box and instruction artwork, specialized minifigs, cartoons,
the theme itself, as well as other promotional items like video games
and posters.
While AFOLs can probably design models which are just as good or better
than the ones in official LEGO sets, they will have a hard time matching
TLC when it comes to the quality of the other aspects mentioned above.
There's also the cost factor. I suppose that costum LEGO sets designed
by AFOLs are going to be much more expensive than ordinary LEGO sets.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> Hooray!
>
> Hmmm, LEGO is using Quicktime for their video.
>
> Hopefully they aren't going to leave us Mac users out in the cold when the
> Design-your-own software comes out.
>
> Still, I stand and applaud their support of... US!
>
> Yahoo!
>
> ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
If push came to shove you could always use virtual PC. I don't see how they
could avoid the mac though.
Darrell King
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras writes:
>
> > Perhaps Kevin's site will somehow be involved.
>
> Perhaps. I have good reason to believe that TLC uses Kevin's site now,
> internally.
I have been referred to Kevin's site by TLG when I asked for a copy of old
instructions.
>
> Or perhaps (the scan part of) Kevin's site will be made obsolete. I suspect
> that if TLC did a bang up job, it would not bother Kevin too much, running
> brickshelf is a LOT of work and a lot of donated bandwidth.
I have my doubts as to how far back the official Lego archives go. I would
be impressed if they have instructions going all the way back to 1955
internally available. I would expect them to have most, if not all, of the
instructions from the 1980's on. Also, I wonder if they will make old
catalogs available. That would be great!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
This is excellent news!
I can see an excellent possibility with the release of instructions on-line,
perhaps there will be a 'Buy the parts for this set' button along with each
set's instructions? i.e. they might essentially end up re-releasing old sets?
It all depends on which bricks you will be able to buy, all types or just
traditional ones? It would be great if LEGO could confirm the answer to this.
Ben.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras writes:
>
> > Perhaps Kevin's site will somehow be involved.
>
> Perhaps. I have good reason to believe that TLC uses Kevin's site now,
> internally.
They certainly use the gallery - a link to the Globe and Mail article
("Dot-com crowd loves LEGO") that I scanned and posted there in August
was on their media links page for this press release.
http://www.lego.com/press/facts.asp#9
I just about died when I saw it.
> Or perhaps (the scan part of) Kevin's site will be made obsolete. I suspect
> that if TLC did a bang up job, it would not bother Kevin too much, running
> brickshelf is a LOT of work and a lot of donated bandwidth.
It would be lovely if they did so, and did a good job, but if they took it
over and it deteriorated or turned out to be harder to use (weren't there
Shockwave instructions for something Technic a while back?) we'd be back to
square one. Hang in there Kevin, we still need you.
Cheers, Heather
--
Heather Patey
St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
Pirate Wench / Brick Detective
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> Oh. My. I just can't help but feel that everything is about to change
> WAY to quickly for any of us to keep up. OK, I have to much to write, and
> to little time to write it (or type-who cares). Don't you guys realize what
> this means for all of us? OK, sure this means everyone can own a
> Spiffcraft, or the Neverwhere. But what about the BAD effects? I hate to
> say this, but do you know how many people are going to be selling cheap
> copies of any old set without a specialty printed part? MILLIONS! I was
> about to buy a $20 Solar Power Transporter on eBay, but now that I read the
> press release, I might not. All of a sudden the distinguishing factor in a
> Lego auction is the instructions, which can be ordered from Lego at $2 each
> (in color for recent ones). So much for Lego eBay. And there goes
> Sanburnsystems, and Brickbay, and any other loose part selling site.
Basically, this is all about the economic side of things. Who cares? This
is a free market. People will buy what they want. As much as I have used
and appreciate what AucZILLA, Brickbay, etc. have done for making available
specific pieces and sets, I would much prefer to be able to order these
things directly from TLC. This should, on average, lower how much it costs
me for lego. Your concern seems somewhat petty ("TLC is going to offer
people what they want and <gasp> people might buy it and put eBay Lego out
of business!!!").
> Also,
> what will happen to LUGNET? I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
> Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
> worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
> don't understand. Lugnet is a (relatively) small community. How will it be
> affected by being exposed to the rest of the Internet?
This is virtually guaranteed to happen (if it hasn't happened a thousand
times already). People will always look at what you are doing and not
understand.
The only real concern I have about this is that TLC might mimic everything
done on LUGNET, but not as well. And because there was an officially
sanctioned website that does all the same functions, interest would drop off
in LUGNET. Personally, I would like to see TLC make some sort of fellowship
to fund something like LUGNET. And of course, I'd like to see that go to
Todd and Suz so they can continue there work with LUGNET. I think they have
a much better chance of keeping the ball rolling. I like the fellowship
idea since I don't think it would be good to make them direct employees.
Does anyone else have any ideas on this?
> I wish Henry or Todd
> would have told everyone about this sooner.
What they do is their business. After all these individuals have done for
the AFOLs and KABOBs, I would not presume to tell them what they should do.
> And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
> development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part availability
> service becomes available? Will a few dozen theme designers be out of a
> job? I have had high hopes for quite a while about working for Lego
> designing new sets. Now it seems I need to look for different career
> posibilities.
I find this unlikely. But even if it does happen, it is not an uncommon
thing. The application of technology to problems always makes some jobs
obsolete and creates other jobs.
> Overall Lego will be making millions, because now I can
> custom build anything I want, for a nice fee of course.
That is their prerogative.
> Anyways, what will
> happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
> little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
> suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine. Will anything ever be the same? All
> of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
> shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
If Mark lets TLC have his model design that is his right (after all, that is
what designers do!) Does the community at-large really care if it is a
saleried TLC designer that does the work or if it is an AFOL? Why should
we? Right now, no one can force me to build the box design. There are
people who never build the design that the set comes with and others that
build nothing but the stock designs (some people even <shudder> glue their
stock sets together). And when it comes down to it, that ability to choose
what you want to do is the beauty of Lego and I wouldn't want it any other way.
The only thing that is absolutely certain is that change is inevitable.
> P.S. Does this mean all of these Lego sites will be able to remove those
> "not affiliated with the Lego Group" signs?
One can hope.
I hope this didn't come off too harsh, but your original post was awfully
"the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!".
Regards,
Steve Martin
martins@mail.com
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G5561G.6xp@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > What you said, Baby!
> >
> > I wondered upon these issues almost immediately. Are they reinventing • the
> > wheel, or reusing the wheel that has already been made?
>
> One hopes for the latter but fears for the former. We have a licensing
> problem with the parts library, which we need to address, quickly, IMHO, • or
> stumbling blocks of our own making could prevent TLC legal from approving
> use of the LDraw format. This is being discussed in the CAD groups (work
> faltered on a license, it's a hard problem. I'm arguing that the matter • all
> of a sudden got more urgent)
>
> I am sure that most of us would not like to see a Creator style interface • or
> Creator format data files... but rather would prefer the 100 flowers of • the
> many different LDraw compatible programs to continue to bloom rather than
> wither on the vine, so that users have a choice of interface styles, etc.
>
> ++Lar
It would be great if somehow TLC worked with the LCAD community to develop
this software, and allowed DAT format natively, like the proposed Artemis
project mentions. It would of course need its own more advanced format
because more stuff would be needed, but including DAT would be a _very_ wise
thing to do.
I hope the parts license gets resolved quickly too.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Peter White writes:
> Not quite how I imagined Brad.J looking.
> pete.w
I agree. Funny how that works out.
--Steve Martin
|
|
| |
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:m3y9xt7q3s.fsf@crossblock.localdomain...
> "Franklin W. Cain" <fwcain@yahoo.com> writes:
> I would be very surprised if TLC are going to use the LDraw format. It
> has far too many difficult issues for them to use it. If we are lucky,
> we can reverse engineer whatever format TLC comes up with to describe
> the models to be submitted, and make a converter from LDraw to this
> format. But I honestly doubt even that.
Hmm. As I just finished posting, before readin this, :-) ...it would be
great if this software could import DAT files and convert them itself to the
new format. This would save a LOT of hassle changing over the community's
standard format if this software is to replace LCAD.
If this replaces LCAD, it better be Windows/Mac/Unix compatible, not too
heavy on the animation, easy to use yet not too sappy GUI, advanced enough
for the most demanding users, etc etc. It should embody all LCAD has become
into something greater and truly better - NOT Creator-esque.
> Difficult issues with LDraw include:
>
> o Incomplete parts library. Obviously, many of the recent parts (and a
> few old ones, too) are missing from the LDraw parts library. It is a
> substantial job to fill in these.
Again, if the TLC software imported DAT, this would not be a problem.
> o Some of the LDraw parts do not look like the real LEGO counterparts.
> For example, the Technic axles are a bit too short, the Technic pins
> do not have the "lips" on the ends, the 6558 Technic Axle Joiner has
> the old style looks, meaning that the exterior is rotated 45° with
> respect the part being used right now. Then there's a lot of details
> which are left out on LDraw parts, for example the tubes under the
> plates and bricks, ribs on Technic friction pins and much, much more.
Take the part number representations and convert over that way. If the
software knows the LDraw library, then conversion should not be a huge
problem. Spacing may become an issue, but if their parts snap to studs, it
can automagically be adjusted.
> o Some parts are difficult to model with LDraw. Take the flexible
> element tubes, axles and other elements. These are difficult to model
> with LDraw, and hence it is difficult to communicate exactly what
> length is required.
DAT import again.
> o LDraw can be used to compose "impossible" part combinations. A lot of
> LDraw parts come as multiple subparts. Some of these subparts reflect
> the way the real parts are composed, and some don't. For example, you
> can use LDraw to include odd elements in your models like the end part
> of a Technic Pneumatic Airtank, a single 2x2/1x4 plate hinge element,
> a minifig jack handle without the rest of the jack and so on.
>
> o Parts in non-existing colour combinations. Let me just say chromed
> minifigs and yellow rubber tires. I'm sure you can picture the
> problems related to this.
If DAT was imported, the software could check for parts not produced in
certain colors, and incomplete/non-available parts.
> I bet TLC prefer to make their own modeling software and parts library
> to avoid problems like this.
No doubt they will make their own library. I hope it doesn't turn out like
Creator, and can be made compatible with a lite viewer and plugged into
LUGNET, DAT support, advanced features, etc etc. Maybe they should develop
two versions, with age reccommendations on them. Perhaps 5-12 and 12+ -
different skill levels, and MLCAD-like features on the latter. What if it
supported LEdit key commands?? That would rock!! :-)
> It may be relevant to note that while LUGNET, Brickshelf, NQC and lots
> of other fan created tools have received attention from TLC lately, I
> haven't seen much of this for LDraw. LDraw may be something TLC do not
> want to support.
I believe its from the legal hoops they will have to jump through to adopt
some sort of compatibility. I hope they go through with it anyways, and
support the importing of DAT in their software. If they don't, a lot of
people here will be forced to redesign their models in their software if
they want to order bricks. They should be able to convert their models over
with a few clicks, save it as the new LEGO format, and go about their merry
ways.
If TLC doesn't support DAT, a lot of people will be frustrated. Though they
may provide a better program, a lot of people will be forced to redo work
they spent hours on. Will that be worth it to take advantage of the new
service, when they've already spent the time designing it in 3D?
What about renderings through programs like POV-Ray. If this new program
had a rendering/scene feature that was easy to use (for dummies like me)
that would be wonderful. Make the program multipurpose...creating digital
instructions, parts lists, scenes, etc - in one file. Keep the idea of the
DAT file and go off of it. Small portable text file which references local
files. One of the things that makes LDraw so great.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
Did any else notice the statistics in the "Dot-com crowd loves Lego"
article? http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=11947
The article quoted Shannon Hartnett from TLC - "She said U.S. sales to this
group are up close to 8% from 1998, and nearly one in 10 Lego buyers is now
a grownup, or what aficionados call AFOLs: Adult Friends of Lego."
So I guess we made up some percentage greater that 10% of the Lego sales in
1998 (since AFOLs seem to spend more money per capita on Lego than a parent
for a child). If that is true, we have considerably more buying power that
I thought. Does anybody else have any more recent (or more accurate)
statistics?
BTW, I thought AFOL was "Adult Fan Of Lego"?
Regards,
Steve Martin
martinsa@mail.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Martin writes:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > There's a new TLC press release at:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
> >
> > here's the good stuff:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/
> >
> > -Suz
>
> Did any else notice the statistics in the "Dot-com crowd loves Lego"
> article? http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=11947
>
> The article quoted Shannon Hartnett from TLC - "She said U.S. sales to this
> group are up close to 8% from 1998, and nearly one in 10 Lego buyers is now
> a grownup, or what aficionados call AFOLs: Adult Friends of Lego."
>
> So I guess we made up some percentage greater that 10% of the Lego sales in
> 1998 (since AFOLs seem to spend more money per capita on Lego than a parent
> for a child). If that is true, we have considerably more buying power that
> I thought. Does anybody else have any more recent (or more accurate)
> statistics?
I am really surprised by this too - especially since a lot of AFOLs, more or
less, do not buy all that much new Lego. Even sales at 10% would surprises me.
Come on Brad? You must know! Tell us your secrets (the Lego ones).
>
> BTW, I thought AFOL was "Adult Fan Of Lego"?
Me too.
Scott A
>
> Regards,
> Steve Martin
> martinsa@mail.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras wrote:
> "Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> wrote in message
> news:G54HvL.382@lugnet.com...
> > There's a new TLC press release at:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
> >
> > here's the good stuff:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/
>
>
> So that's what having your mind blown feels like. The possibilities become
> endless. The quest for the holy grail is at an end. I'm sitting here trying
> to get this to sink in. Wow!!!
Wow. I never expected to see this post from Tony K. If someone had told
me about it before I read it, I would have told them to get their eyes
checked.
:)
Steve
|
|
| |
> From: "Richard Noeckel" <Shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com>
>
> In the year 2002 the LEGO Renaissance will be upon us…
> The possibilities will be endless!
> (Unless quantity, size, color or piece availability restrictions occur.)
> I do believe that this concept has been proposed in the past, but it appears
> as though this new development is now fully endorsed and scheduled for 2002.
> Its amazing to fathom a creation that I designed could be available to the
> general public!
Suppose you do that. I bet you a 1200pc bucket that LEGO then lays claim to
the rights on your design. I remember reading something about "imbursing the
creator," but it was pretty vague.
Still, if I can order any piece in any color, I could order up bunches o'
parts and start mass-producing some of my mecha. You wouldn't believe how
many requests I get for the Helldog.
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
> From: "Jonathan Mizner" <mizners@aol.com>
<snip>
> I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
> Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
> worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
> don't understand.
<snip>
I'm thinking I could probably blame that on Tom.
;^D
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
> From: Claus Thiim <Chunky@trideja.com>
>
>
> Indeed... I don't know if I'm alone here, but the zip files are
> corrupted and won't decompress fully. I'm using a Mac, and LEGO hasn't
> been very friendly to Mac-users in the past, so maybe everything's just
> normal... <shrugs...>
Well, they appear on the desktop as a Simpletext document, but if you drag
the doc on top of your Quicktime Player icon, it will open and you can watch
the movie.
HTH
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
Yeah. I could BUY Virtual PC.
Hmm... Only $239.99 if you want the latest version.
*sigh*
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
> From: "darrellk" <darrellk@pixelmonkey.net>
>
> If push came to shove you could always use virtual PC. I don't see how they
> could avoid the mac though.
>
> Darrell King
|
|
| |
My concern is this:
If I design a set and post it, and it's extremely popular, what do I gain
from it? Will LEGO give me a royalty on it? Will they instead reward me with
bricks? Publicity? A job?
If I submit my own design and stand to lose my rights to it, that prompts me
to order the parts and then sell my sets on my own. I stand to profit from
that at a much greater scale. Plus, I get to keep the rights to my own
designs.
I receive several instruction requests a week. I also receive offers to buy
my models. I would love to be able to do this, but as it stands, I often use
parts that are old and unavailable. With the advent of being able to buy
exactly what I would need, I could start making "Mark Sandlin Sets."
It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
> From: "Steve Martin" <martinsa@mail.com>
> > Anyways, what will
> > happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
> > little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
> > suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine. Will anything ever be the same? All
> > of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
> > shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
> If Mark lets TLC have his model design that is his right (after all, that is
> what designers do!) Does the community at-large really care if it is a
> saleried TLC designer that does the work or if it is an AFOL? Why should
> we? Right now, no one can force me to build the box design. There are
> people who never build the design that the set comes with and others that
> build nothing but the stock designs (some people even <shudder> glue their
> stock sets together). And when it comes down to it, that ability to choose
> what you want to do is the beauty of Lego and I wouldn't want it any other
> way.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> We have a licensing
> problem with the parts library, which we need to address, quickly, IMHO, or
> stumbling blocks of our own making could prevent TLC legal from approving
> use of the LDraw format.
The licensing issue doesn't matter, except for appearances/impressions
(having a 'licensing issue' gives the impression that we might not play well
with LEGO).
LEGO doesn't need the LDraw parts library, they've got their own parts
database. What we want from LEGO is compatibility with the LDraw file
format, so LEGO's software can read our model files. LEGO doesn't need any
special permission to write software that reads LDraw DAT files.
If LEGO were to use an extension of the LDraw format in their software,
that'd be awesome. But they need so much more from their modeling system,
LDraw only scratches the surface.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > From: "Richard Noeckel" <Shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com>
> >
> > In the year 2002 the LEGO Renaissance will be upon us…
> > The possibilities will be endless!
> > (Unless quantity, size, color or piece availability restrictions occur.)
> > I do believe that this concept has been proposed in the past, but it appears
> > as though this new development is now fully endorsed and scheduled for 2002.
> > Its amazing to fathom a creation that I designed could be available to the
> > general public!
>
> Suppose you do that. I bet you a 1200pc bucket that LEGO then lays claim to
> the rights on your design. I remember reading something about "imbursing the
> creator," but it was pretty vague.
>
> Still, if I can order any piece in any color, I could order up bunches o'
> parts and start mass-producing some of my mecha. You wouldn't believe how
> many requests I get for the Helldog.
>
> ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
If you are want to get pieces for a design, but don't want to give out the
design, one could always do the design, get the piece count, and then build
something unrelated that used the same pieces.
Steve Martin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
>
> >
> > I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
> > and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
> > purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
> > and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
> Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> > This is getting exciting! :)
> >
> > Bryan
I think that TLC will guard against this by limiting the number of elements
included in the software. For example, if this software includes a database
of say, 1000 parts (a wild guess), our personalized instructions will not be
able to contain other parts than those 1000.
This way, TLC will limit the number of parts it will have to produce for us
and will help keep the cost of the endeavor in check. Unfortunately, it will
mean that we won't be able to order "any part in any color". However, I hope
I am wrong :-) .
Kev Z (Who dreamt of monorails, vehicle doors and round trees last night)
#142
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> Yeah. I could BUY Virtual PC.
>
> Hmm... Only $239.99 if you want the latest version.
>
> *sigh*
>
> ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
Mark
Or you could just renounce your bohemian ways and come over to the MS dark
side.
- Gary
(hope to see ya at Wayne's next weekend)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras wrote:
>
> > "Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> wrote in message
> > news:G54HvL.382@lugnet.com...
> > > There's a new TLC press release at:
> > >
> > > http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
> > >
> > > here's the good stuff:
> > >
> > > http://www.lego.com/press/
> >
> >
> > So that's what having your mind blown feels like. The possibilities become
> > endless. The quest for the holy grail is at an end. I'm sitting here trying
> > to get this to sink in. Wow!!!
>
> Wow. I never expected to see this post from Tony K. If someone had told
> me about it before I read it, I would have told them to get their eyes
> checked.
>
> :)
>
> Steve
Hola! Yes, I am still here. Been mostly lurking because I have found few
posts of interest to me (re: Star Wars, the new 2001 monstrosities, etc.)
|
|
| |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sandlin" <sandlin@nwlink.com>
<snip>
> If I submit my own design and stand to lose my rights to it, that prompts • me
> to order the parts and then sell my sets on my own. I stand to profit from
> that at a much greater scale. Plus, I get to keep the rights to my own
> designs.
<snip>
I would hope that Lego would use the same idea that they are using with the
Brickilizer, that is, we post the design ( or image in the case of the
Bricklizer ) and an order for the parts is placed, without Lego keeping a
copy of the actual design.
Of course, if they decide to attempt the other method, then I'm certain that
a program to scramble your design, but use exactly the same pieces in the
same colors and quantities will become available from someone who feels the
same way that you do. :-) Without a program to do that, it could still be
done manually, but would be tedious.
BTW, I'm one of the people that feels the same way as you about this. ( in
case I didn't make that clear above.)
-Andy Lynch
|
|
| |
Yes, Dave. I'll put the press release and related text documents here:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/announce/
-Suz
In lugnet.lego.direct, David Simmons writes:
> I have my browser set not to accept cookies so I cannot access the page.
> Could someone possibly copy the relevant text and post it here?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> This "free software" which is to be used
> for building models, will it be compatible
> with LDraw/LEdit? That is, will it be able
> to read in and interpret the LDraw/LEdit DAT file format?
Wow wow slow down guys. That's just their objective. It will be a difficult
job and they may only have a simple software for kids at the beginning.
Frankly if they just provide a simple interface like BrickBay for each
available part it would be totally wonderful. On top of that they can create a
page to accept order from a standard part inventory list. Generate such a list
from a LDraw DAT file would be a very simple job. All we need to do is pass
the LDraw DAT file through a software to generate this standard inventory list,
add a few extra parts or combine the list with parts from another DAT file to
save on shipping. Then we copy and paste the list into LEGO's ordering page
and off we go!
The page should be smart enough to check the list for part availibility, and
even make smart suggestion like "Sorry we do not have trans-green 2x1 tile. Do
you like trans-leon-green 2x1 tile, solid green 2x1 tile, or cancel the
order?". This way they don't even need to worry about the legal issue of
copyrighted designs as in the Mosaic. All they know is the parts order. It's
no difference than ordering paint and wood.
The only thing missing would be the building instruction, but it should not
matter since you have the DAT file. If it is a gift for a kid you can generate
the print yourself. If the DAT is complicate enough you will need manual
adjustment to the instruction anyway.
