| |
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 :-)
|
|
| |
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, and I will continue to think he was bullied until some
real reason is presented as to why he did anything wrong. TLC has yet to
contact you, to my knowledge, thanking you for quashing the evil information
leak, so back off of Huw and restore his good name. This was an imagined
scare that only hurt a genuinely decent LUGNET user. TLC was not and is not
hurt in the least, so self-imposed rules and ethics be damned! It is no fun
to try to help others out only to be loudly, and often rudely, criticized for
it based on someone else's unqualified opinion.
Thank you for your time,
Mark L
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
> 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 :-)
|
|
| |
Huw Millington <hmillington@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FMHsL2.FJw@lugnet.com...
>
> 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.
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 though on balance I agree with Todd that this could cause
more trouble with TLC than it's worth, I also know that if I had been given
these scans I would have posted them for all to see as well (absent clear
indication that doing so was illegal).
-John Van
|
|
| |
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 AFOL's and Lego. As I understand the relationship,
they produce high quality bricks that we know and love, and we buy them to
build with. That's the extent of. Save for a possible handful of exceptions
out there, has Lego REALLY ever done anything for us beyond the
producer/consumer relationship? If they truly are upset my your actions, what
will they do? Not allow us to buy their product? I seriously doubt it.
A lot has been said to the affect of, "Oh well Suz knows a lot about things
like this". Maybe it's none of my business, but how do we know that? What
does she know? What is it that makes this retail catalogue so secretive? As
has already been pointed out, and to the best of my knowledge, no information
was made available regarding MSRP, retail cost, marketing, etc. There were
just pictures of Lego sets we can expect. Huw, is it stated, implicitly or
explicitly, anywhere in that catalogue that the information contained there in
is priviledged for the exclusive use of the retailer? If it does, I would say
that Suz et al are correct, and that it should not have been made available.
If not, then what is the big deal?
For the record, I have had access to these at TRU in the past as well. I
asked if I could have it, and was promptly told no, but they were more than
happy to let me look at it.
Also in Todd's defense, I have to agree 100% with the way he handled things.
He stated his feelings, but he kept the integrity of Lugnet on an unparalled
level. He could have easily said, "Well it's my ball, and if you don't want
to play how I want you to play, I'm going home." He could have just cancelled
all references to the post. But he didn't. He let Huw decide on his own what
to do. That took a lot of integrity.
As for the people who first jumped on this, why couldn't it have been done in
private via e-mail? Did it have to be public knowledge that you disagreed?
Eric
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
>
> 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)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
> 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.
<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 implications
until someone else had pointed it out.
My personal opinion is that seeing these pictures isn't worth the potential
blacklash from Lego, but after posting to the threads a couple times I
stopped, because the ill-will was escalating on several fronts, and I just
didn't want to contribute to that.
Thank you for putting up those scans. Thank you for taking them down.
Have fun at the Legofest!
:)
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
John VanZwieten wrote in message ...
> 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.
I will second that.......
Eric
|
|
| |
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, it's fine with
me. LUGNET plays by their rules. period.
- Suzanne D. Rich
co-administrator of LUGNET
|
|
| |
Suzanne D. Rich <suz@media.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:FMHxHr.1p1@lugnet.com...
> To Huw,
>
> I meant you no harm and think no ill of you.
> my apologies.
Apology accepted. Thanks.
Huw
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Rose Regner writes:
>
> John VanZwieten wrote in message ...
>
> > 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.
>
> I will second that.......
>
> Eric
i will move to vote that Huw is one cool dude.
later ~ craig~
|
|
| |
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, craig hamilton wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Rose Regner writes:
> > John VanZwieten wrote in message ...
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I will second that.......
>
> i will move to vote that Huw is one cool dude.
At the risk of turning lugnet general into a Huw love-fest, I will agree.
Huw is a great person on-line, and I think he acted appropriately and with
great dignity throughout this episode. Three cheers!
-Laura Gjovaag
|
|
| |
Laura Gjovaag wrote
> At the risk of turning lugnet general into a Huw love-fest, I will agree.
> Huw is a great person on-line, and I think he acted appropriately and with
> great dignity throughout this episode. Three cheers!
>
> -Laura Gjovaag
The love-fest thing is a worry, but when people whip up a hurricane of
serious-minded doubt and high-minded concern, the rest of us do need to poke
our heads up and say 'bollocks'.
So, ah, bollocks to them, and good work Huw.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
> 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.
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 :)
> 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.
Yeah, that is worrying :/ Hopefully it is just a warning.
> 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.
Agreed!
> 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.
