Subject:
|
Cats and pigeons...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 21:15:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
809 times
|
| |
|
|
I seem to have put the cat amongst the pigeons well and truly.
I have deliberately kept quiet on the 2000 scans issue until now, but have
been reading the threads with interest.
First, let me state that it was never my intention to do anything that TLC
would object to, or that would upset this 'delicate relationship' that is
apparently being fostered between TLC and AFOLs (but until now, to me at
least, was not immediately obvious)
I very much regret the trouble I have caused Todd and LUGNET, and have
apologised to him for that.
When I received the scans from my 'correspondent' by e-mail I was of course
very pleased, 'on a high' and wanted to share them with others that would be
equally pleased to see them. There is no sin in that, I'm sure you agree. My
'correspondent' who does not work for LEGO, and whom I have never met, and I
shall not be naming, made it clear that s/he wanted me to publish them. I do
not know how s/he got them, it wasn't stated, but I do not have any reason
to believe they were stolen or otherwise illegally obtained.
Having been given retailers catalogues in the past by LEGO UK (the
individual who sent them may of course not have had authority to send them
to me, but I don't know that) and seen them in local shops, I did not place
the same 'weight' on them as it seems others here have.
In December 1995 I was given the 1996 catalogue which consisted of 2 parts:
The 'Product programme', which, like the one I posted pictures from,
consists of images of the boxes, the number of sets per carton, and the
dimensions of the set boxes. Nothing controversial at all. I imagine this
catalogue is used primarily for ordering/restocking purposes and for
planning shelf layouts. Images from this type are also used in mail-order
catalogues.
The second one, 'NEW product catalogue' details the new sets that appeared
in '96 (such as western) and contains commentary (like pink=profit, although
that one isn't in the '96 issue), which is obviously aimed at enticing the
retailer into stocking the sets. Neither of them has any 'NDA' or other
legal warnings in them, but I can see that the second one of the two would
be considered more sensitive to TLC.
I can think of several instances when information from retailers catalogues
have been published, occasionally before information contained therein was
available in particular markets:
- Earlier this year, details of the Episode 1 sets were circulated, having
been gleaned from retailer's catalogues, long before they were publicly
announced.
- In January this year, someone from Australia posted a list much like the
one I did containing details of the '99 sets (and IIRC their prices), which
was before the consumer catalogue was available in that country. A few
'unannounced anywhere else' sets were also among the list.
- IIRC, BrickShelf contains a number of old retailer's catalogues.
It was therefore, as someone else has eloquently put it, not 'immediately
obvious' that it was wrong to post them.
Another thread among the ensuing argument is something about revealing sets
that TLC don't want us to know about, and 'spoiling their surprises'.
If you look at it from LEGO UK's point of view, they don't want anyone to
know anything about 2000 sets yet because our catalogue is not out yet.
Therefore BrickShelf has spoiled the surprises they have in store for us by
publishing your 2000 catalogue.
When the European catalogues appear in a few weeks time containing details
of the Mickey and dino set, will posters of those images be slated for
'spoiling your surprise' and going against LEGO US's wishes? I expect it'll
be different then.
The sets they truly don't want us to know about, like the new Mindstorms
sets and the Kids set 'The Intelligent brick' (and in 1998, Cybermaster) are
not even illustrated in the retailer's catalogue.
I am not using any of the above to justify my actions, just trying to state
my side of the story and what led to their publication. I was particularly
galled by Suzanne's dictatorial attitude and have to state that I did feel
'bullied'. At the time I did not see any reason to, and she certainly did
not put, to my mind, any valid argument forward. Todd, as usual, was calm
and collected and a put forward good reasons as to why it was perhaps not
such a good idea after all. When other 'LUGNET elders' jumped on my case, I
felt I had no option but to comply or be ostracised. I was gutted. I thought
I would be a 'hero', but ended up a villian. I can tell you I had a
sleepness night on Sunday - it happened at about 10pm local time.
So, the scans are gone, as are the entries at BrickSet, for now at least.
Michael Edwards claims to have been contacted by TLC Denmark. We shall see
what happens there.
If nothing else, it has caused a great amount of discussion about what's
acceptable and what is not when it comes to LEGO's copyrighted material. If
only we had some solid guidelines, none of this would have happened.
Thanks to all of you who have 'stuck up for me' and sent me e-mail messages
of support. I hope this incident has not sullied my reputation as a solid
and reliable trading partner and source of LEGO information.
I'm going to be offline for a few days (up the the UK LEGOFest, at which I
am hoping not to get a too frosty reception) so I won't be able to reply to
any comments to this message.
Huw
New CtoF: First person to have a message cancelled on LUGNET for legal
reasons :-)
|
|
Message has 12 Replies:
 | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| Todd, You and Suz should really rethink your stance. Go and read the Fairness Statement and take a little time to think it over. Then I would suggest an apology to Huw and a repost of the infamous posting. As for Huw, I like him now more than ever, (...) (24 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| Huw Millington <hmillington@cix.co.uk> wrote in message news:FMHsL2.FJw@lugnet.com... (...) If it makes any difference, I don't think your reputation is at all "sullied." Rather, I think you handled a difficult situation rather gracefully. Even (...) (24 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| Not that it matters to you, but my opinion of you is undiminished in the least bit by the whole mess. As far as I'm concerned, your reputation is intact. I never understood the line of reasoning that you were endangering our "relationship" between (...) (24 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) <snipped well-written message> Huw, I don't think there is anyone who thinks less of you over this whole thing. I certainly don't. While I have come to agree with Todd about the potential of damage, I, like you hadn't even *considered* the (...) (24 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| To Huw, I meant you no harm and think no ill of you. my apologies. To Everyone, I want no leaks posted to LUGNET. If there is any chance your data may be a leak, obtain clearance from appropriate parties at the LEGO Company. If it's fine with them, (...) (24 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) I never thought of that! I wonder if we can ask them indirectly through LEGO Direct? Question is - if they do mind, what can be done about it? I guess if they sychronised their releases it wouldn't be an issue :) (...) Yeah, that is worrying (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| First off, Huw, I don't think anyone thinks any less of you, certainly not me. I am wondering if in a way, Huw caused a positive response from TLC. The timing of the LEGO Direct announcement is sort of interesting. It almost seems a reasonable time (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) Huw rocks! So do Todd, Suzanne, and Kevin! No one is hurt or sullied -- just a small squabble -- we'll all get over it soon enough. Y'all are some of the stars in the Lego fan firmament... I know how Huw loves Lego literature, so what he did (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| Keep up the good work Huw. Personally, I appreciate all the work you do for me, as a AFOL, in maintaining and updating your site. When I want the official line on Lego line I'll go to www.lego.com, at all other times I'll rely on my fellow AFOL's (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| (...) Huw, You still have our utmost respect. We all do things that in retrospect, maybe we would have done differently. Todd and Suzanne, If anyone is upset with you, then Oh Well, you're not going to please everyone. You have done a wonderful job (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| Huw Millington <hmillington@cix.co.uk> wrote in message news:FMHsL2.FJw@lugnet.com... (...) <snip> I'm with the idea that you describe well in your (snipped) posting. You've done well, both by posting them, and making them down...:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
| [liberal snippage] "Huw Millington" <hmillington@cix.co.uk> wrote in message news:FMHsL2.FJw@lugnet.com... (...) sets (...) by (...) Hi Huw, Hey, just so there's no hard feelings, let me just say that I find you to be a valuable part of the AFOL (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