However no matter what they will do, a custom design is gona cost more than the
standard set. E.g. ordering all the parts for the Metroliner will cost more
than the original. But you don't have to order the curve tracks if you don't
want them which can reduce the cost substantially.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras wrote:
> >
> > > "Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> wrote in message
> > > news:G54HvL.382@lugnet.com...
> > > > There's a new TLC press release at:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
> > > >
> > > > here's the good stuff:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lego.com/press/
> > >
> > >
> > > So that's what having your mind blown feels like. The possibilities become
> > > endless. The quest for the holy grail is at an end. I'm sitting here trying
> > > to get this to sink in. Wow!!!
> >
> > Wow. I never expected to see this post from Tony K. If someone had told
> > me about it before I read it, I would have told them to get their eyes
> > checked.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Steve
>
> Hola! Yes, I am still here. Been mostly lurking because I have found few
> posts of interest to me (re: Star Wars, the new 2001 monstrosities, etc.)
It is nice to see your name appear, Tony. And on such a happy note!
:-)
-Suz
|
|
| |
Actually, TLC should state right up front an established amount of money for
the designers of sets that could be broken down by the numbers of elements
in the design. There is an obvious savings for them if they are able to
reduce the number of set designers they staff in-house. This savings should
equate to some kind of kick-back to the person's submitting designs.
Also, people should ABSOLUTELY be given the choice of giving up their
design, or retaining the rights to their design -- even if the design is
being submitted to obtain the needed building elements.
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Zwicker writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
> >
> > >
> > > I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
> > > and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
> > > purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
> > > and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
> > Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> > doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> > > This is getting exciting! :)
> > >
> > > Bryan
>
> I think that TLC will guard against this by limiting the number of elements
> included in the software. For example, if this software includes a database
> of say, 1000 parts (a wild guess), our personalized instructions will not be
> able to contain other parts than those 1000.
>
> This way, TLC will limit the number of parts it will have to produce for us
> and will help keep the cost of the endeavor in check. Unfortunately, it will
> mean that we won't be able to order "any part in any color". However, I hope
> I am wrong :-) .
>
> Kev Z (Who dreamt of monorails, vehicle doors and round trees last night)
> #142
I think one limitation will be related to the molds required for piece
production. If the particular mold no longer exists, for example. But I'd bet
that strong demand from consumers (like us) will bring out some fun pieces.
-Suz (fingers crossed for the garage doors)
|
|
| |
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
> Hmm. As I just finished posting, before readin this, :-) ...it
> would be great if this software could import DAT files and convert
> them itself to the new format. This would save a LOT of hassle
> changing over the community's standard format if this software is
> to replace LCAD.
I wonder if I have missed something important. When I read the
information in the press release that people can use a free modeling
program to represent their model and then submit it to buy the parts
needed, I thought this program would be useable only as a tool to
indicate what parts would be needed. Your post appears to indicate
that you think that this software may/will replace LDraw in all kinds
of aspects. Is there any information present in the press release
that indicates that TLC are providing the community with a new, free
LEGO CAD system?
Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
user which can be reverse engineered.
BTW, you consistently post articles with lines wrapped, especially
quoted lines. Do you think you can increase the line length in your
client to avoid this? Or perhaps you can refill the paragraphs before
quoting them to avoid line wrapping? Just a thought.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Zwicker writes:
> I think that TLC will guard against this by limiting the number of elements
> included in the software. For example, if this software includes a database
> of say, 1000 parts (a wild guess), our personalized instructions will not be
> able to contain other parts than those 1000.
>
> This way, TLC will limit the number of parts it will have to produce for us
> and will help keep the cost of the endeavor in check. Unfortunately, it will
> mean that we won't be able to order "any part in any color". However, I hope
> I am wrong :-) .
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that'll be true-- after all, one of the major costs in
manufacturing is the time it takes in changing from one mold to another,
when you could have been pumping out more parts. Also, I seem to recall that
if the color's being changed, they have to run the machine for a minute or
something to remove all of the old color and get the new color flowing.
(Someone once mentioned having a swirl of yellow in a red brick once, which
would seem to support that).
Also, as Suz mentioned, if the molds for a part no longer exist, they can't
very well make the part. So we probably can't go ordering pitchforks, old
style technic connectors (w/ teeth), classic space helmets, etc. (Although I
wish we could!)
At a random guess, I'd say their part selection will change yearly, and
popular parts will remain orderable, with less popular parts being cycled
out, and also corresponding to their use in current sets. So maybe that
means that users of the product will need to change part libraries every
year... or that when you submit your design for ordering, you'll simply get
a list of unavailable parts that you used in your model that won't be
included in your shipment.
DaveE
|
|
| |
"Ben Roller" <broller@mail.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:G54KBx.8K4@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is • truly
> > > mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
> >
> > Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through • various
>
> Read down the left side of:
> http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
>
> It's just above Eric's arm. :)
I think people may be reading way too much into this. My guess is that
"build any three dimensional creation" is analagous to Mosaic's "turn any
picture into a model." This seems more geared toward Lego sculpting than
to creating absolutely any model with any elements. I just don't see this
at all meaning "any piece in any quantity." But then I could be wrong :)
-John Van
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
Rights? I don't disagree with your fundamental assertions here, Mark -- but
what exactly do you think happens when you post several detailed images of
your stuff to the internet? Sure, maybe some people write to you and want
either the original or a boxed with instructions copy -- but most of us look
the thing over for useful ideas -- or maybe even just knock it off outright!
This is what I never understood about the GOB thing, not at all...
Why would I pay someone a premium for what I can build on my own? In fact,
why do I want to build that which someone else has already built? I suppose
if one lacks one's own creativity, this may be the route to choose -- but
otherwise, I don't get it. And I actually think that everyone is creative to
some degree, it's just that some of us exercise those creative "muscles"
more so than do others.
I have said it before and I shall say it again (at least for myself) -- If I
can get the elements from TLC, I don't care if they ever design or a sell a
pre-packaged set again. When I thought that their agenda was preclusive of
selling me just the much prized elements -- let's say a pitchfork, for
example -- I wanted them to re-release older set designs that included these
elements. If this new plan of theirs includes such older elements -- then I
just don't care if they sell ANY sets at all. And I certainly don't care if
they sell these juniorized piles of junk they have been selling of late!
To be honest, I think they may be able to make more money this way -- often
I have looked at a set in a store aisle and just thought, "Gee, this is okay
and all -- but it just doesn't have enough of the elements I want." No sale
-- not at BOGO 50%, not at BOGO, not at any price! When TLC moves from a
position of not selling a thing at all, to one where they are at least
selling the elements someone actually wanted, I have to assume there is
money to be made.
When possession of some key element meant either the purchase of the whole
set or paying a huge price for the desired individual elements in a parts
sale or auction -- I bet many people (wisely) simply obstained from the
purchase of these elements. And I bet cost was a factor for more than a
few, and who can blame them? Heck, it's a factor for me and I am willing
and able to spend more than most (being single, childless, and living on the
cheap).
But anyway, back to the main point: I think it can be fairly asserted that
most of us want the elements directly from TLC so we can build and design
for ourselves -- isn't that the point of the parts buckets? I see an
interest in packaged sets going way down for most if not all adult buyers,
and maybe even some children. But the whole thing does raise an interesting
topic:
To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
elements of that same assemblage?
-- Richard (it's early and I'm rambling...)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
> software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
> selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
> needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
> user which can be reverse engineered.
There's a strong chance that a mutually beneficial relationship between L-CAD
developers and TLC may emerge. LEGO is keeping a very open mind about new
data formats. My sense is that they not only want to be able to import
LDraw .DAT files someday (either natively or via an external conversion
process) but that they also understand the benefits of open-architecture
file formats. I suspect what they are likely to do with their proprietary
modeling language is similar to what Adobe did with PostScript: publish
detailed syntactical and semantical specifications of the language while
retaining ownership of the language itself. Even though the format is still
proprietary, third-party tools thrive. Open-architecture text-based file
formats are beautiful flowers. Closed-architecture binary file formats are
poisonous weeds. I'm pretty sure LEGO understands this and won't risk a
mis-step.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> What you said, Baby!
>
> I wondered upon these issues almost immediately. Are they reinventing the
> wheel, or reusing the wheel that has already been made?
LEGO has their own software for drawing sets.
You can see the most recent use of it in the LEGO sculpture
"present/ornament" they're selling/building at LEGOLAND this Christmas.
I would suspect (but don't know) that if anyone wants compatability for
LDRAW, they'll have to create it themselves.
-Jon
|
|
| |
Speaking of lifting spirits, I'm right there with ya'! With the lack of new
trains and town sets for 2001, I was feeling a bit down. The revelation of
being able to build your own sets lifts TLC back upon the pedestal I placed
them on in the early '90s when they made the Metroliner, Nautica sets, etc.
Congratulations Todd and Suz. The AFOL "Revolution" against some of TLC's
policies is coming to a close, thanks to you and the many others who have
fought bravely and peacefully.
Dan
dandman1@concentric.net
In lugnet.lego.direct, Harvey Henkelman writes:
>
> Will this reverse the 'juniorization' trend in our Train sets? Only time
> shall tell. I was just about to post a message saying that TLC has truly
> given up on trains (my opinion). But when I came across this, it really
> lifted my spirits. Perhaps TLC has realized the true power of LUGNET after
> all and once again, I wish to thank LUGNET and it's creators for reawakening
> me from a 12-year slumber...-Harvey
|
|
| |
How about LEGO stickers? Will actual ones be available?
Dan
dandman1@concentric.net
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ben Rogers writes:
>
> This is excellent news!
>
> I can see an excellent possibility with the release of instructions on-line,
> perhaps there will be a 'Buy the parts for this set' button along with each
> set's instructions? i.e. they might essentially end up re-releasing old sets?
>
> It all depends on which bricks you will be able to buy, all types or just
> traditional ones? It would be great if LEGO could confirm the answer to this.
>
> Ben.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Rideout writes:
> Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
> following page:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
>
> a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
A BETAMAX format video of the vid clips?
eric
|
|
| |
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:qrdd7f5cwad.fsf@eos.uio.no...
> "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
>
> > Hmm. As I just finished posting, before readin this, :-) ...it
> > would be great if this software could import DAT files and convert
> > them itself to the new format. This would save a LOT of hassle
> > changing over the community's standard format if this software is
> > to replace LCAD.
>
> I wonder if I have missed something important. When I read the
> information in the press release that people can use a free modeling
> program to represent their model and then submit it to buy the parts
> needed, I thought this program would be useable only as a tool to
> indicate what parts would be needed. Your post appears to indicate
> that you think that this software may/will replace LDraw in all kinds
> of aspects. Is there any information present in the press release
> that indicates that TLC are providing the community with a new, free
> LEGO CAD system?
I don't believe you missed anything. That was an assumption on my part of how
much potential I believe this system to have. If indeed TLC comes out with a
better, more useful system than LCAD, people will switch to it, and gradually
LDraw, etc. will die out.
I don't know anything about their intentions with this software.
Perhaps you are right...this tool may be only useful for the feature of ordering
bricks and producing your 'set.'
It would be great if TLC, with their budget, were able to develop a full
replacement to the LCAD system - BECAUSE they have the potential to do it much
better than we do in our spare time, and have such allies as Autodesk, etc. I
hope that they don't design just a kiddie version, but one that's in-depth
enough for the most advanced LCAD user out here. Will it be worth it to them?
That's up to us to convince them of and for them to decide.
> Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
> software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
> selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
> needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
> user which can be reverse engineered.
We all have reason to be pessimistic, but recently I think we have more reason
to be optimistic :-) I want to see a top-notch CAD system for the AFOLs no
matter who makes it (well not Megabloks) - TLC or us.
> BTW, you consistently post articles with lines wrapped, especially
> quoted lines. Do you think you can increase the line length in your
> client to avoid this? Or perhaps you can refill the paragraphs before
> quoting them to avoid line wrapping? Just a thought.
I hope this fixed it. I don't know why I didn't take care of that sooner.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
No, probably a Betacam SP format video tape.
That's the most common (analog) professional video
format. It uses Betamax form-factor tapes but the
tape material, speed and format is completely different.
KL
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Rideout writes:
>
> > Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
> > following page:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
> >
> > a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
>
> A BETAMAX format video of the vid clips?
>
> eric
|
|
| |
Adrian Drake wrote:
>
> Let me be the first to say HOLY (expletive deleted for your protection)
> The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
Wait a minute! Nowhere does the press release state that
you will be able to buy any piece in any quantity.
It states "bricks." I think what they mean by this is the
current bulk brick offerings. Maybe slightly augmented.
Kevin Zwicker suggested maybe 1000 pieces. That even seems
high to me. Maybe if the 1000 number included color variations.
I am long-range optimistic, but I really doubt that you will
be able to recreate a classic set such as the Yellow Castle
or the Galaxy Explorer and have the pieces arrive at your
door by 2002.
/Eric McC/
|
|
| |
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:G55r47.8xK@lugnet.com...
> There's a strong chance that a mutually beneficial relationship between L-CAD
> developers and TLC may emerge. LEGO is keeping a very open mind about new
> data formats.
There is an incredible opportunity there, I've had many conversations with
people in the commuinty about what is there. I haven't heard from them about
anything of the sort, but I would love to.
> My sense is that they not only want to be able to import
> LDraw .DAT files someday (either natively or via an external conversion
> process) but that they also understand the benefits of open-architecture
> file formats. I suspect what they are likely to do with their proprietary
> modeling language is similar to what Adobe did with PostScript: publish
> detailed syntactical and semantical specifications of the language while
> retaining ownership of the language itself. Even though the format is still
> proprietary, third-party tools thrive.
Would this mean they keep control of the parts distribution? I think that this
would be an important factor to them on quality control.
> Open-architecture text-based file
> formats are beautiful flowers. Closed-architecture binary file formats are
> poisonous weeds. I'm pretty sure LEGO understands this and won't risk a
> mis-step.
I hope they won't.
I sent an email to Brad today asking about the CAD development and the LDraw DAT
format. I'm awaiting a reply and more news from him and possible connections to
the developers. I would like to get a CAD group together to discuss this with
them and maybe guide/aid in development from a community perspective.
This is all wonderful news! LEGO is going to be a totally different toy come a
few years, when the potential for people to make the creations of their dreams
is within reach. I'm one big :-) on the inside right now. :-)
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
"John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:G55qKL.6ou@lugnet.com...
> I think people may be reading way too much into this. My guess is that
> "build any three dimensional creation" is analagous to Mosaic's "turn any
> picture into a model." This seems more geared toward Lego sculpting than
> to creating absolutely any model with any elements. I just don't see this
> at all meaning "any piece in any quantity." But then I could be wrong :)
It probably won't mean *any* piece, but I can imagine that a good assortment of
the most desired pieces will be made available. It would be silly of them not
to do that, IMO, once they get their fulfillment centers' opersations capable of
doing this.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> No, probably a Betacam SP format video tape.
> That's the most common (analog) professional video
> format. It uses Betamax form-factor tapes but the
> tape material, speed and format is completely different.
Uh. I was mostly joking. I haven't seen a BETAMAX tape since.... well, since
the first place my family used to rent videos from, which was back in... crap.
I dunno. '85? '86?
I figured it was a marketing thing, though, since the main purpose of the site
is "press release", not "make our fans wet themselves".
eric
|
|
| |
I am curious as to how they plan to do this. Of course
it's already true to a large extent.
KL
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ben Roller writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Walsh writes:
> > How about the part where it states that all instructions to sets from 1955
> > onward will be available online?
> >
> > Second paragraph on this page: http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
>
> This makes me wonder about the future of set instruction scans on
> www.brickshelf.com. It seems like LEGO (if they do it right) is going to make
> those scans obsolete. I'd like to hear from Kevin on this issue.
>
> Ben Roller
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
> Wait a minute! Nowhere does the press release state that
> you will be able to buy any piece in any quantity.
>
> It states "bricks." I think what they mean by this is the
> current bulk brick offerings. Maybe slightly augmented.
> Kevin Zwicker suggested maybe 1000 pieces. That even seems
> high to me. Maybe if the 1000 number included color variations.
I would have to side with Eric on this one.
Although I've been drooling over the possibilities of true bulk ordering, my
suspicion is that the range of elements will be severly limited.
Look for example at http://www.lego.com/press/sculpture.asp which shows
models of the Statue of Liberty and the 20" maxifigure as well as the
statement "Buy any number of bricks you want at LEGO.com". I would suspect
that the initial pool of bulk elements will not differ much from those
offered in these models. In other words: rectangular bricks, plates, and a
small number of specialty elements.
Of course that doesn't preclude us from offering our suggestions...
Dream well,
Andreas Stabno
http://www.megsinet.net/~stabno/SimiLego.htm
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
Hooray!!!!
I'm not sure my comments won't fall into the 'me too' folder, but this means
a lot to me.
It appears that within the next couple of years, LEGO will cater to the
needs of builders like me.
This means I can seriously imagine getting all the pieces I need for one of
my larger creations without gathering them from around the globe a few at a
time or trying to decide whether another structure has to come apart. Or
worse, having to use a chewed-on piece I got in that last thrift-shop bag
because it's the only one left.
This means that I won't have to buy 50 sets to get the 500 copies of that
needed element, along with all the other pieces I don't need.
Can you say "no more buckets"?
This means I can say that one of my creations "uses 14,251" pieces instead
of "somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000".
I'm hoping that the "free software" is open ended regards size of model. I
have one model I already know needs 50,000+ pieces, of which I am only
beginning to gather. It would be awsome to acquire the whole bundle at one time!
There are a lot of possibilities these announcements have opened up for us
all. I wish I had the time to speak to all of them.
But, I don't.
Wayne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> > losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
>
> Rights? I don't disagree with your fundamental assertions here, Mark -- but
> what exactly do you think happens when you post several detailed images of
> your stuff to the internet? Sure, maybe some people write to you and want
> either the original or a boxed with instructions copy -- but most of us look
> the thing over for useful ideas -- or maybe even just knock it off outright!
If you did this to one of my GoB sets, and I find out about it, I _will_ take
you to small claims court. _I_ own the design, period. If you come up with
something similar, fine. But, if you take from my design, and it is not enough
different to prove that you came up with a signifigant difference, I will use
the recorses that are available to me.
That's the way it is. Most of the people who have sets up for sale within the
GoB have fairly clearly differenciated areas. On my page, you will find (if
you dig enough) a lamppost, which is free. Why? Because I don't think I could
make money selling it. Therefore, I feel that it is good to let the community
use it for free. My hoppers, I think I can make money off, so I have the
rights to them. Those rights are available, for a price.
> This is what I never understood about the GOB thing, not at all...
>
> Why would I pay someone a premium for what I can build on my own? In fact,
> why do I want to build that which someone else has already built? I suppose
> if one lacks one's own creativity, this may be the route to choose -- but
> otherwise, I don't get it. And I actually think that everyone is creative to
> some degree, it's just that some of us exercise those creative "muscles"
> more so than do others.
Fine. I am not going to cry over you coming up with your own designs. I wish
you _the absolute best_ in designing for yourself. But, I am sure you have
taken some ideas from elsewhere, from Lego designs, from the web, from meeting
people and seeing what they have done...but, if you want what I have thought
up, you have to _pay_ for it in one way or another, at least if I feel
reasonable in charging for it.
> To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
> patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
> particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
> designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
> elements of that same assemblage?
At what point do the sounds from a musical instriment become the property of a
artist using the instrument, rather than the manufacturer? as soon as the
artist lays down the sounds :) Same rules here.
James Powell, Bricksmith
(Fletcher Jenning)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> > losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
>
>
> I have said it before and I shall say it again (at least for myself) -- If I
> can get the elements from TLC, I don't care if they ever design or a sell a
> pre-packaged set again. When I thought that their agenda was preclusive of
> selling me just the much prized elements -- let's say a pitchfork, for
> example -- I wanted them to re-release older set designs that included these
> elements. If this new plan of theirs includes such older elements -- then I
> just don't care if they sell ANY sets at all. And I certainly don't care if
> they sell these juniorized piles of junk they have been selling of late!
>
> To be honest, I think they may be able to make more money this way -- often
> I have looked at a set in a store aisle and just thought, "Gee, this is okay
> and all -- but it just doesn't have enough of the elements I want." No sale
> -- not at BOGO 50%, not at BOGO, not at any price! When TLC moves from a
> position of not selling a thing at all, to one where they are at least
> selling the elements someone actually wanted, I have to assume there is
> money to be made.
And that is one thing that I want make sure is happening. I want TLC to be
able to make money. If they aren't making money, it will mean that they
will go under, to be bought out by someone else. I think that as much as
TLC policies sometimes don't jive with what we want, there are a lot worse
corporate managements out there. Especially with direction things seem to
be going with Lego Direct. I'd hate to loose this.
> To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
> patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
> particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
> designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
> elements of that same assemblage?
I don't think that is an issue unless written into some type of end user
license agreement. And since they sell "building materials", I have a hard
time thinking they could make it stick in court even then.
Regards,
Steve Martin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> If you did this to one of my GoB sets, and I find out about it, I _will_ take
> you to small claims court.
Really. So if I look at the Guild of Bricksmith page, and copy one of your
designs, and place it in my living room, you're going to take me to court?
Good luck not getting laughed at by the judge. You do realise that you have to
prove some kind of damages to win an award, even in an American court in the
90's and 2000's, right? I mean, I know it doesn't seem that way lately, but it
is still true.
How exactly is this damaging you? What makes you think you have a right to an
award? Do you think that TLC would do the same thing if I built a copy of the
Yellow Castle out of other bricks? What if I built one of the new Life on Mars
mechs out of parts from one or more of the other Life on Mars sets and played
with that?
Do you think you're going to sue LEGO if someone uses this vaporware kit
designer to build something that resembles one of your models?
> On my page, you will find (if
> you dig enough) a lamppost, which is free. Why? Because I don't think I
> could
> make money selling it. Therefore, I feel that it is good to let the community
> use it for free.
How magnanimous of you. This member of the community thanks you from the
bottom of his heart.
> Fine. I am not going to cry over you coming up with your own designs. I wish
> you _the absolute best_ in designing for yourself. But, I am sure you have
> taken some ideas from elsewhere, from Lego designs, from the web, from meeting
> people and seeing what they have done...but, if you want what I have thought
> up, you have to _pay_ for it in one way or another, at least if I feel
> reasonable in charging for it.