Looking forward to meeting you! I don't know what you mean about the frosty
reception though :) As perhaps the most ranty Brit on the threads you might
mean me, so I'll just restate what I think :) That I was debating whether
retailers catalogues should be posted, not whether you should have posted or
not. In your position I would have probably done the same thing - it just
wasn't an issue at the time!
I have nothing but respect for you, and in fact I was rather hoping that I
wouldn't get too frosty a reception. Maybe I'll just pretend to be someone
else, "No sorry, Richard couldn't make it, I'm his good twin." :)
Richard
|
|
| |
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 for hurried conferences amongst the TLC management
chain and with the lawyers, resulting in a decision that now was the time to
come out of the closet in a big way.
Other interesting data points:
- The scuttling of mail order from the outlet store (could this have been
because TLC has bigger plans, and doesn't want to set incorrect expectations
and assumptions of what services might be available)
- The lack of response about the train parts bulk order (it may have caused
wheels inside TLC to churn, along with a decision NOT to do it wrong too
early)
- Closing of several offices. While this falls in with the general belt
tightening, an online ordering system would obviate the need of so many
fulfillment centers (though they will still need facilities in each
geography to enable reasonably quick fulfillment of orders).
- Even the rumors of no more parts packs. If instead, LEGO Direct is going
to offer a more comprehensive parts ordering service, LS@H might very well
discontinue the parts packs, I bet they're a bit of a headache in some ways.
Of course LS@H may not remain as a separate entity.
Conspiracy warning for the following...
I seriously doubt that this would be the case, but what if the scans were
sent to Huw to test the response of the AFOL community? If so, I would say
that we passed the test since Brad is suggesting the use of a Lugnet
newsgroup as an OFFICIAL channel.
On the subject of more official recognition of Lugnet, I can only think that
this has come in part because Todd and Suzanne have shown themselves to be
responsible hosts, balancing the needs of AFOLs and TLC. I also would not be
surprised to hear later that Todd and Suzanne were already in communication
with TLC about these goings on. I can see the sensitivity of this would be
such that they would keep any hints to an extreme minimum (thinking about
it, I can see some things that might well be hints).
One might ask though, if the lines of communication are so open, why didn't
TLC post to Lugnet a request about the scans. Possibilities might include:
Not wanting to look like TLC was running the show or not wanting to spill
the beans.
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Frank Filz writes:
> First off, Huw, I don't think anyone thinks any less of you, certainly not
> me.
> On the subject of more official recognition of Lugnet, I can only think that
> this has come in part because Todd and Suzanne have shown themselves to be
> responsible hosts, balancing the needs of AFOLs and TLC. I also would not be
> surprised to hear later that Todd and Suzanne were already in communication
> with TLC about these goings on. I can see the sensitivity of this would be
> such that they would keep any hints to an extreme minimum (thinking about
> it, I can see some things that might well be hints).
I have to add my voice to everyone else's here, and agree with the comments
about Huw, in his shoes, I would've put them up also, when he got jumped on he
couldnt've acted in a more responsible manner.
Now, to the comment Frank made about Todd and Suz, I was wondering why their
voices havent been heard welcoming Lego's new involvement, (or did I miss it?)
surely it must be that they knew, and it wasnt any surprise.
This is interesting, I thought, and what a fine thing if Todd and Suz are
right in the thick of our new relationship with Lego - as our spokespeople!
As I know, that they know, what we want and need cause they have the same
wants and needs (that was a garbled way of saying it, but you know what I mean)
Rachel :-)
|
|
| |
"Suzanne D. Rich" wrote:
> 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, it's fine with
> me. LUGNET plays by their rules. period.
Can you provide names and phone #s for contacts? TLC seems to make it hard to
contact them (except for Brad's post today).
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
> 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.
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 came as no surprise. He
is a true fan, nothing more or less than that. And I would do another deal
with Huw in a heartbeat. There are none more reliable than Mr. Millington.
I am still finding Suzanne's posts a little "frosty," but she and Todd are THE
most likely suspects for the new thing with TLC. And while I am not certain
of this, I gather she is somehow involved with the Lego side of MIT's Media
Lab -- yes? Her responses to the scan scandal are probably very closely
linked to behind the scenes goings on that we other AFOL may never know
about. If so, I for one am hugely grateful. And if not, her intentions too
are pure-- VERY pure -- so who can fault her for her vehement tone? And as
long as the rules are established up front, no one has room to complain after
that. And that was the whole problem, Huw had nothing to go on -- so he
decided the issue with the heart and mind of a fan -- enthusiastically and
generously!