That's absolutely ludicrous. I wish *you* the best of luck in getting people
to pay for your designs, but frankly, if you're going to post pictures of your
creations to the web, you can expect that people are going to look at them, and
if people are going to look at them, they're going to encorporate them into
their own experience, and if they do *that*, consciously or unconsciously at
some point in the future they are likely to do something that is inspired by
that. Are you really suggesting that you're going to get letigious over it?
Are you high?
This goes back to the same old debate sparked in the lugnet.build,mecha group
when someone threw a tantrum over people borrowing ideas from his design. If
you're going to share those pictures, you can expect people to learn from them
and even copy them. Most of us feel flattered when people do that.
FUT lugnet.general, because this no longer involves LEGO Direct, and I can't
think of anywhere else to put it.
eric
|
|
| |
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> writes:
> Open-architecture text-based file formats are beautiful flowers.
> Closed-architecture binary file formats are poisonous weeds. I'm
> pretty sure LEGO understands this and won't risk a mis-step.
I'm not too experienced with LEGO software, but I can't say I've had the
impression that LEGO lives by those rules so far. Ok, so my hands on
experience is limited to the Cybermaster unit, which needs specific
operating system¹ versions to function, and does not produce any
open-architecture text-based file formats.
But I can see that you are more experienced with LEGO software, so there
may be a reason to take a little more optimistic view on this.
Has there been any official acknowledgement of the existence of LDraw
from TLC? Like we have seen for LUGNET, Brickshelf, et al lately?
Fredrik
__
¹) I'm being kind here, calling it an "operating system".
|
|
| |
> From: "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com>
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> > losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
>
> Rights? I don't disagree with your fundamental assertions here, Mark -- but
> what exactly do you think happens when you post several detailed images of
> your stuff to the internet? Sure, maybe some people write to you and want
> either the original or a boxed with instructions copy -- but most of us look
> the thing over for useful ideas -- or maybe even just knock it off outright!
That is to be expected, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm
not offended by people copying my designs for their own private enjoyment.
Suppose LEGO claims rights to any sets you create using their service.
Suppose they go on to post your creation online where other people can buy a
set of it as well. Suppose LEGO doesn't reward you in any way for creating
that item... then they are making money from your cool design, and you get
nothin'. (I suppose LEGO could turn this around on me, since I made those
T-Shirts with the Classic Space astronaut, the difference being that I
didn't profit from the shirts.)
Now, these are all just suppositions, as I am merely having a discussion of
"what's gonna happen and how do I fit into this?" It's probably too early in
the game to have answers to these questions, but I'm asking them for the
sake of discussion.
>
> This is what I never understood about the GOB thing, not at all...
It's not hard to understand if you consider how lazy people are. I watched a
woman in the Wal Mart parking lot leave her shopping cart in a parking stall
that was approximately 15 feet from the cart return.
>
> Why would I pay someone a premium for what I can build on my own?
Maybe someone sees a GoB set that they really really like, but they don't
have the parts in their own collection to achieve the result they want?
> In fact, why do I want to build that which someone else has already built?
Maybe you don't. Some people just like building sets. That might be boring
to you and me, but it floats their boat, I guess.
> I suppose if one lacks one's own creativity, this may be the route to choose --
> but otherwise, I don't get it.
If someone can profit from doing something they love, then why not? You are
an accomplished enough builder that buying the product probably doesn't
appeal to you, but I can certainly understand the attraction of creating
something you like and then selling it.
> And I actually think that everyone is creative to
> some degree, it's just that some of us exercise those creative "muscles"
> more so than do others.
I think that is another point. I get several emails every week from people
wanting instructions to my larger creations, or even offers to buy some of
them. However, a reasonably-skilled AFOL with a decent collection will
probably be capable of replicating one of my creations themselves, just by
looking at the picture.
<snip>
> But anyway, back to the main point: I think it can be fairly asserted that
> most of us want the elements directly from TLC so we can build and design
> for ourselves -- isn't that the point of the parts buckets?
Sure, I can agree with that.
> I see an
> interest in packaged sets going way down for most if not all adult buyers,
> and maybe even some children. But the whole thing does raise an interesting
> topic:
>
> To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
> patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
> particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
> designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
> elements of that same assemblage?
That's a good question. My questions center around the rights to sell the
intellectual property present in the model itself. Model being greater than
the sum of its parts, so to speak.
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> Really. So if I look at the Guild of Bricksmith page, and copy one of your
> designs, and place it in my living room, you're going to take me to court?
> Good luck not getting laughed at by the judge. You do realise that you have
> to prove some kind of damages to win an award, even in an American court in
> the 90's and 2000's, right? I mean, I know it doesn't seem that way lately,
> but it is still true.
Simple. The instructions retail for $. Therefore, if you wish to make this
object, you have to pay me the $, or someone who has already paid me for it,
has to sell you there copy of the instructions.
The only reason why we have Brickshelf is because TLC is 'tolerant' of the
level of copying of sets that is possible. I mean, to come up with a Yellow
Castle, you basically need to have the set, right? Or just about any other set
that is on Brickshelf. I don't have that option, I don't make parts, therefore
I would be forced to defend my right to the IP ideas contained within the
photographs that you would be basing your construction on.
> How exactly is this damaging you? What makes you think you have a right to an
> award?
Simple. I designed it. Not you. I have a right to a fair payment for my
time, and you -do not- have the right to copy what I tell you you cannot.
(1)
> That's absolutely ludicrous. I wish *you* the best of luck in getting people
> to pay for your designs, but frankly, if you're going to post pictures of your
> creations to the web, you can expect that people are going to look at them, • and
> if people are going to look at them, they're going to encorporate them into
> their own experience, and if they do *that*, consciously or unconsciously at
> some point in the future they are likely to do something that is inspired by
> that. Are you really suggesting that you're going to get letigious over it?
I would if someone took the design on one of my sets, and decided to produce
copies of it, without my consent, and with evidence that they used my ideas. I
have to, it is what I am entitled to, the same as if I was a songwriter. They
are MY ideas, even if they are expressed with something other than what I came
up with (words, vice Lego bricks, but the analogy is the same)
> Are you high?
No. In my job, I am not allowed to consume illegal drugs, and I have not had a
drink of Alcohol since the weekend. :)
> This goes back to the same old debate sparked in the lugnet.build,mecha group
> when someone threw a tantrum over people borrowing ideas from his design. If
> you're going to share those pictures, you can expect people to learn from them
> and even copy them. Most of us feel flattered when people do that.
Feel free to learn from them, but if I find you _copying_ them, I will do what
I can to protect my rights. I'm not averse to someone nicking ideas, I do it,
and I expect that people have done so with my stuff. But, if I find someone
making copies of (say my Tyne Dock hopper), I will react to it, up to the full
limit of my ability. Rest assured, I would consider court action against a
individual if I believed it to be the only remaining option. However, I would
hope it would not come to that. I hold the rights to my sets, which is fairly
plainly stated on the pages containing the design. If you wanted to use the
door idea on a hopper of your own, fine. If you want to use my airhose idea on
a model of your own, again fine. If you want to build a direct copy based on
what can be seen from the photos, that is NOT fine. That's where _I_ stand on
the issue.
James Powell, Bricksmith
(1) Copy, in the sense of physically duplicating without the right granted
under fair use or other sections of the copywrite act, as applicable to _MY_
residency (IE-Canada)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
>
> > If you did this to one of my GoB sets, and I find out about it, I _will_ take
> > you to small claims court.
>
> Really. So if I look at the Guild of Bricksmith page, and copy one of your
> designs, and place it in my living room, you're going to take me to court?
> Good luck not getting laughed at by the judge. You do realise that you have to
> prove some kind of damages to win an award, even in an American court in the
> 90's and 2000's, right? I mean, I know it doesn't seem that way lately, but >it
> is still true.
I think what James is saying here is that if you copy his design outright
and sell it. THIS breaks copyright laws, and is comperable to selling
bootlegged CDs.
> How exactly is this damaging you? What makes you think you have a right to an
> award? Do you think that TLC would do the same thing if I built a copy of the
> Yellow Castle out of other bricks? What if I built one of the new Life on Mars
> mechs out of parts from one or more of the other Life on Mars sets and played
> with that?
You would be fine, again, using this for your own enjoyment, but not to
sell. I would bet my right arm that TLG would sue, in fact, they are suing
clonebrands in the China/Japan area for copying TLG trademarked items. It
seems that you were interperating James' stance all wrong.
> Do you think you're going to sue LEGO if someone uses this vaporware kit
> designer to build something that resembles one of your models?
>
> > On my page, you will find (if
> > you dig enough) a lamppost, which is free. Why? Because I don't think I
> > could
> > make money selling it. Therefore, I feel that it is good to let the community
> > use it for free.
>
> How magnanimous of you. This member of the community thanks you from the
> bottom of his heart.
>
> > Fine. I am not going to cry over you coming up with your own designs. I wish
> > you _the absolute best_ in designing for yourself. But, I am sure you have
> > taken some ideas from elsewhere, from Lego designs, from the web, from meeting
> > people and seeing what they have done...but, if you want what I have thought
> > up, you have to _pay_ for it in one way or another, at least if I feel
> > reasonable in charging for it.
>
> That's absolutely ludicrous. I wish *you* the best of luck in getting people
> to pay for your designs, but frankly, if you're going to post pictures of your
> creations to the web, you can expect that people are going to look at them,
And what you just said is totally ludicrous! The GOB have made mucho money
on their fine sets. Look on EBAY, over $200 for a beautiful street-car. Or
look at Blackened Brick Custom Sets, beautiful sets, SOLD OUT!!!
> and
> if people are going to look at them, they're going to encorporate them into
> their own experience, and if they do *that*, consciously or unconsciously at
> some point in the future they are likely to do something that is inspired by
> that. Are you really suggesting that you're going to get letigious over it?
Inspired is fine, but blatent copying FOR A PROFIT is wrong!
> Are you high?
>
> This goes back to the same old debate sparked in the lugnet.build,mecha group
> when someone threw a tantrum over people borrowing ideas from his design. If
> you're going to share those pictures, you can expect people to learn from them
> and even copy them. Most of us feel flattered when people do that.
>
> FUT lugnet.general, because this no longer involves LEGO Direct, and I can't
> think of anywhere else to put it.
>
> eric
I don't mean to seem defensive, I know this isn't my fight, but IMHO James
is in the right with his comments.
-John Rudy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
>
>
> I don't mean to seem defensive, I know this isn't my fight, but IMHO James
> is in the right with his comments.
Only if you include your modification about selling it.
BTW, where does the law stand if I buy a legitimate set of plans for a set.
I then put together 10 copies of the set out of loose bricks I own and sell
them. I'm I in the wrong? Is this similar to blue prints for homes?
Steve Martin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> I think what James is saying here is that if you copy his design outright
> and sell it. THIS breaks copyright laws, and is comperable to selling
> bootlegged CDs.
If that were what he was saying, I wouldn't care- in fact, I would agree with
him.
But it's not, and his response to me bears that out.
> > That's absolutely ludicrous. I wish *you* the best of luck in getting people
> > to pay for your designs, but frankly, if you're going to post pictures of
> > your
> > creations to the web, you can expect that people are going to look at them,
> And what you just said is totally ludicrous! The GOB have made mucho money
> on their fine sets. Look on EBAY, over $200 for a beautiful street-car. Or
> look at Blackened Brick Custom Sets, beautiful sets, SOLD OUT!!!
That's great for them. I really don't have a problem with these guys selling
the sets, especially because they often have hard-to-find parts in them, or
what have you. If Person A sells Person B something, that's fine, I don't
care.
If Person C sells something to Person B, and a large part of that is the fact
that it's based around a design that Person A came up with, I have a problem
with it regardless of whether or not Person A was trying to make a profit on
it.
But if I sit down to build something in my living room, Persons A-C can go #$@!
themselves. None of them get a say in what I build, or how I came upon the
idea of building it.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> I think what James is saying here is that if you copy his design outright
> and sell it. THIS breaks copyright laws, and is comperable to selling
> bootlegged CDs.
Umm.. no. James' position is more like the whole Napster/Music thing. Should
I be able to play an artist's music whenever I want without paying them for
it? Can I burn my own CD's of their music for my own personal use? Can I
sing their songs in the car? If I'm in a band, can I play their songs on
Open Mike Night? Can I turn around and sell my band's cover of their songs?
As far as I'm concerned, yeah, James has a point, but it'd be useless to him
and me for him to take me to court over something that trivial. There's
almost NO way of proving that I ripped off his idea, and how much it's been
modified from his design is another issue too. I can just modify the model
before the court date. Or I can just wreck the model and claim it never
existed. Also, I DIDN'T make a profit, therefore James' loss is minimal if
existant. If you can prove that I WOULD have bought the set from him if I
couldn't copy it, but COPIED it instead so I could save a few bucks, then
that's an example of damages on James' part. But again, VERY hard if not
impossible to prove, and again, small beans worth of damages, really. The
time spent in court simply wouldn't be worth it, unless he thought that by
doing it he could set an example that he'd think that other people would
follow, which I doubt, unless he gets me sent to prison or something.
Anyway, James runs the risk of being copied. If you make your items
publically available, you take that risk. Doesn't matter if you're a
songwriter, artist, moviemaker, poet, whatever. And to expect people to
always pay you for your designs is rather presumptious and very naive.
Were I James, I'd say that I'd be mad if someone made the designs publically
available (I.E. giving away instructions for free). But really if someone
wants to copy him, I'd say fine. My services (in his place) are to offer a
pre-made product to save someone the work and effort of copying it
themselves. That's where I'd consider my profit. Not in the designs. Anyway,
that's my take. (Bear in mind that's Lego-specific too)
.02,
DaveE
|
|
| |
> Only if you include your modification about selling it.
>
> BTW, where does the law stand if I buy a legitimate set of plans for a set.
> I then put together 10 copies of the set out of loose bricks I own and sell
> them. I'm I in the wrong? Is this similar to blue prints for homes?
>
> Steve Martin
The same as doing it with software. You own the rights (in my case) to make
unlimited copies for personal use. You can sell the instructions (with or
without the bricks) but if you do so, you must destroy all copies in your
possession or transfer them to the new owner(singular, not multiple). I don't
_think_ other people would buy multi copies of a set that I design, unless I
can beat the Lego price point. In the case of my smaller train sets, as it now
stands, I _do_ beat the lego price point for the pieces contained in the sets.
(it is 14.99 USD for the replacement for the coupler/wheels packs...and there
is more than $5 worth of other parts in either of my small kits)
James Powell, Bricksmith
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=JamesP
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> Hooray!
>
> Hmmm, LEGO is using Quicktime for their video.
>
> Hopefully they aren't going to leave us Mac users out in the cold when the
> Design-your-own software comes out.
>
> Still, I stand and applaud their support of... US!
And another word I hope they'll not overlook - Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux!!
Regards,
ROSCO
|
|
| |
> But if I sit down to build something in my living room, Persons A-C can go
> #$@! themselves. None of them get a say in what I build, or how I came upon
> the idea of building it.
>
> eric
As long as you are not looking at a photo of my (for sale) work when you sit
down to build it, I don't care. Go ahead and copy the ideas from my
skyscraper, or my (very old) sketches of the RPO (you'd have to _dig_ to find a
copy, but it is released). I _don't care_ if you copy them. Copy _ideas_ from
my 'sets', if you want to. If you think my door arangement is neat, fine, copy
it. But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
_entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
If you think I don't _know_ that my work owes bits to others, then fine...I
know that there are other trainheads who I have pinched ideas from. However,
in the same vein, I know others have pinched ideas from me, and I am _not_
worried about someone taking ideas from my models. I just want my IP to be
respected _with regards to something I sell_. Is there something wrong with
wanting the letter of the law to be obeyed?
James Powell, Bricksmith
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=JamesP
|
|
| |
I buy lego sets for the designs, and for the experience of
building someone else's design. I really feel that building
a set is a form of performance art, and the lego instruction
developers are true artists, and it is fun to see things come
together.
I've done a lot of my own creative stuff, and I appreciate
the GoB members and all the people who post to brickshelf and
lugnet.cad.dat who share their "art". Like most art, I believe
some is worth more than others, and worth paying for. I've met few
artists who do not enjoy the chance to view (sometimes critique)
others works. IMO, it would be a rather UNcreative person who
did not appreciate other's designs.
-gyug
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Why would I pay someone a premium for what I can build on my own? In fact,
> why do I want to build that which someone else has already built? I suppose
> if one lacks one's own creativity, this may be the route to choose -- but
> otherwise, I don't get it. And I actually think that everyone is creative to
> some degree, it's just that some of us exercise those creative "muscles"
> more so than do others.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> > > losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
> >
> > Rights? I don't disagree with your fundamental assertions here, Mark -- but
> > what exactly do you think happens when you post several detailed images of
> > your stuff to the internet? Sure, maybe some people write to you and want
> > either the original or a boxed with instructions copy -- but most of us look
> > the thing over for useful ideas -- or maybe even just knock it off outright!
>
>
> If you did this to one of my GoB sets, and I find out about it, I _will_ take
> you to small claims court. _I_ own the design, period. If you come up with
> something similar, fine. But, if you take from my design, and it is not
> enough different to prove that you came up with a signifigant difference, I
> will use the recorses that are available to me.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you've got much of an argument here.
As long as I credit the creator, and am not republishing or selling their
work, then you're out of luck trying to sue me. If I build a model based on
pictures of your model (which, unless I buy the instructions, or otherwise
obtain them, is all I have to go on), then that is a derivative work, by
definition. So long as a credit my inspirition, well, tough noogies,
there's not much you can do about it.
If I see a painting in a gallery, take a picture of it, and paint my own at
home, that doesn't violate copyright.
If I see a (model on the internet), (download) a picture of it, and make my
own at home, that doesn't violate copyright.
you display something in public, you take that risk.
> Fine. I am not going to cry over you coming up with your own designs. I wish
> you _the absolute best_ in designing for yourself. But, I am sure you have
> taken some ideas from elsewhere, from Lego designs, from the web, from meeting
> people and seeing what they have done...but, if you want what I have thought
> up, you have to _pay_ for it in one way or another, at least if I feel
> reasonable in charging for it.
This argument holds water, right up until you display something publicly.
As soon as you display a picture, gratis and free of obligation, then (IIRC)
under copyright law, I can create as many derivative works as I like, so
long as I credit my inspiration. I can say "This is a copy I made of a
Fletcher Jennings model I saw" 'till the cows come home, and you can't do
anything about it. You can legitimately complain, and sue my pants off, the
instant I claim it *is* a Fletcher Jennings model, though.
James
|
|
| |
> How about the part where it states that all instructions to sets from 1955
> onward will be available online?
>
> Second paragraph on this page: http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
Read it again very carefully:
"Within a year building instructions for LEGO sets developed since 1955 will
be accessible online."
It does obviously NOT say the following:
---Within a year building instructions for *all* LEGO sets...
I rather read it this way:
---Within a year building instructions for *some* LEGO sets ...
It clearly doesn't say 'all' of them, let's hope that at least all the good
ones will be among and that we will not have to pay anything for viewing
these files.
Bye, Christian --- xTI@N.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lugnet #479 - The World is full of AFOLs - e-mail: gech1@t-online.de
my website: members.tripod.de/crazymaniac/my_own_news.html
|
|
| |
> As long as I credit the creator, and am not republishing or selling their
> work, then you're out of luck trying to sue me. If I build a model based on
> pictures of your model (which, unless I buy the instructions, or otherwise
> obtain them, is all I have to go on), then that is a derivative work, by
> definition. So long as a credit my inspirition, well, tough noogies,
> there's not much you can do about it.
That's like saying, as long as I credit the band who wrote the song, and don't
sell the CD, I am not breaking copywrite when I copy a CD.
It ain't so, and I think it is fairly plain to see that that is not so.
As for the comment above, perhaps I should have said, as I did in a later post,
that after all other recourses have been used, I would consider further
action... (that is probably a better wording...)
James Powell, Bricksmith
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > As long as I credit the creator, and am not republishing or selling their
> > work, then you're out of luck trying to sue me. If I build a model based on
> > pictures of your model (which, unless I buy the instructions, or otherwise
> > obtain them, is all I have to go on), then that is a derivative work, by
> > definition. So long as a credit my inspirition, well, tough noogies,
> > there's not much you can do about it.
>
> That's like saying, as long as I credit the band who wrote the song, and don't
> sell the CD, I am not breaking copywrite when I copy a CD.
(oops, missed a bit here, someone _else's_ CD that you are copying, not your
own copy...here, at least, it is perfectly legal to make multi copies of a CD
you own, but not any copies of one a friend of yours owns...)
James Powell
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > As long as I credit the creator, and am not republishing or selling their
> > work, then you're out of luck trying to sue me. If I build a model based on
> > pictures of your model (which, unless I buy the instructions, or otherwise
> > obtain them, is all I have to go on), then that is a derivative work, by
> > definition. So long as a credit my inspirition, well, tough noogies,
> > there's not much you can do about it.
>
> That's like saying, as long as I credit the band who wrote the song, and don't
> sell the CD, I am not breaking copywrite when I copy a CD.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm probably not being clear
enough. To mirror your analogy, I'm saying that as long as I credit the
band who wrote the song, and don't try to sell or republish the song, I can
sing the song myself, as much as I want.
A distinct difference.
> It ain't so, and I think it is fairly plain to see that that is not so.
I agree that what you're talking about ain't so. But I strongly think
you're mis-interpreting your grounds.
If I see a jacket in a store window, go home and make a jacket just like it,
how have I violated copyright?
If I see a garden from the street, go home and grow a garden just like it,
how have I violated copyright?
If I see a toy on the internet, go home and build a toy just like it, how
have I violated copyright?
Do you see what I am driving at here? Your design is yours, I'll not
contest that, and if you tell me I can't build one unless I buy the
instructions, that's your call.
But as soon as you put any aspect(s) of your design on public display, I can
do my best to duplicate it, and you have no recourse.
> As for the comment above, perhaps I should have said, as I did in a later
> post, that after all other recourses have been used, I would consider further
> action... (that is probably a better wording...)
Understood. You don't strike me as a sue-happy kind of guy. :)
James
(thanks for the redirected newsgroup - I missed that the first time around)
|
|
| |
> It clearly doesn't say 'all' of them, let's hope that at least all the good
> ones will be among and that we will not have to pay anything for viewing
> these files.
I would imagine that the folowing might cause problems:
1.licenced sets like SW (lucasfilm might not want the instructions to go
online)
2.promotional sets (like the shell gas station sets)
3.sets that they have lost the instructions for or whatever
But I imagine that most general release sets wouldnt cause a problem.
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote:
> If I see a jacket in a store window, go home and make a jacket just like it,
> how have I violated copyright?
>
> If I see a garden from the street, go home and grow a garden just like it,
> how have I violated copyright?
>
> If I see a toy on the internet, go home and build a toy just like it, how
> have I violated copyright?
>
> Do you see what I am driving at here? Your design is yours, I'll not
> contest that, and if you tell me I can't build one unless I buy the
> instructions, that's your call.
>
> But as soon as you put any aspect(s) of your design on public display, I can
> do my best to duplicate it, and you have no recourse.
At some level, you are correct, but there are definitely areas where you
can run afoul of he law:
- patents. There isn't any "fair use" type of clause for them
- if you take a picture of your copy of someone else's MOC, and publish
it, you may be violating copyright even though you don't charge folks to
see your web site (copyright violation doesn't require the violator to
be making money).
- reverse engineering a set of instructions and then publishing those
instructions may be a violation
- looking at someone elses instructions and then creating your own is
definitely a copyright violation
Now one thing which might be debated is whether the expression of an
idea in the form of an arrangement of building bricks is a protectable
expression. If it is not, then copyright law doesn't apply. Trademark or
patent law could apply. Also, I'm not sure how design patents work but
they might apply.
TLC gives a great deal of freedom of license. They have effectively
granted Brickshelf license to publish instructions and catalogs. Thay
have effectively given Lugnet license to publish a catalog of box
covers/instruction covers/catalog pictures to produce a database of
sets. I'm not sure if anywhere they give explicit license for fans to
publish photos which include TLC sets, but most pictures of peoples
models, play rooms, displays, etc. probably actually fall under the fair
use clause (you are using a limited extract). Of course what is
interesting is that you should be required to recognize Shell's
trademark if you publish a picture prominently showing a model which has
Shell logos on it (I think that trademark law does recognize that
incidental exposure of a trademark in the background of a picture for
example, can not in any way be construed as misuse of trademark, but
IANAL, I'd love to see some actual cites on this).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
their business, namely, AFOLs.
Build On!
John Matthews
Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:G55toz.HDo@lugnet.com...
> "John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:G55qKL.6ou@lugnet.com...
>
> > I think people may be reading way too much into this. My guess is that
> > "build any three dimensional creation" is analagous to Mosaic's "turn • any
> > picture into a model." This seems more geared toward Lego sculpting • than
> > to creating absolutely any model with any elements. I just don't see • this
> > at all meaning "any piece in any quantity." But then I could be wrong • :)
>
> It probably won't mean *any* piece, but I can imagine that a good • assortment of
> the most desired pieces will be made available. It would be silly of them • not
> to do that, IMO, once they get their fulfillment centers' opersations • capable of
> doing this.
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Daniel W. Gregg writes:
> How about LEGO stickers? Will actual ones be available?
>
> Dan
> dandman1@concentric.net
> I can see an excellent possibility with the release of instructions on-line,
> perhaps there will be a 'Buy the parts for this set' button along with each
> set's instructions? i.e. they might essentially end up re-releasing old sets?
>
> It all depends on which bricks you will be able to buy, all types or just
> traditional ones? It would be great if LEGO could confirm the answer to this.
>
> Ben.
If they would even issue PDFs of the stickers so that they were scaled
properly, that would be awesome. I'd print them out myself on the color printer
and use them. The custom generator for the Silver Champion stickers doesn't
work at all: they are not in proportion and the text engine does not work
correctly (text is flipped).
As for being able to buy all of the necessary parts and instructions for
hard-to-find kits, I'm both happy and sad. I'm happy in that great kits like
the Airtech Claw Rig (8868) would be, in essence, available new again at a rate
MUCH less than the currently going price of US$300 on eBay. I'm sad, however
that this will hurt eBay Lego trading of older kits. Personally, I buy to
build, not to collect or for an investment, so I would just as soon buy a
custom kit from Lego S@H for an 8868 at around US$140 than I would buy it
original for US$300 on eBay.
Also, I fear this will actually continue the "juniorization" trend to the
extreme. I see custom pieces going by the wayside, so we might not see an 8880
be available in it's purest form because of the four custom suspension
"buckets" used in the 4WD component (and in no other kits from what I
remember). Lego will either have to pay their model makers to adapt the old
instructions to the currently available elements, or offer "upgrade kits" that
have the additional components necessary to complete an older kit.
- Sean
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > There's a new TLC press release at:
> >
> >
This is incredible. I have created a self-sustaining argument over Lego
rights. This is actually, in a strange, twisted way, funny. I never
thought that debates like this would carry over into Lugnet. And never
intended to start a debate in the first place.
To add my 2 cents worth, I personally feel that it's OK to copy, in part
or whole, a set. HOWEVER! If that set is sold to people (public
distribution of someone elses model) it DOES become illegal, or at least
just-plain-wrong. I believe it is perfectly fine to display other people's
models on a site with your own (like the Blacktron Empire), AS LONG AS THE
ORIGINAL DESIGNER AND THE INSPIRATION FOR THE MODEL ARE LISTED ALSO. I
would be over-joyed if everyone started building my models on their own. I
would get mad if one of those people started turning a profit from it.
Please add your comments to the issue in one of the following replies I will
make as soon as I finish with this message. One reply will be for people
opposed to the free trade of designs, another for. It is just too confusing
to keep doing replies on replies, so please, ONLY respond to one of the two
replies to this message, and not to this itself. I look forward to hearing
the different sides of the issue.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> > In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > > There's a new TLC press release at:
> > >
> > >
> This is incredible.
> To add my 2 cents worth, I personally feel that it's OK to copy, in part
> or whole, a set. HOWEVER! If that set is sold to people (public
> distribution of someone elses model) it DOES become illegal, or at least
> just-plain-wrong. I believe it is perfectly fine to display other people's
> models on a site with your own (like the Blacktron Empire), AS LONG AS THE
> ORIGINAL DESIGNER AND THE INSPIRATION FOR THE MODEL ARE LISTED ALSO. I
> would be over-joyed if everyone started building my models on their own. I
> would get mad if one of those people started turning a profit from it.
> Please add your comments to the issue in one of the following replies. One reply will be for people
> opposed to the free trade of designs, another for. It is just too confusing
> to keep doing replies on replies, so please, ONLY respond to one of the two
> replies to this message, and not to this itself. I look forward to hearing
> the different sides of the issue.
This message is for any messages SUPPORTING Lego designs being traded
freely, without any costs. Reply with your arguments here.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> > In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > > There's a new TLC press release at:
> > >
> > >
> This is incredible.
> To add my 2 cents worth, I personally feel that it's OK to copy, in part
> or whole, a set. HOWEVER! If that set is sold to people (public
> distribution of someone elses model) it DOES become illegal, or at least
> just-plain-wrong. I believe it is perfectly fine to display other people's
> models on a site with your own (like the Blacktron Empire), AS LONG AS THE
> ORIGINAL DESIGNER AND THE INSPIRATION FOR THE MODEL ARE LISTED ALSO. I
> would be over-joyed if everyone started building my models on their own. I
> would get mad if one of those people started turning a profit from it.
> Please add your comments to the issue in one of the following replies. One reply will be for people
> opposed to the free trade of designs, another for. It is just too confusing
> to keep doing replies on replies, so please, ONLY respond to one of the two
> replies to this message, and not to this itself. I look forward to hearing
> the different sides of the issue.
This reply/thread is for the posting of messages from people who believe
that everyone's creations are theirs only, and must be paid for. Please
post your replies HERE.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> Please add your comments to the issue in one of the following replies I will
> make as soon as I finish with this message. One reply will be for people
> opposed to the free trade of designs, another for. It is just too confusing
> to keep doing replies on replies, so please, ONLY respond to one of the two
> replies to this message, and not to this itself. I look forward to hearing
> the different sides of the issue.
Why not take this over to .debate??
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> Why not take this over to ".debate"?
What he said. :-/
Thanks,
Franklin
|
|
| |
David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> > I think what James is saying here is that if you copy his design outright
> > and sell it. THIS breaks copyright laws, and is comperable to selling
> > bootlegged CDs.
>
> Umm.. no. James' position is more like the whole Napster/Music thing. Should
> I be able to play an artist's music whenever I want without paying them for
> it? Can I burn my own CD's of their music for my own personal use? Can I
> sing their songs in the car?
This last one seems to me to be the most relevant in this case. If I sit down
with
my guitar and pluck out the beginning of "Enter Sandman", it would be
completely
ludicrous for Metallica to sue me for it - and if the law believes it is
possible, then
to quote Mr. Clemens, "the Law is an Ass."
J
|
|
| |
Does this mean I should stop looking for those $500 Lego 7750 trains on
eBay, where all I really want are the big red train wheels?
You know, if it sounds too good to be true...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> But what about the BAD effects? I hate to
> say this, but do you know how many people are going to be selling cheap
> copies of any old set without a specialty printed part? MILLIONS!
Ok, I'm not sure how it's bad yet...
> I was
> about to buy a $20 Solar Power Transporter on eBay, but now that I read the
> press release, I might not.
That's because you might be able to get one cheaper, I assume? Is that bad?
I'd call it good...
> All of a sudden the distinguishing factor in a
> Lego auction is the instructions, which can be ordered from Lego at $2 each
> (in color for recent ones).
That's actually pretty good, too, since now I can buy the instructions (or
get 'em off brickshelf) pretty cheaply and get the sets I might want.
> So much for Lego eBay. And there goes
> Sanburnsystems, and Brickbay, and any other loose part selling site.
Um... that's bad? Sure, maybe it's bad for them, but really, I tend to think
of those businesses starting up for lack of Lego's response to the demand.
And if Lego would theoretically be soaking up the profit that those groups
were making, isn't that good too, since we all want Lego to do well?
Personally, if Lego offers me something more reliable with more availability
(that's quantity mainly) and at cheaper prices (with easier payment methods
often), I think that's a good thing all around...
> Also, what will happen to LUGNET?
I didn't get the jist at all from that message that LUGNET would be under
any obligation to change itself, or that LUGNET's groups should be moved to
something official... Did I miss something?
> I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
> Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
> worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
> don't understand. Lugnet is a (relatively) small community. How will it be
> affected by being exposed to the rest of the Internet?
Well, that's hard to avoid. But really, if someone's going to get offended
at something some particular person says or does on LUGNET, holds LUGNET
responsible, and then in turn holds TLC responsible, chances are that
person's gonna get offended by something TLC's gonna do ANYWAY. Most people
would probably think "gosh, what a jerk/wierdo" and leave it at that. Some
might never look at LUGNET again. And far fewer will actually go to Lego and
raise a stink. And even if they do, TLC can just tell them that LUGNET is a
seperate entity. And if they still press the issue, perhaps TLC might not
link to LUGNET any more. But hey, that's a small loss for us comparitively.
Anyway, I don't think it's much of a concern. (But I do agree that this is
something that's potentially bad)
> I wish Henry or Todd
> would have told everyone about this sooner.
Nah. Just look at what happened with Bulk Ordering. Brad announced it, and
for months people were whining and complaining that it wasn't here yet, etc,
and building up their hopes, only to be let down (many of them). Should they
have even told us? I dunno. Certainly I admit I DO like KNOWING, but there's
a fine line to walk between causing commotion and building something with
the help of input, etc. And besides, if Lego wanted them to wait, or they
wanted to wait themselves, that's fine. I don't blame them for that choice.
> And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
> development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part availability
> service becomes available?
Uh, don't think so. Personally, I think that'd be rather risky and
potentially very dumb. I think that it's just kind of the next test phase
beyond bulk ordering, which has (I'd guess by what's going on) been a hit. I
mean, to date, the retail business has been their primary source of income.
I doubt they'll give that up in the hopes that suddenly their web system
will suddenly account for what they'd be loosing in the retail market.
> Will a few dozen theme designers be out of a
> job? I have had high hopes for quite a while about working for Lego
> designing new sets. Now it seems I need to look for different career
> posibilities.
Set designers? Nah, they'll still be around, see above. Model layout and
promotional designers, etc? Yeah. But that's got little to do with this
change. I'd say they're more due to be lost thanks to the losses being made
in 1998 and 2000. If anything, if the company's doing well in 2002, maybe
you'll have a better shot at being hired :) (yet another reason we want Lego
to get as much profit as possible)
> Overall Lego will be making millions, because now I can
> custom build anything I want, for a nice fee of course. Anyways, what will
> happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
> little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
> suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine.
Well, that's provided that Mark gives you the instructions to the
Spiffcraft, in which case, it could be yours anyway. Now you just have
another place to get it. Doesn't seem to make any difference as far as I can
tell, except that it's just easier for you to get what you want, with the
profit going to Lego. And isn't that good?
> Will anything ever be the same? All
> of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
> shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
>
> P.S. Does this mean all of these Lego sites will be able to remove those
> "not affiliated with the Lego Group" signs?
I'd doubt it. Actually, I'd expect the reverse; that they'd become stricter.
After all, if they're acknowledging other fan-related stuff, they'll want
even more for people to realize that it's not a Lego-endorsed product/site.
Anyway, maybe that was just a knee-jerk reaction from you... really, I only
see two possible bad outcomes from this movement:
1. the plan may fail. Maybe there just aren't enough AFOLs and original Lego
hobbyists to support the costs of providing custom models online. Might
happen. And that's really potentially major. If Lego prepares itself, it'll
be OK, and we'll just be back to where we are now (no loss), but perhaps
there'll be a lot of money lost, in which case, with the major losses in
2000 and 1998, maybe it'd be a big blow. Hopefully not. Certainly your above
concerns would point to the opposite though. And personally, I'd agree. I
think it'll only help them. I hope that like bulk ordering, it'll be a
collosal hit and they'll get backlogged from rampant orders, make tons of
money, and offer us MORE of what we really want.
2. some people may be offended at fan-related stuff now that Lego seems to
be endorsing it. And as far as I'm concerned, small beans. If we as a
community and Lego as a company try to make it clear to MOST people that the
two entities are not the same, there really shouldn't be that much loss as
far as I'm concerned.
DaveE
|
|
| |
I've been reading this thread with interest.
The PC industry was created when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS chip on
the IBM PC back in the early 80's. All other components of the computer
were bought from other sources. The only chip IBM created was the BIOS
chip. Compaq couldn't buy this from IBM, so they went about figuring out
how that chip worked and made their own version that performed the exact
same function.
If I can reverse engineer someone else's creation for my own enjoyment, I
have every right to. There is no damage to anyone.
Now if I sell that design, that's a different story...
|
|
| |
John Matthews wrote:
> If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> their business, namely, AFOLs.
You're joking, right?
Garage doors are desirable (highly). If they start selling them Bulk, they're
STILL desirable. To BUILD with.
I don't amass certain parts because they are desirable (that would be silly, as
it would cost me way too much money), I amass them because I want to build with
them.
I now have about 120-150 complete garage doors (I'd have to inventory to know
the exact #, but I have verified 120). If they offered them in Bulk tomorrow,
I'd order 50-200 more right away, depending on price and color selections.
Just ask others about pitchforks - most people that want them want dozens for
layouts.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lars Brandt writes:
> I've been reading this thread with interest.
>
> The PC industry was created when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS chip on
> the IBM PC back in the early 80's. All other components of the computer
> were bought from other sources. The only chip IBM created was the BIOS
> chip. Compaq couldn't buy this from IBM, so they went about figuring out
> how that chip worked and made their own version that performed the exact
> same function.
>
> If I can reverse engineer someone else's creation for my own enjoyment, I
> have every right to. There is no damage to anyone.
>
> Now if I sell that design, that's a different story...
Well said, Lars!
That's it exactly! I think this is the stance most in the GoB take. If
you'll recall, there have been people in the past who copied my first
publicly sold model. That's fine by me, and I said so at the time, as they
were doing it for their own use.
But if someone copys one of my models exactly, and sets up in competition
with me, I won't be very happy and while I think talk of lawsuits is a bit
extreme, I do think I'd try to marshall public opinion against them.
Some people find it fun to have models that they themselves don't want to
develop, or are not capable of independently developing, and we try to
enhance the experience for them by producing the absolute best quality
instructions we can, working on neat presentation, including a certificate, etc.
Even if one COULD do something as good... that's not an argument that one
should... I bought Dan's pirate tavern because he's spent a lot of time on
its design, and designed a better tavern than I am interested in spending
the time to do myself. Dan's buying my doodlebug for the same reasons. Plus,
they're a bit collectable, we think.
Hopefully that will help tamp down this issue for folks. It's a big tent and
there is nothing wrong with either wanting to buy GoB work or not wanting
to. To each his own.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Matthews writes:
> If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> their business, namely, AFOLs.
I'm not sure this is completely true, inasmuch as the desirable parts have
intrinsic value (contrast with highly desirable collectible stamps). I for
one will always value train windows at a non zero amount, because I actually
use them in designs.
Further, I don't think TLC is making a great deal off the market in used
pitchforks, for example, so making pitchforks available as an element isn't
going to cost TLC any lost set sales.
There's SOME truth to your assertion, John, I bought 5542s because of
certain parts they have, not because of their value as models qua models.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
<snip>
Hopefully this will blow over as I think we're mostly all saying about the
same thing now. I missed the call to move to .debate just now but here is a
response I put in to Lars Brandt (whose Compaq IBM analogy was well spoken I
think)
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1371
which says the same thing you, and James P (and everyone else?), are saying,
essentially.
++Lar
|
|
| |
Claus Thiim wrote:
> Indeed... I don't know if I'm alone here, but the zip files are
> corrupted and won't decompress fully. I'm using a Mac, and LEGO hasn't
> been very friendly to Mac-users in the past, so maybe everything's just
> normal... <shrugs...>
Mark Sandlin wrote:
> Well, they appear on the desktop as a Simpletext document, but if you drag
> the doc on top of your Quicktime Player icon, it will open and you can watch
> the movie.
Stuffit is the culprit... it's claiming the ZIP files are corrupted...
Oh well... If LEGO wants me to watch their little movies, then they can
post them online like everyone else does...
The days of downloading a movie to your drive to watch it
*are*over*!!!...
C.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, John Matthews writes:
> > If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> > desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> > their business, namely, AFOLs.
>
> I'm not sure this is completely true, inasmuch as the desirable parts have
> intrinsic value (contrast with highly desirable collectible stamps). I for
> one will always value train windows at a non zero amount, because I actually
> use them in designs.
>
> Further, I don't think TLC is making a great deal off the market in used
> pitchforks, for example, so making pitchforks available as an element isn't
> going to cost TLC any lost set sales.
>
> There's SOME truth to your assertion, John, I bought 5542s because of
> certain parts they have, not because of their value as models qua models.
>
> ++Lar
Very true.
How many people would buy a metroliner or a black seas baracuda or any
other so called "rare" set just because its "rare" and/or valuable?
I certainly woudnt.
There are only 2 reasons I buy lego:
Because I like the design of the set and
Because I want 1 or more parts from that set for my own models. (like
the 6018 I just bought...)
The only thing that determins the value of a given set or part is the
rarity.
If lego re-released, say, the USS constellation would people still pay
the high price for it? I think not.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Matthews writes:
> If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> their business, namely, AFOLs.
Actually, I think LEGO would benefit greatly (as in, money in their pockets)
if they offered the desireable parts because they are simply desireable!
However, I'd have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it's great that
I can get huge amounts of pitchforks (for example), but then the one
pitchfork that I currently own wouldn't be special (to me) anymore.
Taken a step further, sets that are "no longer available" will once again be
available, somehow or another! (My "prized" Black Seas Barracuda wouldn't
be "prized" anymore!)
So secretly, I hope for the middle ground: LEGO should make MOST (but not
all) pieces available for us to access.
Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lars Brandt writes:
> Does this mean I should stop looking for those $500 Lego 7750 trains on
> eBay, where all I really want are the big red train wheels?
>
> You know, if it sounds too good to be true...
I think you have a very valid point here! If we will be enabled to create
models using any part that has ever been created, it will mean the end of
those ridiculous prices you see on Ebay... However, I doubt that that will
be the case. I can't imagine that Lego will be able to put all the parts in
their catalogue... probably only a selection of bricks that is available in
current sets or parts that are in very high demand...
~Wessel
|
|
| |
Warning, uninformed speculation ahead. That annoys some people (and their
annoyance, in turn, bemuses others).
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
> So secretly, I hope for the middle ground: LEGO should make MOST (but not
> all) pieces available for us to access.
I think this is the very MOST that we can hope for and it is in fact a
stretch. Although no one can say for sure, the probability that the molds
for some parts (the conveyor chute part, for example) no longer exist is
very very high. That would make reintroducing them prohibitively expensive
My expectation is that we may get a larger selection of parts in bulk than
we currently have, and in fact I think many of us have posted what we think
good sets of parts are, and some of us have communicated that same
information to TLC using more 1 to 1 channels which we have higher
confidence in the message being received than this channel.
But to expect that every part used in the last five years, even, will be
available in every color used in the last 5 years? That's a bit of a
stretch. Even the most optimistic guesstimates of TLC logistics and delivery
capability make it seem unlikely. If it comes to pass I'll be ordering a
copy of the parts to make my MTW-1001 custom hopper in Maersk light blue.
Wouldn't THAT be a sight to see?
But I don't see it happening.
However, give me the RIGHT 200-300 different parts in 10 colors and I'll
venture that you'll be amazed at the designs that can be produced. The
MTW-3002-bu Doodlebug, for example, uses about 150 different color/part
combinations (~100 different parts, some in more than one color).
Finally, I have to ask, though. Why wish for parts not to be available,
Bryan? I can happily wish for all of them to be available, while
acknowledging that it's not likely and that a prioritization of which ones
we'd like to see is a useful thing to communicate to TLC.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In additon to your comments the page syas something about Issue #1. Perhaps
Lego took up the idea a fan- web zine? (after all the non-action when I
tired to get an independent one started :-) !!)
In regard to 3D Moddeler software, Why do we need yet another one?
L-Draw/MLCAD works fine for me.
Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part authours in
getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even suppourting
the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
perhpas a new modeller is needed to ensure that designs aren't ripped or
passed off?
In which case an extension to the L-Draw synatx to allow an Encrytpted
copyright Key to be included within (or with a .DAT ) file might be an
extremly good idea for a V2.XX MLCAD relase. (The intention being to prevent
unfair usage rather than sharing of good ideas :-) )
Comments welcomed.