My respect and admiration to you all,
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tom Stangl writes:
> "Suzanne D. Rich" wrote:
>
> > 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, it's fine
> > with me. LUGNET plays by their rules. period.
>
> Can you provide names and phone #s for contacts? TLC seems to make it hard to
> contact them (except for Brad's post today).
If I had such info, I'd be happy to pass it along to you. But unfortunately, I
don't. I wish I could be of more help.
Personally, if I had a question about say, a price list or maybe the propper
wording of a disclaimer, I'd call CT and tell them I had a legal question
regarding their online republishing policies -- that I was looking for
guidelines. I'd expect to get bounced around a bit, may have to be persistant.
But once I got to the right person and asked all my questions, I'd be sure to
ask him/her if I may pass along their answers and/or their name for other such
questions. This way, I'd have the ok to talk about my experience online and
could pass along the contact info -- hopefully helping both parties.
LEGO may be surprised at how many calls they got. And maybe with questions they
hadn't answers to right away. Might even have to hire more help! :-)
-Suz.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> 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, it's fine • with
> me. LUGNET plays by their rules. period.
So, just to be clear, LUGNET is no longer a place we should post:
- Price lists gleaned from Toys R Us computers?
- Pointers to websites that have images of sets before their release (ie,
TheForce.net, TheOuterRim.com, etc)?
Both of these things seem to be directly in violation of the new hard-lined
terms you're setting forth, and yet both are things that have been fairly
standard things during the period before new set releases in the past. I
remember when the prototype X-Wing was being debated...
Anyway, looks like it's back to reading r.t.l. to keep up with the most
up-to-date news...
eric
|
|
| |
First, I think Huw is aces. As do we all, no doubt.
Richard Marchetti wrote:
> I am still finding Suzanne's posts a little "frosty,"
I'll go with "direct" :-)
Quoting from Suzanne's membership listing:
http://www.lugnet.com/people/members/?m=2
"Words which best describe me: blunt, driven, creative." :-) (1)
Frosty is a bit over the top for me, but then I've known her and her
communication style for some time.
> but she and Todd are THE
> most likely suspects for the new thing with TLC. And while I am not certain
> of this, I gather she is somehow involved with the Lego side of MIT's Media
> Lab -- yes?
Yes. Suzanne recently was admitted to a program of study and research at
the MIT Media Lab. I believe that is a matter of public record at this
point.
1 - I spent a little time reading the first 50 of these and I beleive
I'm the only person who put "arrogant" down on their self describing
words... :-)
(http://www.lugnet.com/people/members/?m=5)
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
| |
Lorbaat wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
>
> > 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, it's fine • with
> > me. LUGNET plays by their rules. period.
>
> So, just to be clear, LUGNET is no longer a place we should post:
>
> - Price lists gleaned from Toys R Us computers?
>
> - Pointers to websites that have images of sets before their release (ie,
> TheForce.net, TheOuterRim.com, etc)?
>
> Both of these things seem to be directly in violation of the new hard-lined
> terms you're setting forth, and yet both are things that have been fairly
> standard things during the period before new set releases in the past. I
> remember when the prototype X-Wing was being debated...
>
> Anyway, looks like it's back to reading r.t.l. to keep up with the most
> up-to-date news...
>
> eric
Oh, I'm sorry, with this topic, for a while I thought I was in
RTL.....(heh-heh).
Not me, I'm gonna stay in LUGNET. The discussions in RTL can get so heated, so
vulgar, so......."lower middle class" :-)
I find LUGNET more civil. Not the wrabble you can find in RTL.
Even with this heated discussion, we are still basically civil (you can agree
to disagree).
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
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 for what _is_ happening in the world of
Lego.
Scott A
|
|
| |
Huw Millington wrote:
> 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 :-)
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 with LUGNET, and I hope you continue. It would be
a pitty to have TLC "pull the plug". And in these times of building (rather
than burning) bridges, we need to be responsible with our actions. Granted many
of us have an attitude about TLC, (I for 12 years) but we should try to stay the
high ground.
Oh well I better quit with the cliche,
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> So, just to be clear, LUGNET is no longer a place we should post:
>
> - Price lists gleaned from Toys R Us computers?
Those would probably be the property of Toys R Us, so you'd have to ask them
to know for sure whether it's OK. If posting the lists doesn't infringe on
any of Toys R Us's privacy rights, then I wouldn't think it would be a
problem. (Note: I've never worked for TRU and I'm not familiar with their
policies.)
IMHO, it would be most respectful to TRU to ask permission from a supervisor
(or someone knowledgeable at TRU) before extracting and posting such data, in
case TRU happens to consider the data sensitive and/or proprietary prior to
its becoming publicly available on the scanning stations.