Alex
Comments?
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Rideout writes:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> >
> > here's the good stuff:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/
>
>
> Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
> following page:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
>
> a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
>
> -mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lars Brandt writes:
> I've been reading this thread with interest.
>
> The PC industry was created when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS chip on
> the IBM PC back in the early 80's. All other components of the computer
> were bought from other sources. The only chip IBM created was the BIOS
> chip. Compaq couldn't buy this from IBM, so they went about figuring out
> how that chip worked and made their own version that performed the exact
> same function.
>
> If I can reverse engineer someone else's creation for my own enjoyment, I
> have every right to. There is no damage to anyone.
>
> Now if I sell that design, that's a different story...
Intresting comments.
I heard rumours that one clones manafacturers 'reverse enginered' a brick by
scanning into a computer with a laser type scanner. Of course TLG/TLC got em
fair and square in the courts..
Perhaps TLC/TLG might want to have some say in how you distribute sets you
create if your 'producing' commerically?
IANAL but Something along the lines of a disclaimer such as '
This set/kit uses Lego(R) elements.
Some or all of the elements supplied may be registered designs of The Lego
Group which does not suppourt or endorse this unoffical set/kit in any way.
You should contact the sets designer for information regarding suppourt and
other issues.
The Sets Designer is <Name> who may be reached at <name@hostname> '
might be a Very GOOD Idea.
And of course in regards to instruction production, they can't look too like
TLC/TLG's offical ones. ISTR a packge called Bricad being supressed for
that reason?..
That said however I would love to see fan-designed sets in the range on
offer from TLG/TLC... Perhaps this is something LSAH could look into? After
all they have the resources of a large organizartion (hence lower prices)
that small individual AFOLS simply do not have access to.
My thoughts were that the majority of AFOLS shop online(?) and that selling
the 'fan-created' sets via the web might be the best idea. Additonaly a
pre-ordering system could be used so that TLG/TLC would know how many bricks
to mould or instruction booklets to print!!. Thankfully Lego instruction
boooklets are language free(!) and so do not need specific international
versions(?)
Comments welcomed.
Alex
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
> Taken a step further, sets that are "no longer available" will once again be
> available, somehow or another! (My "prized" Black Seas Barracuda wouldn't
> be "prized" anymore!)
You "prize" the wrong thing, in my view. You prize the collectability of
the thing, or the elitism of owning the thing, and not the thing itself.
That seems pretty whacky to me, considering we are talking about plastic toys!
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Paul Gyugyi writes:
> I've met few artists who do not enjoy the chance to view (sometimes critique)
> others works. IMO, it would be a rather UNcreative person who
> did not appreciate other's designs.
You mistake the idea of appreciation with patronage -- and those are NOT the
same thing at all. Did Michaelangelo serve as patron to Leonardo?
An overblown example, but you get the point...
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Actually, TLC should state right up front an established amount of money for
> the designers of sets that could be broken down by the numbers of elements
> in the design. There is an obvious savings for them if they are able to
> reduce the number of set designers they staff in-house. This savings should
> equate to some kind of kick-back to the person's submitting designs.
This amount is likely to be quite miniscule. Something on the order of less
than $1 per copy of the set. (In the recording industry, artists usually
get a dollar or two per album sold. And that is with the amount being
written in a contract.)
If you sell a design on the order of say one of the more popular Star Wars
sets, you could be talking about some real money, but I don't find that very
likely. It would be very cool if someone did - especially if the set was
very non-juniorized, but oriented at younger kids. Maybe the TLC
designers/managment would take notice. In a lot of ways, TLC and the Lego
community could really benefit from this. It would give TLC access to data
on what types of designs sell before ramping up their own mass
production/marketing/etc. We would get a place to get more designs.
Also, TLC could take advantage of it to test prototype designs. That would
also be pretty neat.
Steve Martin
martinsa@mail.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > Hooray!
> >
> > Hmmm, LEGO is using Quicktime for their video.
> >
> > Hopefully they aren't going to leave us Mac users out in the cold when the
> > Design-your-own software comes out.
> >
> > Still, I stand and applaud their support of... US!
>
>
> And another word I hope they'll not overlook - Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux!!
>
> Regards,
>
> ROSCO
I wouldn't hold your breathe. They don't even support Windows2000. Bummer.
And I REALLY wanted to get the MovieMaker set.
Steve Martin
martinsa@mail.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jeff Johnston writes:
> to quote Mr. Clemens, "the Law is an Ass."
Baby, it always was...
A lot of bad law is coming down in terms of intellectual property primarily
because the main participants can afford to assert their views. And as far
as the computer industry is concerned -- the whole thing is built on
"swipes", or "reverse engineering" if you will.
It happens that I like fonts. Something I once wrote can be found here:
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/legal.html (scroll down until you see the name
"Richard", there is a short intro) or go here directly:
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/blueofnoon.html
I find that there are striking similarities between what is being discussed
here and what I opined about elsewhere. And a lot of it could easily apply
to anything: sheet music, cds, books, etc.
The main point would be: if you give me a picture of a thing, and I --
through my own devices -- copy the thing, I have created an intellectual
property legally on par with the original. Now amongst friends, that's not
necessarily cool -- but when it comes to commerce, I have noted that
friendship goes by the boards.
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
> However, I'd have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it's great that
> I can get huge amounts of pitchforks (for example), but then the one
> pitchfork that I currently own wouldn't be special (to me) anymore.
>
> Taken a step further, sets that are "no longer available" will once again be
> available, somehow or another! (My "prized" Black Seas Barracuda wouldn't
> be "prized" anymore!)
So? If you "prize" these things for the reason I do, that you LOVE them,
how could it be a bad thing to have them become available again?
I value pitchforks pretty darn highly. I love the part and I wish I could
have 10,000 of them. But it would be silly of me to wish that they wouldn't
make them available again.
The only reasons I can imagine someone would want some parts to not be
available ever again is that a) they hope their rare stuff continues to
increase in value because they have hopes of selling it someday (not
necessarily a bad thing, but not worthy of excluding everyone else from
them) or b) they just plain want to have stuff they think is "special" even
if it means denying those things to lots of other people.
I know it probably won't happen, but I say produce ALL the old cool elements
that are no longer available. I'll happily buy my 10,000 pitchforks and
lots of other people can get some for themselves, and the only people who
won't benefit are the ones who won't get to sell them for $2-$10 each anymore.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
> But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
"copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials. Let's keep
that in mind here, folks: we are *not* talking about music. Music is a
naturally occuring thing. LEGO doesn't spontaneously develop when you tune a
guitar correctly.
I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it to
Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
I *do* agree that someone dissecting your instructions, creating them as a
document and selling that document is wrong. But I think you're taking this
about three steps beyond the point of ridiculousness.
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the other members of the GoB on
their take on all of this.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Sean Harrington writes:
> As for being able to buy all of the necessary parts and instructions for
> hard-to-find kits, I'm both happy and sad. I'm happy in that great kits like
> the Airtech Claw Rig (8868) would be, in essence, available new again at a
> rate
> MUCH less than the currently going price of US$300 on eBay. I'm sad, however
> that this will hurt eBay Lego trading of older kits. Personally, I buy to
> build, not to collect or for an investment, so I would just as soon buy a
> custom kit from Lego S@H for an 8868 at around US$140 than I would buy it
> original for US$300 on eBay.
If you do buy sets purely to build with, why does the eBay market getting hurt
make you sad?
I buy sets only to build with, and hurting the eBay market makes me neither
happy nor sad. The only thing I see in it is that I can finally buy sets and
pieces that I want at a price that cuts out the middleman, and therefore is as
inexpensive as possible. Especially considering that I would theoretically be
able to design a "set" that had only the pieces in it that I wanted/needed,
elminating the need to buy a large set for a handful of pieces.
And I'll let you in on a secret: Collectors will always find something to
collect. Let's say I want a Metroliner and a Club car (which, at times, I
have- but not at current prices). In this Utopia we're all imagining is
coming, I can go online and "create" the Metroliner, and buy it from LEGO. But
I won't get the box, or the original instructions, or anything. And that is
what the collectors will go after, leaving people who just want the bricks for
building, like you and me, to just buy the bricks. It will create two totally
seperate markets, instead of one shared one.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the other members of the GoB on
> their take on all of this.
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1371
Not an official GoB statement, just my opinion. I can dig up where I said
the same thing some time ago if you think it's helpful...
For those that want to give a go to copying my work for their own enjoyment,
there's lots of info at the www.miltontrainworks.com website. You can get
fairly close on some of the easier ones, but not as close on the more
recent, more complex ones. You will, at the end, have a copy, not the "Real
Thing", though.
I'll let my model quality or lack thereof speak for itself.
Larry Pieniazek, Bricksmith
Milton Train Works
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
>
> > But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> > _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
>
> As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
> "copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials. Let's keep
> that in mind here, folks: we are *not* talking about music. Music is a
> naturally occuring thing. LEGO doesn't spontaneously develop when you tune a
> guitar correctly.
>
> I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
> something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
> pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it to
> Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
> particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
>
> I *do* agree that someone dissecting your instructions, creating them as a
> document and selling that document is wrong. But I think you're taking this
> about three steps beyond the point of ridiculousness.
The only problem I have with people copyrighting their own designs is that
we have all most all benefited from LEGO not doing just that - witness
Brickshelf. But I accept that AFOLs may have the right to copyright their
work, and I also accept that they may not have designed the models to start
with without thinking they could copyright the end result.
>
> Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the other members of the GoB on
> their take on all of this.
What an unfortunate acronym.
Scott A
>
> eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> Why not take this over to .debate??
Because, as a LEGO issue, it's not "off-topic"?
eric
|
|
| |
Lorbaat wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
>
> > But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> > _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
>
> As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
> "copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials. Let's keep
> that in mind here, folks: we are *not* talking about music. Music is a
> naturally occuring thing. LEGO doesn't spontaneously develop when you tune a
> guitar correctly.
Eh? Copyright does equal patent; they're two separate animals. Go take
a picture with a camera. Is that photo Kodak's (or Fuji's in my case) now?
Or Nikon's? Both the camera and the film are patented...
Same with painting a picture. Betcha the paints have a patent.
> I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
> something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
> pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it to
> Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
> particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
This probably falls within the realm of fair use. Copyright law comes into
play when the copyright law holder can claim lost income. So if you build
your own, great. But don't start selling them on Ebay... Did you know that
if the copyright holder claims $2500 or more in lost income it can be tried
as a felony?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
> "copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials.
A HUGE point. It kind of reminds me of Duchamp's "ready-mades", or whatever
-- the placement of a urinal in a museum as if he had sculpted it himself.
Legos can be seen as a kind of medium, but it's a very dictatorial one at
that...
In my own view, I PLAY with lego -- I do not consider it art with a capital
"A". It is creative, and I do respect people's various creations -- BUT do
let us keep perspective on what is going on here. PLAY -- not art, and
certainly not your own personal commercial enterprise.
I do write, draw, paint, sculpt, etc. Whether those creations are in the
way of art with a capital "A" is probably for someone else to decide --
although I think I am not at all bad as a traditional artist, even if I do
say so myself.
Some of you want to be TLC so badly you can taste it - but it's a no go. It
is a privately owned company and you are SOL (Sadly Out of Luck, right?).
-- Richard
|
|
| |
Scott A wrote:
> Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
I think it would be kept secret because it would bring out a lot of bad blood.
I mean, come on...if you want one of my sets, buy it. It's not like I am
selling them for a excessive amount, when you start looking at the parts prices
I have paid to collect the parts, I don't think many people could go out and
buy the pieces for the cost of the entire set.
> >
> > I *do* agree that someone dissecting your instructions, creating them as a
> > document and selling that document is wrong. But I think you're taking this
> > about three steps beyond the point of ridiculousness.
>
> The only problem I have with people copyrighting their own designs is that
> we have all most all benefited from LEGO not doing just that - witness
> Brickshelf. But I accept that AFOLs may have the right to copyright their
> work, and I also accept that they may not have designed the models to start
> with without thinking they could copyright the end result.
>
>
No. The Lego instructions _are_ copywrited. However, TLC has _allowed_ the
use of the instructions in the manor of Brickshelf. I'm sure if you went and
took a TLC set, and tried selling it (like you could for a profit) with copied
instructions, they would come down on you like a ton of bricks. This is what I
am mostly saying...that if you take my ideas, I will get upset, and take
apropriate action. This action will be consistant to the limits of the law,
whatever they are here in Canada. If those actions are just telling someone
via Email that they shouldn't be copying something for free, and that's it,
fine...but I am _not_ going to say go copy my (for sale) sets for free, because
they are _my_ designs. If you had spent the time building the set, and
expected some (very meger, let me tell you, when you work out the time
involved) compensation for your work, would you get upset?
James Powell
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, David Eaton writes:
> 1. the plan may fail. Maybe there just aren't enough AFOLs and original Lego
> hobbyists to support the costs of providing custom models online. Might
> happen. And that's really potentially major.
You know, I was curious about this. So I emailed my friend Neil--
(as an aside here, Dave knows Neil, but to bring the rest of you up to date: I
went to college with Neil, and we still play RPGs and wargames together on a
regular basis. Neil has been to the NELUG BrikWars events, but his interest in
LEGO begins and ends with building things for BrikWars)
--and asked him, theoretically, if he was able to go online and design "sets",
and buy the pieces directly from LEGO, if he would be likely to spend more on
LEGO.
His first answer, after thinking it over, was that he would end up buying more
from LEGO, but not much more. But, as he thought about it, he conceded that he
might end up buying even more than that if he increased in proficiency with the
design software.
Point is, this move has the potential to increase sales across the board, not
*just* to current hardcore AFOLs. There are probably lots of people out there
who would love to create their own models, but whose desire simply isn't strong
enough to go out and buy set after set to chase down the pieces they would
need.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > As I said before, good luck with that. I don't think you really can
> > "copyright" an arrangement of someone else's patented materials.
>
> A HUGE point. It kind of reminds me of Duchamp's "ready-mades", or whatever
> -- the placement of a urinal in a museum as if he had sculpted it himself.
> Legos can be seen as a kind of medium, but it's a very dictatorial one at
> that...
OK, so _everything_ has no copywrite? Is this what you are trying to tell me?
That, because I only took something physical, and put it into a new
arrangement, like these Electrons in the computer, that I don't hold any rights
to exploit my work? Tell that to Microsoft, or to a iron foundry, or to a
farmer...or anyone else. I cannot patent the idea (at least not in the sense
of a patent on the bricks...not sure how it is differenciated worldwide), but I
can (and have) copywrite on the images, and the ideas/arrangements contained
within the images.
> In my own view, I PLAY with lego -- I do not consider it art with a capital
> "A". It is creative, and I do respect people's various creations -- BUT do
> let us keep perspective on what is going on here. PLAY -- not art, and
> certainly not your own personal commercial enterprise.
And why not? Define a Personal Commerical Enterprise? Is it not offering
something for sale? Regardless of who designed it?
James
(note, this is redirected into .debate, and no longer strictly about GoB, in
fact, I would like to disassociate this from GoB, because this is more a
.debate topic than a real topic at this point...)
|
|
| |
I agree with Tom,
I doubt there is anyone with a larger inventory of rare LEGO parts than I have.
Yet I am giddy with anticipation about getting more parts that are considered
rare. Case in point: sloped bricks --- I have 140 regular sloped 2x2 blue outside
corners. These are very hard to come by, and I could probably sell them for a nice
profit. But no, I want more!!!! (I don't just collect, I build.) I would be
happy if everyone got the opportunity to get these pieces as well. I don't much
care if these pieces are rare or not. It may diminish the value of my collection,
but it increases the opportunity for me and others to build collossal structures.
My 2 cents,
Gary Istok
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" wrote:
> John Matthews wrote:
>
> > If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> > desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> > their business, namely, AFOLs.
>
> You're joking, right?
>
> Garage doors are desirable (highly). If they start selling them Bulk, they're
> STILL desirable. To BUILD with.
>
> I don't amass certain parts because they are desirable (that would be silly, as
> it would cost me way too much money), I amass them because I want to build with
> them.
>
> I now have about 120-150 complete garage doors (I'd have to inventory to know
> the exact #, but I have verified 120). If they offered them in Bulk tomorrow,
> I'd order 50-200 more right away, depending on price and color selections.
>
> Just ask others about pitchforks - most people that want them want dozens for
> layouts.
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> What an unfortunate acronym.
Hah!
Man, I am so glad you said this instead of me. I have been laughing out
loud for months over this...
=)
Anyway, maybe it's ironically fitting -- it kinda says it all.
I dunno. People here get SO serious about stuff. I agree that giving away
one's hard work to a company like Lego is obnoxious (because they can and do
pay others to produce the same work), and I wouldn't do it without pay
either. But sharing one's ideas here, amongst users, is a different animal
altogether.
This has always been my point: I'd rather "share and play", than "design and
get paid." That's just too much like ACTUAL work for me, and would take all
the fun out of it.
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
> > something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
> > pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it
> > to
> > Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
> > particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
>
> Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
Because you most likely wouldn't be interested. If someone else creates
something, and posts it to Lugnet/Brickshelf/the internet in general, I
wouldn't see the reason to post pictures of my copy of it. What's the point?
If I think it's particularly cool and not getting attention it deserves, I'll
post a link to the pictures of the original.
eric
|
|
| |
Hello LUGNET,
I wanted to let you all know that LEGO Direct is paying attention! There are
a lot of discussions and meetings going on inside TLC right now about the
issues mentioned in this thread. Hopefully we'll be able to post here
sometime soon with some answers and questions of our own -- about file
formats, LEGO parts and many other subjects. There's a lot to talk about and
we plan on staying in touch with AFOLs about these projects.
By the way, I'm Tomas Clark -- I joined LEGO Direct recently as a producer,
and I'm going to be laboring away on some of the things being talked about
here, so I'll definitely be around. It's going to be fun.
Tomas Clark
Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> > copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
>
> I think it would be kept secret because it would bring out a lot of bad blood.
No, as I said before, out of simple disinterest. If I build a copy of
something someone else built, what is the point of discussing it? What purpose
could discussing it possibly serve? What would I gain as the poster, and what
would people reading my post gain as readers? Nothing! They're not seeing a
new model, they aren't seeing new building techniques, etc etc etc.
> I mean, come on...if you want one of my sets, buy it. It's not like I am
> selling them for a excessive amount, when you start looking at the parts
> prices
> I have paid to collect the parts, I don't think many people could go out and
> buy the pieces for the cost of the entire set.
But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
You're saying you'd be upset about that?
Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of the Guild
of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
eric
|
|
| |
Welcome Tomas!
Thanks for posting. It is gratifying to hear every once in a while that
someone in LD really is listening in (at least in this group).
-John
Tomas Clark wrote:
> Hello LUGNET,
>
> I wanted to let you all know that LEGO Direct is paying attention! There are
> a lot of discussions and meetings going on inside TLC right now about the
> issues mentioned in this thread. Hopefully we'll be able to post here
> sometime soon with some answers and questions of our own -- about file
> formats, LEGO parts and many other subjects. There's a lot to talk about and
> we plan on staying in touch with AFOLs about these projects.
>
> By the way, I'm Tomas Clark -- I joined LEGO Direct recently as a producer,
> and I'm going to be laboring away on some of the things being talked about
> here, so I'll definitely be around. It's going to be fun.
>
> Tomas Clark
> Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
> But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
>
> You're saying you'd be upset about that?
No. I would be upset if you went and copied the entire set from the images
provided to help sell the set on my web page. (see below)
> Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of the • Guild
> of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
Yes, I do understand that other members do not feel exactly the same. I would
be quite willing to sell a set of my plans to people...frankly, if you want a
set of colour printed instructions, I am going to seek around 1/3rd of the
price of the set, but I am willing to sell them without the parts (since, yes,
you may well have the parts)
(and yes, I do consider that to be reasonable, given the price of colour
reproduction on a small scale- a buck a sheet quickly adds up, when the sum
total you are looking at is $15 or so)
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Gary Istok writes:
> I agree with Tom,
>
> I doubt there is anyone with a larger inventory of rare LEGO parts than I
> have. Yet I am giddy with anticipation about getting more parts that are
> considered rare. Case in point: sloped bricks --- I have 140 regular sloped
> 2x2 blue outside corners. These are very hard to come by, and I could
> probably sell them for a nice profit. But no, I want more!!!! (I don't just
> collect, I build.) I would be happy if everyone got the opportunity to get
> these pieces as well. I don't much care if these pieces are rare or not. It
> may diminish the value of my collection, but it increases the opportunity for
> me and others to build collossal structures.
Ah finally a sub thread that makes some sense. Both Tom and Gary speak wise
words. I will agree that as Bulk parts become available I will almost
definitely cut back on the number of sets I buy but I will more then offset
that with my bulk purchases.
I had a relatively long dark age, 13 years, and because of that I missed out on
lots of parts I would love to get but I am not willing to spend what I would
have to on eBay for the parts. Among some of the parts I would like to see
brought back are.
1. Garage Doors
2. 2 wheeled Motor Cycles
3. Ship Hulls
Other parts I would like to be able to order but are hard to get in quantity at
the moment are.
1. 1x4x3 basic windows, shutters, pains.
2. All 45 degree slope varrients in currently rare colors
3. Large plates.
4. Studded Technic Beams (Especially long ones)
5. Flowers (with stems)
Plus a lot more. The ability to get these parts without paying a huge price
tag or getting a set where half the parts are useless to me would if anything
increase the amount I spend on LEGO because I won't be worried about all the
downsides to storing the parts I don't use so much (No I won't give them to
you).
The ability to get the parts you want in the colors you want is a good thing
even if it will no doubt be limited in scope.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> > collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
> >
> > You're saying you'd be upset about that?
>
> No. I would be upset if you went and copied the entire set from the images
> provided to help sell the set on my web page. (see below)
So, in other words, "yes".
1) Fred decides Fred likes your design, and would like to have it in his train
layout, in his basement. Fred has an extensive LEGO collection already,
though, and has all the parts he needs.
2) Fred sits down with a printout of your webpage, and recreates your set.
3) Fred places the set in his layout.
If you heard about this happening, you would be upset, according to what you've
said.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
>
> You're saying you'd be upset about that?
>
> Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of
> the Guild of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
Um, I'm not sure I disagree with James about anything. I'm mildly upset and
disappointed when someone chooses to copy my work, but I'm also kind of
flattered. Neither of those emotions translate into my actually *doing*
anything about it, as I've said before. Nor does it for James, as he's said
before.
James is being painted as taking a 'hard line' stance but I don't see it
that way at all. He and I are saying the same thing. If someone starts
knocking off his designs or mine, and making GoBs of money at it, we are
going to take whatever action is available and appropriate. But come on, we
do this mostly for fun, and partly to fund our hobby, just as part sellers
do. We aren't any of us making any huge sums of money and we are not in any
way shape or form a "threat" to TLC's market position and none of us is
delusional enough to think we are. There is no big threat of someone making
gobs of money at this.
Depending on how exactly TLC structures this "custom" model thing of theirs,
that can change. You can be sure that if it's structured properly I will be
submitting designs to it at a rapid clip (.005 royalty per brick maybe??).
On the other hand, have we increased the quality of models out there? I'd
like to think maybe a little. When I scan the lego-net I can find half a
dozen copies, imitations, knockoffs and designs inspired by my hopper (which
after all is one of the first kits released ever...) and most of those pages
acknowledge the inspiration. That's payment enough for me.
Have we opened people's eyes (even TLC's??) to what is possible with small
production run high end craftsman kits? Again, I'd like to think maybe a
little as well.
And we're not the only kit builders out there. Mechanised Brick, for
example, is not GoB affiliated. And that's fine. Let a hundred flowers bloom.
Frankly, if one reads the entire sub thread (in all its sprawling majesty,
across all three groups it's appeared in) I think most all of us (the
reasonable ones, anyway) are all actually saying the same thing, so I'm not
sure why we are in apparent disagreement!
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> James is being painted as taking a 'hard line' stance but I don't see it
> that way at all. He and I are saying the same thing. If someone starts
> knocking off his designs or mine, and making GoBs of money at it, we are
> going to take whatever action is available and appropriate.
This is where you're making your mistake:
We aren't talking about someone selling sets that resemble GoB sets.
We *are* talking about someone building the set FOR THEIR OWN USE without
buying it.
I agree completely that if someone copied one of your for-sale (or even
not-for-sale) designs, and began selling it as a set, you'd be well within your
rights to get upset, and even take legal action of some kind if you felt like
it.
I disagree that if someone simply feels they can build one of your sets without
buying it from you, and does so for their own enjoyment, there's any reason for
you to get upset.
eric
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Um, I'm not sure I disagree with James about anything. I'm mildly upset and
> disappointed when someone chooses to copy my work, but I'm also kind of
> flattered. Neither of those emotions translate into my actually *doing*
> anything about it, as I've said before. Nor does it for James, as he's said
> before.
That's not how I read
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1349
and James' later posts.
I think James is saying he will take you to court if you look at
a picture of his creation and try to build it out of your own bricks,
even if you don't then sell it. Later he backpedals slightly and
says he would try to resolve it out of court first.
Still, trying to forbid attempts by others to create a single copy
from a published picture for their own use is, IMHO, unusual and
unenforceable. Furthermore, I really doubt that that position
has any legal basis, but I would be interested to hear ideas about
this from someone who knows more about copyright law, both in
Canada and the USA and internationally.
/Eric McC/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> I disagree that if someone simply feels they can build one of your
> sets without buying it from you, and does so for their own enjoyment,
> there's any reason for you to get upset.
I can get upset if I want. I can be flattered if I want. I can be both at
the same time if I want. I can do so for any reason or no reason at all if I
want.
What I won't do (and what James won't do) is *do* anything about it, other
than perhaps present an economic analysis of why it may or may not be cost
effective (but then, when is anything we do about our hobby actually
rational from a purely economic point of view unless you assign a monetary
value to happiness) to copy our work in some cases.
I reiterate, I don't see any disagreement here. Everyone agrees on what's
reasonable and what isn't.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Stanley writes:
> So? If you "prize" these things for the reason I do, that you LOVE them,
> how could it be a bad thing to have them become available again?
>
> I value pitchforks pretty darn highly. I love the part and I wish I could
> have 10,000 of them. But it would be silly of me to wish that they wouldn't
> make them available again.
>
> The only reasons I can imagine someone would want some parts to not be
> available ever again is that a) they hope their rare stuff continues to
> increase in value because they have hopes of selling it someday (not
> necessarily a bad thing, but not worthy of excluding everyone else from
> them) or b) they just plain want to have stuff they think is "special" even
> if it means denying those things to lots of other people.
>
> I know it probably won't happen, but I say produce ALL the old cool elements
> that are no longer available.
> I'll happily buy my 10,000 pitchforks and
> lots of other people can get some for themselves, and the only people who
> won't benefit are the ones who won't get to sell them for $2-$10 each anymore.
Well said! With the introduction of the Mickey Mouse sets, some Fabuland
elements which had been near impossible to find much less afford became
both available and affordable. It is a glorious feeling to have some
elements that I thought I would never even see in person much less possess.
sheree
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> OK, so _everything_ has no copywrite? Is this what you are trying to tell me?
> That, because I only took something physical, and put it into a new
> arrangement, like these Electrons in the computer, that I don't hold any >rights to exploit my work? Tell that to Microsoft, or to a iron foundry, or >to a farmer...or anyone else. I cannot patent the idea (at least not in the >sense of a patent on the bricks...not sure how it is differenciated >worldwide), but I can (and have) copywrite on the images, and the >ideas/arrangements contained within the images.
In a way, there are no copyrights -- not actually. Rights are sustained by
belligerent contest in court, and less formally by social custom -- but the
idea that others will ACTUALLY not copy your work is illusory. Trust me,
it's true. And I wouldn't tell it to MS because they can win a legal battle
with me -- it has nothing to do with the right or wrong of it; it has to do
with the fact that they can sustain the legal battle longer than can I, and
therefore I would be forced to an early capitulation.
But the question is: can you legally steal anything you want to? The answer
is yes, especially if you have money to back up your thievery! Don't
believe me? Why don't you check out the intellectual property rights
concerning ideas like a GUI and how it stands between Apple and MS. Settled
out of court last time I checked -- although if right had been done, it
would have put MS out of business. So why didn't it? Might makes right, of
course!
And if you don't like that proof -- go research the subject of fonts in
terms of copyright and patent (as I have mentioned elsewhere in this
thread). But don't blame me, I am just the messenger.
The real madness of your position asserts itself in cases where certain
corporations are claiming the rights to seemingly generic ideas -- like an
online auction, or an online bookstore, etc. Where does one draw the line
between intellectual property and something so generic as to belong to a
business culture as a whole? My argument is often that things are NOT
created by individuals as much as we would like to think -- that there comes
key moments in time when there is a "buzz" in the air that creates movements
- be they artistic, poliitical, socio-econmic, or even business model
movements. Just be sure that your ability to litigate a position and even
to win based on that position, doesn't make it "right." Our legal system
is based on the fiction of "doing right" and "establishing justice" -- but
these are ideas only, the means to sell you on the idea of it (the marketing
aspect, if you will), and nothing to do with the actuality/reality of it at
all! There is no right, there is no justice.
And BTW, the images of a Lego brick construct may or may not be
copyrightable, the Lego logo appears on every brick!!! You can claim the
right to the item, but it might just be nonsense. Your use of their bricks
as a subset of your product might be actionable without a specific license
to do it
But, I am quickly losing interest in this specific topic...you have your
particular take on this subject, and I have my own.
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Actually, I'd be interested in hearing from the other members of the GoB on
> > their take on all of this.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1371
Eric's and James' statements aside, courts have already spelled out that
certain designs re: construction block toys are open season as far as
duplication or near duplication. MegaBloks and Block-Men are the current
offenders, of course, and their use of the 2x4 brick, nearly identical to
Lego's design, has been allowed by the courts. In addition, isn't there a
clone company (can't remember the name) that produces direct and obvious
knock-offs, even down to similar box designs and very similar if not
identical set designs? Their continued existence suggests that either Lego
has no case, that the case would be too costly to pursue, or that Lego
simply hasn't pursued it yet. At any rate, how are these different from
claims of copyright infringement in this case?
For that matter, let's say hypothetically that MegaBloks produces a clone
version of every Lego piece in existence. If I were to produce a duplicate
of James' model, substituting the Lego bricks with MegaBloks piece-by-piece,
would that still qualify as theft of intellectual property? The design
would be similar, of course, but the materials and implementation would be
fundamentally different. I don't know the answer; I'm honestly curious.
> For those that want to give a go to copying my work for their own enjoyment,
> there's lots of info at the www.miltontrainworks.com website. You can get
> fairly close on some of the easier ones, but not as close on the more
> recent, more complex ones. You will, at the end, have a copy, not the "Real
> Thing", though.
Ah, the "Setness of a Set" debate! My favorite!
> I'll let my model quality or lack thereof speak for itself.
Looking at some of your stuff makes me wish I was more into trains (and,
honestly, that I had a little more green to spend).
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> OK, so _everything_ has no copywrite? Is this what you are trying to tell me?
> That, because I only took something physical, and put it into a new
> arrangement, like these Electrons in the computer, that I don't hold any >rights to exploit my work? Tell that to Microsoft, or to a iron foundry, or >to a farmer...or anyone else. I cannot patent the idea (at least not in the >sense of a patent on the bricks...not sure how it is differenciated >worldwide), but I can (and have) copywrite on the images, and the >ideas/arrangements contained within the images.
In a way, there are no copyrights -- not actually. Rights are sustained by
belligerent contest in court, and less formally by social custom -- but the
idea that others will ACTUALLY not copy your work is illusory. Trust me,
it's true.
And I wouldn't tell it to MS because they can win a legal battle with me --
it has nothing to do with the right or wrong of it; it has to do with the
fact that they can sustain the legal battle longer than can I, and therefore
I would be forced to an early capitulation.
But the question is: can you legally steal anything you want to? The answer
is yes, especially if you have money to back up your thievery! Don't
believe me? Why don't you check out the intellectual property rights
concerning ideas like a GUI and how it stands between Apple and MS. Settled
out of court last time I checked -- although if right had been done, it
would have put MS out of business. So why didn't it? Might makes right, of
course!
And if you don't like that proof -- go research the subject of fonts in
terms of copyright and patent (as I have mentioned elsewhere in this
thread). But don't blame me, I am just the messenger.
The real madness of your position asserts itself in cases where certain
corporations are claiming the rights to seemingly generic ideas -- like an
online auction, or an online bookstore, etc. Where does one draw the line
between intellectual property and something so generic as to belong to a
business culture as a whole? My argument is often that things are NOT
created by individuals as much as we would like to think -- that there comes
key moments in time when there is a "buzz" in the air that creates movements
- be they artistic, poliitical, socio-econmic, model, or even toy model
movements (lego Lamppost, doh!). Just be sure that your ability to litigate
a position and even to win based on that position, doesn't make it "right."
Our legal system is based on the fiction of "doing right" and "establishing
justice" -- but these are ideas only, the means to sell you on the idea of
it (the marketing aspect, if you will), and nothing to do with the
actuality/reality of it at all! There is no right, there is no justice.
And BTW, the images of a Lego brick construct may or may not be
copyrightable, the Lego logo appears on every brick!!! You can claim the
right to the item, but it might just be nonsense. Your use of their bricks
as a subset of your product might be actionable without a specific license
to do it
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > > I say again, if I see something I like, I'll build it. If that means I see
> > > something I like on the Guild of Bricksmiths site, and realise I have the
> > > pieces to build it myself, I'll do so. I probably won't post pictures of it
> > > to
> > > Lugnet (which is something I only do when I put something together I feel is
> > > particularly cool), but I'll build it and play with it to my heart's content.
> >
> > Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> > copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
>
> Because you most likely wouldn't be interested. If someone else creates
> something, and posts it to Lugnet/Brickshelf/the internet in general, I
> wouldn't see the reason to post pictures of my copy of it. What's the point?
> If I think it's particularly cool and not getting attention it deserves, I'll
> post a link to the pictures of the original.
That is what I thought you meant.
Scott A
>
> eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > Are you saying you would not post the pictures as you want to keep your
> > copying antics secret, or because we’d not be interested?
>
> I think it would be kept secret because it would bring out a lot of bad blood.
> I mean, come on...if you want one of my sets, buy it. It's not like I am
> selling them for a excessive amount, when you start looking at the parts prices
> I have paid to collect the parts, I don't think many people could go out and
> buy the pieces for the cost of the entire set.
>
>
> > >
> > > I *do* agree that someone dissecting your instructions, creating them as a
> > > document and selling that document is wrong. But I think you're taking this
> > > about three steps beyond the point of ridiculousness.
> >
> > The only problem I have with people copyrighting their own designs is that
> > we have all most all benefited from LEGO not doing just that - witness
> > Brickshelf. But I accept that AFOLs may have the right to copyright their
> > work, and I also accept that they may not have designed the models to start
> > with without thinking they could copyright the end result.
> >
> >
>
> No. The Lego instructions _are_ copywrited. However, TLC has _allowed_ the
> use of the instructions in the manor of Brickshelf.
Yes. This is what I was thinking - I jsut did not type it.
> I'm sure if you went and
> took a TLC set, and tried selling it (like you could for a profit) with copied
> instructions, they would come down on you like a ton of bricks.
By copied, I assume you mean re-drafted - otherwise it happens all the time.
> This is what I
> am mostly saying...that if you take my ideas, I will get upset, and take
> apropriate action. This action will be consistant to the limits of the law,
> whatever they are here in Canada. If those actions are just telling someone
> via Email that they shouldn't be copying something for free, and that's it,
> fine...but I am _not_ going to say go copy my (for sale) sets for free, because
> they are _my_ designs.
But could Lego not argue that you are using/adapting thier ideas to build
your sets - eg click slopes together to form a roof? I'm not saying they'd
be correct - but is it an argument?
Scott A
> If you had spent the time building the set, and
> expected some (very meger, let me tell you, when you work out the time
> involved) compensation for your work, would you get upset?
>
> James Powell
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> > collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
> >
> > You're saying you'd be upset about that?
> >
> > Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of
> > the Guild of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
>
> Um, I'm not sure I disagree with James about anything. I'm mildly upset and
> disappointed when someone chooses to copy my work, but I'm also kind of
> flattered. Neither of those emotions translate into my actually *doing*
> anything about it, as I've said before. Nor does it for James, as he's said
> before.
Why does it disappoint you? I've spent all my working life trying to get
others to copy me.
>
> James is being painted as taking a 'hard line' stance but I don't see it
> that way at all. He and I are saying the same thing. If someone starts
> knocking off his designs or mine, and making GoBs of money at it, we are
> going to take whatever action is available and appropriate. But come on, we
> do this mostly for fun, and partly to fund our hobby, just as part sellers
> do. We aren't any of us making any huge sums of money and we are not in any
> way shape or form a "threat" to TLC's market position and none of us is
> delusional enough to think we are. There is no big threat of someone making
> gobs of money at this.
>
> Depending on how exactly TLC structures this "custom" model thing of theirs,
> that can change. You can be sure that if it's structured properly I will be
> submitting designs to it at a rapid clip (.005 royalty per brick maybe??).
I doubt LEGO will put GoBed sets in the shops. Or if they did, they'd dumb
them down a little - would have accept that at even 0.006 / brick?
>
> On the other hand, have we increased the quality of models out there? I'd
> like to think maybe a little. When I scan the lego-net I can find half a
> dozen copies, imitations, knockoffs and designs inspired by my hopper (which
> after all is one of the first kits released ever...) and most of those pages
> acknowledge the inspiration. That's payment enough for me.
But it also disappoints you?
>
> Have we opened people's eyes (even TLC's??) to what is possible with small
> production run high end craftsman kits? Again, I'd like to think maybe a
> little as well.
I imagine they could make better sets than they do - do you doubt that? But
what would they cost? How many would they sell? Remember LEGO are in this
for the $$.
Scott A
>
> And we're not the only kit builders out there. Mechanised Brick, for
> example, is not GoB affiliated. And that's fine. Let a hundred flowers bloom.
>
> Frankly, if one reads the entire sub thread (in all its sprawling majesty,
> across all three groups it's appeared in) I think most all of us (the
> reasonable ones, anyway) are all actually saying the same thing, so I'm not
> sure why we are in apparent disagreement!
>
> ++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [1] http://news.lugnet.com/org/dates
>
> May I suggest: Be more specific in your statement!
>
> Something like "if you wandered in here from the pressrelease <backlink>,
> that list is incomplete and may be out of date, click on the globe for a
> complete list"
>
> Journalists aren't always the greatest at connecting dots and drawing
> inferences, especially if they are rushed. Do their homework for them (this
> is a special case of "don't do people's homework for them" :-) ) as if you
> don't, you get burned. That's been my experience.
Good idea!
--Todd
[xfut => lugnet.org]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Kilaras wrote:
> Hola! Yes, I am still here. Been mostly lurking because I have found few
> posts of interest to me (re: Star Wars, the new 2001 monstrosities, etc.)
Yes, I saw that you'd posted a few message over the last few days.
My impression of you is a general skeptic - you'll believe something when
it happens. So I was a bit surprised on the message you posted. Not a bad
surprise. Just a surprise. :)
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Martin wrote:
> Did any else notice the statistics in the "Dot-com crowd loves Lego"
> article? http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=11947
>
> The article quoted Shannon Hartnett from TLC - "She said U.S. sales to this
> group are up close to 8% from 1998, and nearly one in 10 Lego buyers is now
> a grownup, or what aficionados call AFOLs: Adult Friends of Lego."
>
> So I guess we made up some percentage greater that 10% of the Lego sales in
> 1998 (since AFOLs seem to spend more money per capita on Lego than a parent
> for a child). If that is true, we have considerably more buying power that
> I thought. Does anybody else have any more recent (or more accurate)
> statistics?
I wouldn't be surprised if "one in 10 Lego buyers is now a grownup" is
really just a translation of "10% of our sales are for consumption by
adults".
10% of sales is still a whopping good margin, when you consider the impact
AFOLs can have as leaders and influencers of other consumers.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Rideout wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> >
> > here's the good stuff:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/
>
>
> Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
> following page:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
>
> a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
I clicked the link (hey, why not), and yes, it's a way[1] to request 'BETA
tape'. I assume it's what Kevin posted, a professional format video tape.
--
Steve
1) A somewhat brain-dead way to file a request. They c/should have put an
html page behind, explaining what was being requested.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Farlie A wrote:
> Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part authours in
> getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even suppourting
> the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
:)
Steve
|
|
| |
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message
news:4blv2toer0dgb6lov6a4d8c6q8423lrhj3@4ax.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Farlie A wrote:
>
> > Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part authours in
> > getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even suppourting
> > the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
>
> Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
>
> :)
I'm behind that one too. :-)
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message
news:4blv2toer0dgb6lov6a4d8c6q8423lrhj3@4ax.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Farlie A wrote:
>
> > Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part authours in
> > getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even suppourting
> > the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
>
> Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
A more serious analysis would conclude that TLC could do something better
themselves, but as of yet we don't know their exact intentions with this
software they are developing for 2002. If TLC intends to make their software
for the sole purpose of being used with their product, then they should somehow
encourage LCAD to grow - it will grow their market, it (hopefully) will be
compatible with their product, and from it more people will become serious FOLs.
If TLC intends to fully replace what we have done so far with LCAD, they should
take into consideration our _every_ wish for a serious LEGO CAD program. It
would be in their best interest to have satisfied customers in all areas - brand
loyalty, fostering community growth, and even potentially their sales.
I feel that either route, TLC will be supporting LCAD in one way or another. I
hope that LCAD does not die out because of TLC's developments, but if they
choose to replace it, I feel strongly that what they design should embody what
we have always wanted in a LEGO CAD program.
Oh, and I _know_ they're listening :-) All we have to do now is wait.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
(cross-posting to o-t.debate, this falls in between the cracks, I think. If
it moves more Lego-wards, please drop .debate, vice versa if it moves more
off-topic. Thanks)
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > But let's say I don't want your set. I don't want to buy the pieces you've
> > collected. I want to use the pieces I already have to build my own copy.
> >
> > You're saying you'd be upset about that?
> >
> > Do you realise that according to Larry, at least two other members of
> > the Guild of Bricksmiths disagree with you on that point?
>
> Um, I'm not sure I disagree with James about anything. I'm mildly upset and
> disappointed when someone chooses to copy my work, but I'm also kind of
> flattered. Neither of those emotions translate into my actually *doing*
> anything about it, as I've said before. Nor does it for James, as he's said
> before.
OBDisclaimer: IMHO!
I don't know James' mind(1), or yours, but FWIW, I don't think that
everyone's agreeing here, as you've asserted in a few places.
I think, from what I've read here, that James Powell feels that someone who
sees his Bricksmith page, thinks "that's a cool model", and builds his own
instead of buying one from him, is doing him a disservice. This is (as far
as I can tell) regardless of wether the model stays hidden in a box in a
basement, has pictures posted of it, is used at a train show, or is sold on
street corners. It also appears to be regardless of wether or not James
gets the credit for the design.
I think that is a seriously excessive expectation. He's welcome to have it
- I'm not in the business of telling people what to think - but I don't
think it's realistic, "fair" or accurate.
As far as I'm concerned (and I *think*, as far as general opinion & law
regarding copyright reflects), what James is due is credit for the design.
Period. That's the risk that is run when something becomes public
knowledge. And some aspects of that design (pictures) are public knowledge.
If I work backwards from that public knowledge, and design something
similar, or even identical, I am required to (and believe I should) credit
my source. But no more than that. If you don't want derivative works, or
copies, you do not provide information about your work to the general public.
If you want the kind of protection you seem to think you have, then you have
to trademark your design. That is a whole different ball of wax.
James
1: Unless, of course, I'm the James in question, and sometimes not even then. :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I think this is the very MOST that we can hope for and it is in fact a
> stretch. Although no one can say for sure, the probability that the molds
> for some parts (the conveyor chute part, for example) no longer exist is
> very very high. That would make reintroducing them prohibitively expensive
Yep, I'm pretty sure most of us would agree that making *all* parts
available would be ridiculously expensive (from TLC's point of view at least).
> My expectation is that we may get a larger selection of parts in bulk than
> we currently have, and in fact I think many of us have posted what we think
> good sets of parts are, and some of us have communicated that same
> information to TLC using more 1 to 1 channels which we have higher
> confidence in the message being received than this channel.
I have a feeling that those people talking with TLC about good parts are
representative of our general wishes (just remember the "theme x is spare
parts for theme y" equation).
> Finally, I have to ask, though. Why wish for parts not to be available,
> Bryan? I can happily wish for all of them to be available, while
> acknowledging that it's not likely and that a prioritization of which ones
> we'd like to see is a useful thing to communicate to TLC.
Well, some people have gone to great lengths (money, time & effort) in
getting certain parts in large quantities. If all parts were made available
suddenly, then I'd be somewhat bitter...
Hmm, now that I think about my reasoning, I think I've run into a dead end.
I'm sure a lot of you train fans spent a lot on acquiring train
windows/doors (like your stash of 5542s), but you guys were thrilled when
LEGO Direct made them available in bulk quantities.
I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
remain rare!
I dunno: I still have mixed feelings. I have no problems with TLC expanding
their bulk offerings, but I'm uneasy about them opening up their entire
inventory (which probably won't happen anyway).
Bryan
|
|
| |
I hope they don't support lcad,
I hope they get rid of all those Lego computer games and concentraty on
making cheaper lego blocks and better models or perhaps they won't be
around next generation.
Koen
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Brown writes:
> As far as I'm concerned (and I *think*, as far as general opinion & law
> regarding copyright reflects), what James is due is credit for the design.
> Period. That's the risk that is run when something becomes public
> knowledge. And some aspects of that design (pictures) are public knowledge.
> If I work backwards from that public knowledge, and design something
> similar, or even identical, I am required to (and believe I should) credit
> my source. But no more than that. If you don't want derivative works, or
> copies, you do not provide information about your work to the general public.
>
> If you want the kind of protection you seem to think you have, then you have
> to trademark your design. That is a whole different ball of wax.
>
> James
I think I understand what the point is but, we are usually working from a
picture or the actual building/engine and I don't see credits that the model
is representive of a pix in Model Railroading or the the XYZ building in
town A. When is a model just a different representation of the same basic
thought? If I build a model similar to others taking design elements from
several others plus design modification of my own creation, is this my
design or all of ours? I'm talking about designs for my own use not for sale.
There were some great model of WWII tanks recently, trouble is I model in 6
wide trains and needed 6 wide tanks to carry on them. I used the general
concept to the larger models but scaled everything down. Is this my design
or theirs?
Matthew Greene
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> John Matthews wrote:
>
> > If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> > desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> > their business, namely, AFOLs.
>
> You're joking, right?
>
> Garage doors are desirable (highly). If they start selling them Bulk, they're
> STILL desirable. To BUILD with.
Tom and I often end up bidding on the same lots, he usually wins ;-( deeper
pockets, but the point is that we both want MANY more garage doors, for
building not collecting, hoarding or resaling.
If I had the chance to buy more doors, I'd need more plate, bricks and
slopes to build the models I'm collecting the doors for. Greater access to
"special" parts will cause us to buy more "basic" bricks not less.
.
>
> I now have about 120-150 complete garage doors (I'd have to inventory to know
> the exact #, but I have verified 120). If they offered them in Bulk tomorrow,
> I'd order 50-200 more right away, depending on price and color selections.
WOW, I knew I had lost quite a few to you, but 150! Share the wealth ;-)
> Just ask others about pitchforks - most people that want them want dozens for
> layouts.
> --
> Tom Stangl
Matthew Greene
|
|
| |
Just keep a good watch on ebay, especially ebay.de.
I managed to pick up a Metroliner, Club Car, 4539, extra circle of track, 10 extra
straight track sections, and 2 track switches. No boxes, but all instructions.
Cost? $160 SHIPPED from Germany to the US. This was only about 2 months ago.
Lorbaat wrote:
> And I'll let you in on a secret: Collectors will always find something to
> collect. Let's say I want a Metroliner and a Club car (which, at times, I
> have- but not at current prices).
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
| |
> > Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part • authours in
> > getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even • suppourting
> > the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
>
> Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
How far we have come along in a year.....
I can remember Michael Lachmann's post (and I'm paraphrasing) where he
wanted to look for a robotics application to program now that MLCad
was stable :-)
Many of us (myself included) encouraged Michael to polish MLCad into
the gem that it is today, and I have to believe that some of that
effort is going to come back to him soon.
I do not know the inner workings of TLG, but I get the following
impressions from reading posts and news releases...
1. TLG is consolidating manufacturing to reduce overhead
2. TLG is getting rid of unpopular lines (ZNAP, some of the software)
I personally like ZNAP...
3. TLG is partnering with established software vendors to release
better software.
4. TLG is tapping the AFOL market to find individuals with a passion
for the brick.
This can only be good for our community. MLCad is a really good bit of
software, and it would only be good business for LEGO to buy the product,
hire Michael and a few other AFOLs, and spin out a great CAD program.
They are just figuring out now that the Web makes it easy to release
software
and that the marketing effort required is MUCH smaller than what it used to
be.
The precedent for this is Palm Computing's purchase of the CodePilot
simulator.
This is a program that takes a binary image from a Palm device and simulates
it
on the PC. It was developed by a hobbyist, became the defacto standard for
development, and then Palm bought it because they could not duplicate
it for anywhere near what they would pay for it.
So, if LEGO is listening, and I _know_ they are, this is the real dawn
of the new millenium! Welcome!
Cheers,
Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at:
<http://www.hempeldesigngroup.com/lego/pbForth>
Buy "Extreme Mindstorms: an Advanced Guide to Lego Mindstorms"
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893115844/hempeldesigngrou>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: rhempel at bmts dot com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
Matthew Greene wrote:
> > I now have about 120-150 complete garage doors (I'd have to inventory to know
> > the exact #, but I have verified 120). If they offered them in Bulk tomorrow,
> > I'd order 50-200 more right away, depending on price and color selections.
>
> WOW, I knew I had lost quite a few to you, but 150! Share the wealth ;-)
Actually, I'll probably Ebay off about 50 or so of them sometime next year - I'm
keeping the colors I DON'T want in order to trade the parts for the colors I DO
want. I need very few clear/blue/transblue/grey slats, need TONS of
white/black/red/yellow slats (also need tons of black/yellow/white slotted 1x2s).
I've had many successful trades with people, part-for-part, to get the parts each of
us want.
Once I have a decent # of complete doors in the colors I want, I'll sell off a bunch
of red frames with clear/transblue slats and blue/grey bottom slats. And all those
nasty transorange slats too.
But if LEGO comes out with the doors before then, it won't bother me a bit, I'll buy
tons more of the colors I want, and keep the "unwanted" ones for special projects
here and there.
Oh, and only 103 of the doors are separate from sets - the rest are in multiple
copies of sets (which is why I don't know the exact #, I have to inventory the # of
each set I have).
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
| |
Bryan Wong wrote:
> Hmm, now that I think about my reasoning, I think I've run into a dead end.
> I'm sure a lot of you train fans spent a lot on acquiring train
> windows/doors (like your stash of 5542s), but you guys were thrilled when
> LEGO Direct made them available in bulk quantities.
Of course interestingly, the colors of doors available have never before
been available, so the value of the existing doors probably has only
dropped a little. Now windows on the other hand, well, grey windows used
to be close to the most rare (or at least most sought after - pink train
windows are the most rare - yes they exist, I have a couple - they came
in some Belville sets). Of course, as soon as I saw the first picture of
the soccer bus, my valuation of train window frames plumeted. Now the
value of clear train glass has plumeted (yup - silly me, have spent up
to $3 per piece of train glass).
> I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> remain rare!
I can understand your position, but I can't respect it. I have a dislike
for companies which make a deliberate attempt to make their product rare
when it is something general purpose. The uniqueness in your models will
be the design (any complex design will not be easily duplicated). I also
don't see something luke LEGO bricks as being something to produce truly
unique works of art. If I want a truly unique piece of art, I'll buy
from an artist who doesn't make duplicates.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
<SNIP>
> I can (and have) copywrite on the images, and the ideas/arrangements contained
> within the images.
<SNIP>
Actually, you might have copyRIGHT, but I'm not an IP lawyer, so I can't say
for sure.
Paul Sinasohn
Writer and Instructional Designer - Editor when required
LUGNET #115
|
|
| |
> As long as you are not looking at a photo of my (for sale) work when you sit
> down to build it, I don't care. Go ahead and copy the ideas from my
> skyscraper, or my (very old) sketches of the RPO (you'd have to _dig_ to find a
> copy, but it is released). I _don't care_ if you copy them. Copy _ideas_ from
> my 'sets', if you want to. If you think my door arangement is neat, fine, copy
> it. But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
James,
This is the most absurd position I have ever heard. You would get upset
with me if I saw one of your models on the Internet and tried to build it
myself with my own lego bricks, in my own room?
I don't think Lego would particularly care if I tried to build a model I
don't have with the pieces I do have. Besides, there is not a single legal
precedence you could bring up that would solidify your position.
At least not in the U.S.
Lars
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> Just keep a good watch on ebay, especially ebay.de.
>
> I managed to pick up a Metroliner, Club Car, 4539, extra circle of track, 10
> extra
> straight track sections, and 2 track switches. No boxes, but all
> instructions.
>
> Cost? $160 SHIPPED from Germany to the US. This was only about 2 months ago.
Well. Certainly that is a good thing for you, but it's also an exceedingly
rare occurance.
It also kinda misses the point of what I was writing, which is not "I want a
Metroliner but don't want to pay"; rather, it was that with two collector's
markets going after the same items, the prices gets driven up.
I and many other people don't *care* if a set is the "original" set, in boxes
and with instructions and inserts. I personally only care about getting the
elements and building.
There are people, though, who like to collect sets.
Up until a short time ago, if I decided I needed grey train windows, I was also
competing with set collectors who had decided they wanted the most prized LEGO
set (in some circles). Now, those of us who just want the elements can buy
them from LEGO Direct, while folks who want to collect the old set can still
buy that- and there are enough of them that it won't *seriously* devalue the
Metroliner set, even if LEGO went so far as to re-release a la the
Metrostation/Retrostation.
eric
|
|
| |
Hi!
I wonder why so far nobody has mentioned the new LEGO Technic product that
is shown in one of the large pictures of the photo gallery. Looks like we
will get more Cyberslam-like stuff later this year. I copied the relevant
images into the Brickshelf gallery, you can see them HERE:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=2287
NOTE: Images taken from: http://www.lego.com/press/photogallery.asp !
Bye, Christian --- xTI@N.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lugnet #479 - The World is full of AFOLs - e-mail: gech1@t-online.de
my website: members.tripod.de/crazymaniac/my_own_news.html
"Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> wrote in message
news:G54HvL.382@lugnet.com...
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
> > Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part • authours in
> > getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even • suppourting
> > the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
>
> Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
How far we have come along in a year.....
I can remember Michael Lachmann's post (and I'm paraphrasing) where he
wanted to look for a robotics application to program now that MLCad
was stable :-)
Many of us (myself included) encouraged Michael to polish MLCad into
the gem that it is today, and I have to believe that some of that
effort is going to come back to him soon.
I do not know the inner workings of TLG, but I get the following
impressions from reading posts and news releases...
1. TLG is consolidating manufacturing to reduce overhead
2. TLG is getting rid of unpopular lines (ZNAP, some of the software)
I personally like ZNAP...
3. TLG is partnering with established software vendors to release
better software.
4. TLG is tapping the AFOL market to find individuals with a passion
for the brick.
This can only be good for our community. MLCad is a really good bit of
software, and it would only be good business for LEGO to buy the product,
hire Michael and a few other AFOLs, and spin out a great CAD program.
They are just figuring out now that the Web makes it easy to release
software
and that the marketing effort required is MUCH smaller than what it used to
be.
The precedent for this is Palm Computing's purchase of the CodePilot
simulator.
This is a program that takes a binary image from a Palm device and simulates
it
on the PC. It was developed by a hobbyist, became the defacto standard for
development, and then Palm bought it because they could not duplicate
it for anywhere near what they would pay for it.
So, if LEGO is listening, and I _know_ they are, this is the real dawn
of the new millenium! Welcome!
Cheers,
Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at:
<http://www.hempeldesigngroup.com/lego/pbForth>
Buy "Extreme Mindstorms: an Advanced Guide to Lego Mindstorms"
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893115844/hempeldesigngrou>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: rhempel at bmts dot com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
> Hopefully this will blow over as I think we're mostly all saying about the
> same thing now. I missed the call to move to .debate just now but here is a
> response I put in to Lars Brandt (whose Compaq IBM analogy was well spoken I
> think)
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1371
> which says the same thing you, and James P (and everyone else?), are saying,
> essentially.
> ++Lar
For 99.99% of it, I do think we are on the same page. For that little .01%, I
believe occasionally one might be forced to take a stand in the same way that
the music industry does.
James Powell, Bricksmith.
|
|
| |
Bryan Wong wrote:
snip a lot of stuff that I wasn't going to comment on
> I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> remain rare!
Weird, I want everyone in the world to copy my trolleys, my caboose, and my
train engines (actually only two, maybe three, of them). I don't think anyone
will but hey why not dream. To be copied...what a compliment.
snip a bit more
Chris
>
> Bryan
--
PGP public key available upon request.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Christopher Masi writes:
> Bryan Wong wrote:
>
>
> snip a lot of stuff that I wasn't going to comment on
>
> > I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> > unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> > castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> > castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> > remain rare!
>
> Weird, I want everyone in the world to copy my trolleys, my caboose, and my
> train engines (actually only two, maybe three, of them). I don't think anyone
> will but hey why not dream. To be copied...what a compliment.
You might be supprised. I was just checking out your trolley yesterday and I
am seriously considering copying it either in total or at least using some of
your ideas. I like it a lot and it may one day show up on a NELUG train
layout.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
> A more serious analysis would conclude that TLC could do something better
> themselves
Actually, that's a debatable conclusion. Not that I want this to go to
.debate.
TLC definitely has the *resources* to put into such a project. So it's not
impossible that they could come up with a better LEGO CAD.
But I'm not sure that it's 'possible', from a practical perspective. There
are some things corporations just aren't capable of, and this may be one of
them. More on this in a minute.
Even if it is *possible*, I'd say it's very, very unlikely. First, we're
still outside of their target market. And outside of their core business.
Also, TLC just turned in record losses. That makes it less likely that
they'll develop our "dream LEGO CAD" software -- unless they perceive a
*very* short, direct path between their action and future profits.
Steve
|
|
| |
Christopher Masi wrote:
> Bryan Wong wrote:
>
>
> snip a lot of stuff that I wasn't going to comment on
>
> > I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> > unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> > castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> > castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> > remain rare!
>
> Weird, I want everyone in the world to copy my trolleys, my caboose, and my
> train engines (actually only two, maybe three, of them). I don't think anyone
> will but hey why not dream. To be copied...what a compliment.
>
> snip a bit more
>
> Chris
>
> >
> > Bryan
>
> --
> PGP public key available upon request.
I agree with Chris, I too want people to copy my work (if they really like it).
I have a lot of rare parts that would certainly drop in value if they were made
available again, but then I could build a building with black or gray 1x2x2
windows or low slope yellow corner bricks. If they produce rare parts again, I
will buy them in bulk. If they don't, then my buildings will remain unique, and
my rare parts will remain rare. I guess it is a win/win situation for me. But I
prefer to give others the opportunity that I had in the 1980's when I had the
rare LEGO parts market all to myself (or so I thought). And I seriously doubt
that TLC will make parts that no longer have a working mold (large spoked wheels,
older classic windows, etc).
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Kingsley writes:
> You might be supprised. I was just checking out your trolley yesterday and I
> am seriously considering copying it either in total or at least using some of
> your ideas. I like it a lot and it may one day show up on a NELUG train
> layout.
Is it... an electric trolley?
We all know how popular those are.
eric
|
|
| |
"Christian Gemuenden" <GECH1@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:G5985A.8z7@lugnet.com...
> Looks like we will get more Cyberslam-like stuff later this year.
I guess it's becoming harder and harder for those LEGO guys to come up with
another car, another heli, another tractor, another.....
Maybe with ZNAP going down the drain they've learnt a lesson. Maybe in a few
years (developing a series seems to take a while) they'll get back on track.
Maybe they can look back at some of their own great history, including
original sets like 8425&8836(planes) or 8839(tugboat). Or maybe they could
get some inspiration from the much-worshipped Jennifer Clark.
Maybe I'm just daydreaming.....
Duq
|
|
| |
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:27:26 GMT, "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com>
wrote:
>
> Also, as Suz mentioned, if the molds for a part no longer exist, they can't
> very well make the part. So we probably can't go ordering pitchforks, old
> style technic connectors (w/ teeth), classic space helmets, etc. (Although I
> wish we could!)
> DaveE
Where has it been said that the pitchfork mold is gone? We won't know
until we ask if any certain mold still exist or not. I would think
that the pitchfork mold is more likely than some to be around (I hope
anyways) as they were is less sets than the classic space helmets or
the classic window molds....
What I'd like to see (besides the pitchfork) is the cypress tree
followed by the egg-shaped/6.3 high oval tree. Oh and bulk packs of
chrome helmets.
Mike
--
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle! :^)
|
|
| |
Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> > A more serious analysis would conclude that TLC could do something better
> > themselves
>
> Actually, that's a debatable conclusion. Not that I want this to go to
> .debate.
>
> TLC definitely has the *resources* to put into such a project. So it's not
> impossible that they could come up with a better LEGO CAD.
>
> But I'm not sure that it's 'possible', from a practical perspective. There
> are some things corporations just aren't capable of, and this may be one of
> them. More on this in a minute.
>
> Even if it is *possible*, I'd say it's very, very unlikely. First, we're
> still outside of their target market. And outside of their core business.
> Also, TLC just turned in record losses. That makes it less likely that
> they'll develop our "dream LEGO CAD" software -- unless they perceive a
> *very* short, direct path between their action and future profits.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you suppose that they are using now to create
their instructions? Do they not have some system in place which they are
already using?
-John
>
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> > You might be supprised. I was just checking out your trolley yesterday and I
> > am seriously considering copying it either in total or at least using some of
> > your ideas. I like it a lot and it may one day show up on a NELUG train
> > layout.
>
> Is it... an electric trolley?
>
> We all know how popular those are.
Ooh... An inside joke ;-). Yup it is electric and it needs no "help".
For those wondering here is Chris' trolley. I happen to like it a lot.
http://cmasi.chem.tulane.edu/~lego/trains/trolleys/trolleys.htm
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3A313617.3B094C9E@uswest.net...
> Pardon my ignorance, but what do you suppose that they are using now to create
> their instructions? Do they not have some system in place which they are
> already using?
From my understanding, the instruction program is only for the purpose of making
instructions, and all of that is done in Billund. I think that the program is
desgned only for internal use (why would it be for external use anyways?)
I know that TLC uses two different systems for modelling - one for rendering
stuff like LCAD, which is more tedious than LCAD, and one for making
instructions.
Beyond that - I haven't seen anything really detailed on either of them. I've
seen internal rendering printouts and manuals for Autodesk, that's it.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> I know that TLC uses two different systems for modelling - one for rendering
> stuff like LCAD, which is more tedious than LCAD, and one for making
> instructions.
>
> Beyond that - I haven't seen anything really detailed on either of them. I've
> seen internal rendering printouts and manuals for Autodesk, that's it.
The library they use for the instructions is too complex to be used on
a PC.
Leonardo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, David Eaton writes:
<snip>
> ...So we probably can't go ordering pitchforks, old
> style technic connectors (w/ teeth), classic space helmets, etc.
> (Although I wish we could!)
If you're looking for some, there's still over 100 of them in my
BrickBay store, http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=SRC
and at the cheapest price (of BrickBay) too. :-)
Does this mean I'm going to have to wait a year for my beams?
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
Christian Gemuenden wrote in message ...
> I wonder why so far nobody has mentioned the new LEGO Technic product that
> is shown in one of the large pictures of the photo gallery. Looks like we
> will get more Cyberslam-like stuff later this year. I copied the relevant
> images into the Brickshelf gallery, you can see them HERE:
Because most of us couldn't care less about yet another fighting machine
series?
Kevin
|
|
| |
Gary Istok wrote:
> And I seriously doubt
> that TLC will make parts that no longer have a working mold (large spoked wheels,
> older classic windows, etc).
I've seen this argument before, but I want hard data to back it up.
We've all heard the bit about worn molds being cast into new build foundations to
make sure noone can use them - not COMPLETELY true, as Lego displays a few molds here
and there.
The thing people are missing here is, do they scrap UNUSED molds? I doubt it, as
they might decide to use the piece again in the future.
Case in point - garage door slotted bricks. The 1x14s are in a Ninja and Space Port
set, the 1x2s are in some castle sets.
I'm drooling over the thought that they have the slat molds in a vault somewhere,
just needing a reason to crack them out (Bulk Garage Doors! DO IT!).
Who's to say they DON'T have the molds for large spoked wheels in storage, if they
didn't wear out before they stopped production of them for sets?
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Powell writes:
>
> > But if I sit down to build something in my living room, Persons A-C can go
> > #$@! themselves. None of them get a say in what I build, or how I came upon
> > the idea of building it.
> >
> > eric
>
> As long as you are not looking at a photo of my (for sale) work when you sit
> down to build it, I don't care. Go ahead and copy the ideas from my
> skyscraper, or my (very old) sketches of the RPO (you'd have to _dig_ to find a
> copy, but it is released). I _don't care_ if you copy them. Copy _ideas_ from
> my 'sets', if you want to. If you think my door arangement is neat, fine, copy
> it. But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
I can make a copy of your work, looking at your photo or not, but that's
about as far as it goes. I cannot sell a copy of your work. I cannot
obtain an illegally duplicated copy of your instructions on how to build
your work. I cannot publish my copy of your work. I could sell the exact
parts mix to duplicate your work, but not the instructions or image to help
build it.
The "ideas" (door arrangement for example) I don't believe are
copyrightable. Those would have to be patented, which is a rather large tin
of slithery things.
Or so my understanding of copyright goes (my wife deals with intellectual
property rights), consult your lawyer and bar the door. :-)
Bruce
>
> If you think I don't _know_ that my work owes bits to others, then fine...I
> know that there are other trainheads who I have pinched ideas from. However,
> in the same vein, I know others have pinched ideas from me, and I am _not_
> worried about someone taking ideas from my models. I just want my IP to be
> respected _with regards to something I sell_. Is there something wrong with
> wanting the letter of the law to be obeyed?
>
> James Powell, Bricksmith
> http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=JamesP
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> If you do buy sets purely to build with, why does the eBay market getting hurt
> make you sad?
>
> eric
I guess, because I attribute my newly re-acquired AFOL status to being able to
get the sets I missed on eBay. Now that I can afford them, I'm glad that eBay
exists, and that people still trade MISB kits.
On the other hand, you're also right, in that I'd rather not go through the
heartache of having to throw away a box for a set (not enough room for the
Legos, let alone the boxes). What will be interesting though, is to see if we
will ever get to a TRUE per-part cost, and if that cost goes down if purchased
in quantity. I'm not talking about bricks or other elements that are easy for
Lego to manufacture: I'm talking about elements from multi-part molds and which
require assembly and/or painting for completion.
So, if in 2002 we get to the point where you can buy the Silver Champion either
as the whole kit or as a collection of custom parts, which will be more
expensive, the 8458 Silver Champion box or the "brown box" version? I have a
sense that the "brown box" version will be more expensive, mostly because Lego
will only be able to scale down to parts bags, not to individual elements
(except in special cases like turntables or other complex parts).
Right now, if you order a Lego Mosaic with a light grey background and only one
"pixel" each of the other four shades (white, grey, dark grey, and black), you
will get several bags of the light grey, but you will get no less than one bag
each of the four one-pixel colors (white, grey, dark grey, and black). This
means that you're getting 89 extra pieces of each of the four colors that you
won't use for the mosaic, right?
So, if you want to buy a "brown box" Silver Champion, you will probably have
many more extra pieces that you won't have in the 8458 Silver Champion kit.
That, by default, will almost surely increase the cost, even though Lego
doesn't have to pay for the expensive box and vacu-formed seperators, etc.
Then again, Lego may again start pre-packaging parts kits specific to older
kits. Who knows. It will be fun to watch...
- Sean
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> Maybe they can look back at some of their own great history,
> including original sets like 8425&8836(planes) or 8839(tugboat).
8425 and 8836? Nah - the best Technic plane is <set:8855> IMO
I'll bet you a Technic piece of your choice that you won't be able
to order the parts for THAT one. That prop attached to a gear piece
has to be one of the most rare pieces going. (Name me something rarer.)
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> > Maybe they can look back at some of their own great history,
> > including original sets like 8425&8836(planes) or 8839(tugboat).
>
> 8425 and 8836? Nah - the best Technic plane is <set:8855> IMO
>
> I'll bet you a Technic piece of your choice that you won't be able
> to order the parts for THAT one. That prop attached to a gear piece
> has to be one of the most rare pieces going. (Name me something rarer.)
You are completely right about the Prop Plane <set:8855>. Not only is it the
the best Technic plane but it may be the best Technic set period. It is only
1 of 2 sets in my opinion that are perfect in both form and function.
The prop assembly was only available in that set, however it was also
available as a European Service Pack from the same time.
--Jim
|
|
| |
SRC wrote:
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> > Maybe they can look back at some of their own great history,
> > including original sets like 8425&8836(planes) or 8839(tugboat).
>
> 8425 and 8836? Nah - the best Technic plane is <set:8855> IMO
>
> I'll bet you a Technic piece of your choice that you won't be able
> to order the parts for THAT one. That prop attached to a gear piece
> has to be one of the most rare pieces going. (Name me something rarer.)
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
Here are some other very rare technic parts...
locking rings from 8880 as used in the suspention
white suspention arms from 8865
and there are plenty of rare system parts including the monorail cover
from the airport shuttle.
And there are plenty of rare decorated parts like the guarded inn sign
and the nasa logo torso from that rare space shuttle set.
But are any of these rarer than that propellor? I wouldnt have a clue.
|
|
| |
If somebody can sell an exact copy of a official lego sets, using the
bricks from other sets, as "without box and instructions", I think
anybody also can reproduce and sell all of the models around the net,
including GOB sets as "without certificate". I don't think the original
model builder could have a legal support for his/her case. Also I can
still can't imagine how someone can sue others if they are currently
living in different parts of the world, having different law codes with
different interpretations of IP. I really can't imagine any code of law
outside of US which stretch the IP thing to the extreme like US ones.
Of course one can get public support (from other AFOLS) for his case and
make this supposedly "thief" of his/her original design labeled.
Selçuk
James Powell wrote:
>
> > But if I sit down to build something in my living room, Persons A-C can go
> > #$@! themselves. None of them get a say in what I build, or how I came upon
> > the idea of building it.
> >
> > eric
>
> As long as you are not looking at a photo of my (for sale) work when you sit
> down to build it, I don't care. Go ahead and copy the ideas from my
> skyscraper, or my (very old) sketches of the RPO (you'd have to _dig_ to find a
> copy, but it is released). I _don't care_ if you copy them. Copy _ideas_ from
> my 'sets', if you want to. If you think my door arangement is neat, fine, copy
> it. But, if I see something that bears a _striking_ resemblance to the
> _entirety of my work_, I am going to rase a stink.
>
> If you think I don't _know_ that my work owes bits to others, then fine...I
> know that there are other trainheads who I have pinched ideas from. However,
> in the same vein, I know others have pinched ideas from me, and I am _not_
> worried about someone taking ideas from my models. I just want my IP to be
> respected _with regards to something I sell_. Is there something wrong with
> wanting the letter of the law to be obeyed?
>
> James Powell, Bricksmith
> http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=JamesP
|
|
| |
"Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> writes:
> Christian Gemuenden wrote in message ...
> > I wonder why so far nobody has mentioned the new LEGO Technic product that
> > is shown in one of the large pictures of the photo gallery. Looks like we
> > will get more Cyberslam-like stuff later this year. I copied the relevant
> > images into the Brickshelf gallery, you can see them HERE:
>
> Because most of us couldn't care less about yet another fighting machine
> series?
As for the model aspect you are completely right,
but look on the bright side:
it comes in colors that don't hurt the eye, and
there seem to be some nice parts in it.
Jürgen
--
Jürgen Stuber <stuber@loria.fr>
http://www.loria.fr/~stuber/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Christian Gemuenden writes:
> Hi!
>
> I wonder why so far nobody has mentioned the new LEGO Technic product that
> is shown in one of the large pictures of the photo gallery. Looks like we
> will get more Cyberslam-like stuff later this year. I copied the relevant
> images into the Brickshelf gallery, you can see them HERE:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=2287
Thanks for posting these, Christian. Interesting things:
If you look at the "Cyber Sriker Part II" on the left, notice
the semi-"lower jaw" lookin' thing. That looks an awful lot
like the Bionicle Finger that has the .mecha folks in a tizzy.
Perhaps the Bioncle Hand isn't a prefab assembly, but a
construction made of these sorts of "claws"? If so, that
would bode very well for mechabuilders...very well indeed.
Even if they're not the same, that piece could come in very
handy for making larger claws or decorations for that organic
"feel." There's also some kind of pushbutton trigger mechanism,
always welcome for builders of moving creations.
I think people should care about another fighting machine
series, because this means more discounted sets with decent
pieces...in this case, straight Technic beams! :)
Anyways, my 0.02.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
"SRC" <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:G59zL1.83v@lugnet.com...
> I'll bet you a Technic piece of your choice that you won't be able
> to order the parts for THAT one. That prop attached to a gear piece
> has to be one of the most rare pieces going. (Name me something rarer.)
Maybe this one: the tailplane of 698, the Boeing 727.
Do colors count? If so, I have a clear 2x4 plate, god knows what set it's
from. (If anyone knows...)
Duq
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Wilson writes:
>
>
> SRC wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> > > Maybe they can look back at some of their own great history,
> > > including original sets like 8425&8836(planes) or 8839(tugboat).
> >
> > 8425 and 8836? Nah - the best Technic plane is <set:8855> IMO
> >
> > I'll bet you a Technic piece of your choice that you won't be able
> > to order the parts for THAT one. That prop attached to a gear piece
> > has to be one of the most rare pieces going. (Name me something rarer.)
> >
> > SRC
> > StRuCtures
> Here are some other very rare technic parts...
> locking rings from 8880 as used in the suspention
> white suspention arms from 8865
>
> and there are plenty of rare system parts including the monorail cover
> from the airport shuttle.
>
> And there are plenty of rare decorated parts like the guarded inn sign
> and the nasa logo torso from that rare space shuttle set.
>
> But are any of these rarer than that propellor? I wouldnt have a clue.
The 8858 has a small gear rack with two lobes on one side which is used for
steering. I think that this piece is only found once as well.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
>
>
> I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> remain rare!
"Rare" can be somewhat simulated by "expensive". If they produce
the "rarer" parts in smaller quantities, then those parts should
cost more to produce. They should charge a correspondingly higher
price. If they sell a 2x4 brick for 1 cent (whatever) then they
should sell garage doors for $10 each if they cost a lot to produce
in the small quantities. That may discourage people from
trying to corner the market in those parts. They'll be available,
and cheaper than auction droppings, but won't be dirt cheap.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
"Duq" <Duq@nlgateway.net> wrote in message news:G5BGrI.Iuu@lugnet.com...
> Do colors count? If so, I have a clear 2x4 plate, god knows what set it's
> from. (If anyone knows...)
6392.
It's the table on the first floor....
Cheers
Carlo.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Timm writes:
>
> Where has it been said that the pitchfork mold is gone? We won't know
> until we ask if any certain mold still exist or not. I would think
> that the pitchfork mold is more likely than some to be around (I hope
> anyways) as they were is less sets than the classic space helmets or
> the classic window molds....
Even if the molds for some of the parts we want still exist,
they may be useless. LEGO has changed the composition of
its plastics many times over the years (I'm going back to
the 50's here). The newer compounds in use today may be
incompatible with the old molds for a variety of reasons.
Also, the machines that use the molds have also changed
dramatically. New molds are probably required anyhow. At
the very least, if old molds exist and can be retrofit
to current technology, they will be exceptionally expensive
to operate.
The only value that the old molds may hold would be in
the "data". If no drawings are on file for a particular
element, but the old mold exists, then it could be
reverse engineered to recreate the part in CAD (real
engineering CAD, not our LEGO CADs). From there they
could make new tooling (molds).
Either way, we've got to accept that making older parts
may not be as cheap as current ones.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
> > Looks like we will get more Cyberslam-like stuff later this year.
>
> I guess it's becoming harder and harder for those LEGO guys to come up with
> another car, another heli, another tractor, another.....
As a Technics fan I completely agree with the the above comment - that's why
the Starwars 8000, 8001 and (especially) the 8002 sets were such a
revelation for me.
I'd like to see more of this kind of set and a shift away from 'Technics'
over-reliance on vehicles of whatever description.
To kick-start a new thread of debate, how about the following...
I would like TLC to introduce a new sub-range into the Techincs family
called, perhaps, Technics Machines. This could include many of the types of
mechanism that AFOLs have already designed; e.g. fruit machine, typewriter,
vending machine, plotter, etc. How many people know how such machines work -
the fun / educational opportunities must be immense.
But also how about; more complex robotics - human head, detailed arm / hand
assemblies etc., robotic animals able to demonstrate various forms of
movement, or tie-ins to existing robotic products; e.g. a Lego Technic
version of the Sony Aibo dog.
The possibilities for taking Lego Technics beyond the 'vehicle' rut are
endless. C'mon Lego - show us what else you can come up with...
Will
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
>
> To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
> patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
> particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
> designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
> elements of that same assemblage?
That's the real legal question. One where there may be lots of
precedent (in some countries) but may still be taken on a
case-by-case basis.
The pieces are patented (I'm not clear on LEGO's current patent
status, I seem to recall its scope changing significantly about
10 years ago). The printed materials and the product design sold
are copyrighted. If you copy any of those without persmission
you are in violation. This includes making your own pieces,
instructions, images, etc.
However, you would be allowed (in Canada, and IANAL!) to use
the pieces for whatever purpose you wish. You could build your
own designs and claim copyright over the design. TLC would
have no more right to your design than a paint company to
an artist's painting or a lumber mill to an architect's house.
Can you sell the pieces for your own personal profit? I believe
yes, *maybe* :] It depends on whether or not your sales
could hurt TLC. If you are somehow in direct competition with
them and they could demonstrate a financial loss, you could
be liable. The artist actually makes money for the paint
company, not competes with them. But someone selling MOCs
could be argued to be in competition with TLC, and using
TLCs own product against them would be a big-time bad.
Pretty much every single product in the world is made up
from patented/copyrighted elements. The manufacturers
rights are for the finished product, and do not extend
to the components. I believe you are free (again in
Canada, and again IANAL!!) to "reverse-engineer" products,
using parts of them in other products. Even bits of
software code. Or at least to determine how they are
made, to develop ideas for your own product.
TLC can no more claim rights to your set design than
you can to having made their pieces. On the other
hand if you *provide* them with the design information
directly, without a decent written agreement, you may
be out of luck...
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
> I would like TLC to introduce a new sub-range into the Techincs family
> called, perhaps, Technics Machines. This could include many of the types of
> mechanism that AFOLs have already designed; e.g. fruit machine, typewriter,
> vending machine, plotter, etc. How many people know how such machines work -
> the fun / educational opportunities must be immense.
This I like, lego needs to make technic sets with more mechanical parts
and less decorative parts.
I dont mind vechicles but they need to get away from all of these sports
cars, racing cars, motorbikes, construction equiplent (like those
excavators), trucks (like that blue tow truck that noone seems to want)
and so on.
Here are the vechicles I would look at getting
anything that flys including spacecraft
anything that goes on, in and under the water
basicly I want to see the lego set designers make something thats not
covered in decorative panels.
|
|
| |
Nope. Definitely don't have that one. I was never that big into the town
sets, and stopped getting them around '83...
Duq
"Carlo Ottolina" <kruntz@tiscalinet.it> wrote in message
news:G5Bu8q.Mu7@lugnet.com...
> "Duq" <Duq@nlgateway.net> wrote in message news:G5BGrI.Iuu@lugnet.com...
> > Do colors count? If so, I have a clear 2x4 plate, god knows what set • it's
> > from. (If anyone knows...)
>
> 6392.
> It's the table on the first floor....
>
> Cheers
> Carlo.
>
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Wilson writes:
>
> I dont mind vechicles but they need to get away from all of these sports
> cars, racing cars, motorbikes, construction equiplent (like those
> excavators), trucks (like that blue tow truck that noone seems to want)
> and so on.
Oddly enough, I do actually agree with you here - I really like it when
someone comes up with something that is not a vehicle with Technic. Saying
that, it could well be argued that the Star Wars droids are in fact also
vehicles, but then that would be me being pedantic :-)
To a certain extent, however, there is a degree of Darwinism here; one
reason that construction machinery and vehicles are prevalent in toys of all
types is simply that people (kids and adults :-) have always liked them, and
I imagine will continue to like them for a long time to come.
You also have to remember that as adult, you may have seen several Technic
ranges come and go, but for most people the lifespan of their Technic
experience will perhaps be four years or so. This essentially means that it
is possible to cycle the same type of vehicle as a different model every so
often, with the majority of "new users" not being explicity aware of the
previous incarnations.
> Here are the vechicles I would look at getting
> anything that flys including spacecraft
> anything that goes on, in and under the water
Well so far they've made various aircraft as well as the Space Shuttle, and
for underwater there was that submarine. Both of these are great models, but
as I was wittering on about yesterday, a slight problem with them is that
the shuttle won't fly and the sub won't go underwater, whereas a Technic
digger can actually be made to dig. If you are very literal about your
models, this is important, but then again, not everyone is :-)
Jennifer Clark
http://www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/
|
|
| |
> To a certain extent, however, there is a degree of Darwinism here; one
> reason that construction machinery and vehicles are prevalent in toys of all
> types is simply that people (kids and adults :-) have always liked them, and
> I imagine will continue to like them for a long time to come.
Well given whats popular how about a technic police car, ambulance, fire
truck, rescue team or something. There are lots of emergency
service/rescue type toys out there so they must be popular...
One thing that I would buy without thinking if lego ever made one is a
technic ute (pickup truck for you americans, there are some differences
but not many...
> > anything that flys including spacecraft
I guess that part of the problem with aircraft is that 90% of the
airplane toys are like jet fighters or whatever which lego wont make.
> the shuttle won't fly and the sub won't go underwater, whereas a Technic
The search sub can go underwater, lego is not going to be damaged by
water :)
|
|
| |
> And there are plenty of rare decorated parts like the guarded inn sign
> and the nasa logo torso from that rare space shuttle set.
If you are going to include printed parts, UNICEF 1x3x4 panels in blue.
I _think_ that they are amongst the rarest post 1980 pieces made. I haven't a
clue as to pre 1980 stuff, esp. for survival.
> But are any of these rarer than that propellor? I wouldnt have a clue.
Well, there were around 6K of the panels -sold-, worldwide. I think that
likely makes it the rarest official release post 1980 piece.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Wilson writes:
>
> Well given whats popular how about a technic police car, ambulance, fire
> truck, rescue team or something. There are lots of emergency
> service/rescue type toys out there so they must be popular...
Sounds pretty good to me. Lego have already had a fire engine in the Technic
range, and people sometimes mistake my red mobile crane for a fire engine,
so does that count? :-)
I like the idea of an ambulance - what functions would you have in it? A
mountain rescue Land Rover could also be a cool thing.
> One thing that I would buy without thinking if lego ever made one is a
> technic ute (pickup truck for you americans, there are some differences
> but not many...
Could you get a crane arm on the back though? :-)
> a Technic
> The search sub can go underwater, lego is not going to be damaged by
> water :)
Ach, you know fine well what I meant ;-)
Jennifer Clark
http://www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/
|
|
| |
Jonathan Wilson <jonwil@tpgi.com.au> writes:
> the shuttle won't fly and the sub won't go underwater, whereas a
> Technic The search sub can go underwater, lego is not going to be
> damaged by water :)
I wouldn't recommend exposing the pneumatics in the LEGO Technic
Search Sub (8250/8299) to water. I had some pneumatics when I was a
child, and it was all ruined from exposure to water.
Perhaps the new style pneumatics is higher quality, though, but I
would still avoid water.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
Doesn't Lego already have their own LegoCAD software? I'm not sure what
exactly it comprises or allows you to do, but it is a deritive of AutoCAD
developed by Autodesk. It is available through DACTA and I'm sure is too
expensive for an average user, but since they already have some type of
software developed, it wouldn't be too hard for them to make a smaller
version suitable for constructing models for the Lego Direct use. And if
not another version of the LegoCAD software, they always have Lego Creator,
which if it contained all the necessary pieces would be a great replacement
for LDraw. It can produce step by step instructions although I haven't been
able to take the time to do this in either Lego Creator or LDraw (with
MLCad). I'm sure some of you are a lot more knowledgeable about this than
me, but I would love to see an official product, containing all the pieces
made, available to construct models with. It would be great if it would
allow you to make a completely rendered model at the end of the process. And
of course being able to order your own instructions and completed model from
Lego.. can't wait for that..
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:qrdd7f5cwad.fsf@eos.uio.no...
> > "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
> >
> > > Hmm. As I just finished posting, before readin this, :-) ...it
> > > would be great if this software could import DAT files and convert
> > > them itself to the new format. This would save a LOT of hassle
> > > changing over the community's standard format if this software is
> > > to replace LCAD.
> >
> > I wonder if I have missed something important. When I read the
> > information in the press release that people can use a free modeling
> > program to represent their model and then submit it to buy the parts
> > needed, I thought this program would be useable only as a tool to
> > indicate what parts would be needed. Your post appears to indicate
> > that you think that this software may/will replace LDraw in all kinds
> > of aspects. Is there any information present in the press release
> > that indicates that TLC are providing the community with a new, free
> > LEGO CAD system?
>
> I don't believe you missed anything. That was an assumption on my part of how
> much potential I believe this system to have. If indeed TLC comes out with a
> better, more useful system than LCAD, people will switch to it, and gradually
> LDraw, etc. will die out.
>
> I don't know anything about their intentions with this software.
>
> Perhaps you are right...this tool may be only useful for the feature of ordering
> bricks and producing your 'set.'
>
> It would be great if TLC, with their budget, were able to develop a full
> replacement to the LCAD system - BECAUSE they have the potential to do it much
> better than we do in our spare time, and have such allies as Autodesk, etc. I
> hope that they don't design just a kiddie version, but one that's in-depth
> enough for the most advanced LCAD user out here. Will it be worth it to them?
> That's up to us to convince them of and for them to decide.
>
> > Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
> > software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
> > selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
> > needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
> > user which can be reverse engineered.
>
> We all have reason to be pessimistic, but recently I think we have more reason
> to be optimistic :-) I want to see a top-notch CAD system for the AFOLs no
> matter who makes it (well not Megabloks) - TLC or us.
>
> > BTW, you consistently post articles with lines wrapped, especially
> > quoted lines. Do you think you can increase the line length in your
> > client to avoid this? Or perhaps you can refill the paragraphs before
> > quoting them to avoid line wrapping? Just a thought.
>
> I hope this fixed it. I don't know why I didn't take care of that sooner.
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
[revisiting an old thread]
On December 6, 2000, in lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
> > software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
> > selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
> > needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
> > user which can be reverse engineered.
>
> There's a strong chance that a mutually beneficial relationship between
> L-CAD developers and TLC may emerge. LEGO is keeping a very open mind
> about new data formats.
This is kinda what I meant:
http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000/12/000020.html
> My sense is that they not only want to be able
> to import LDraw .DAT files someday (either natively or via an external
> conversion process) but that they also understand the benefits of open-
> architecture file formats. I suspect what they are likely to do with
> their proprietary modeling language is similar to what Adobe did with
> PostScript: publish detailed syntactical and semantical specifications
> of the language while retaining ownership of the language itself. Even
> though the format is still proprietary, third-party tools thrive. Open-
> architecture text-based file formats are beautiful flowers. Closed-
> architecture binary file formats are poisonous weeds. I'm pretty sure
> LEGO understands this and won't risk a mis-step.
Actually, I'm not entirely convinced that LEGO's own proprietary modeling
format will necessarily be text-based. Naturally, I think it would be
totally lame if it wasn't, but I don't want that to sound like I'm dead-set
convinced that a text-based format is what they'll ultimately decide to go
with. I hope to God that they do, but all I know for sure is that we
"extolled the virtues" of text-based formats (vis-a-vis LEGO & CAD) to
Brad J. & Torben S. in November and there was a lot of nodding.
Now if LEGO would choose some kind of SGML- or XML-based format, then --
hoohoo -- happy day. :)
--Todd (not under NDA)
|
|
|