Perhaps someone working for TRU can volunteer to find this out and report
back. If what they learn is that TRU does not want its price lists gleaned
from its computers posted on the Internet, then yes, absolutely LUGNET is not
(never was) a place anyone should post such price lists. But again, it's
the poster's responsibility to get this straight one way or the other first.
That's fair, right?
> - Pointers to websites that have images of sets before their release (ie,
> TheForce.net, TheOuterRim.com, etc)?
I personally don't see any problem with this, depending on how the pointers
are worded. Simply reporting upon the existence of something somewhere else,
no matter how illegal (including posting URLs of information contained on
other publicly accessible servers, for purposes of discussion) can hardly be
construed as infringing on anyone's rights. Then again, I am not a lawyer,
so don't take this as legal advice. I'm sure it's an extremely gray area.
Eric, the several pointers you posted last Spring were (in my opinion) 100%
fine (except for one where you quoted someone else's presumably copyrighted
text, but I think you voluntarily cancelled that one). Perhaps they were
even a little bit more on the conservative side than they needed to be, but
I think you were just trying to be careful and respectful...?
Basically:
- Use common sense, but lean toward careful and away from rogue or clumsy
- Don't get yourself in trouble, don't get us in trouble
- Don't do anything to piss off LEGO Legal
- Don't make a bad name for AFOLs
- Play fair
- etc., etc.
IMHO, these sorts of "rules of thumb" ought to apply anywhere: here or in
RTL, or on some mailing list, or basically any hobby, not just LEGO.
Yes, you may have to, at times, voluntarily restrict yourself if you're
unsure whether something is a problem or not. (But how many areas of social
life as a human aren't like that?)
I know "this is the Internet." I know the Internet is famous for passing
around millions of things illegally every day. However, each individual site
on the Internet is a subset of the Internet and runs by its own local set of
guidelines, which may or may not agree with the whole. If people want to do
illegal things outside of this site, fine, I don't (and couldn't) care. And
I realize that's going to happen whether I care or not, and forever and ever.
But if people want to do illegal things here, well, this really isn't the
place for that. That's not why it was set up. It never was, and I think
this was made pretty clear from the beginning.
(Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting... I'm not, I'm just on a philosophical
roll.)
> Both of these things seem to be directly in violation of the new hard-lined
> terms you're setting forth,
Well, there actually aren't any _new_ terms being set forth. I think
everything Suzanne said was trying to clarify parts of #6 of the Discussion
Group Terms and Conditions (which haven't changed since September, 1998).
It's not the site administrator's responsibility to monitor every posting
and tell people whether or not they're breaking some law or tromping on
someone's rights -- it's the poster's sole responsbility. And that's true
anywhere -- even on Usenet. (It's just that on Usenet, nobody hardly ever
seems to care one way or the other. That's just the culture there.)
BTW, even if there were new terms being set forth here via news postings,
you wouldn't necessarily have to abide by them (except where they were
already covered by local laws) unless you somehow had agreed to them.
> and yet both are things that have been fairly
> standard things during the period before new set releases in the past.
> I remember when the prototype X-Wing was being debated...
I'm not aware of any privacy or publicity rights which were violated on this
site in connection with those incidents. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and
it's not my responsibility to monitor such things either. Some things stand
out, some things don't. What went up earlier this week was clearly (to me)
stepping over the line, albeit innocently and unknowingly. But that's why I
felt I had to say something.
I hope this helps shed light on the issues, and I hope I've answered your
questions well enough. (If not, I'm not sure what else I could add -- I
think I wrote everything I could think of.) But feel free to ask more
questions if anything's still fuzzy.
--Todd
|
|
| |
Huw Millington <hmillington@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FMHsL2.FJw@lugnet.com...
> I seem to have put the cat amongst the pigeons well and truly.
<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
|
|
| |
[liberal snippage]
"Huw Millington" <hmillington@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FMHsL2.FJw@lugnet.com...
> 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.
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 community and my opinion of you has not been
lowered one iota. You are a top notch Lego dealer and enthusiast in my
mind.
I was one of the ones who brought up this particular angle of the
discussion,
that you mention above. Frankly, much of this does com down to a lot of
'hair splitting'. My main goal in bringing up the point about the marketing
of the product was to remind everyone that there's more to these types of
issues and decisions of what "can be published" and what is "fair play" than
legalese and corporate policy. Basically, what I am saying is that behind
all that, there are real people out there who work their butts off to market
this product -- many of whom love it as much as we do -- and we owe it to
them to respect that. That's all. I was not trying to make an example of
you or anyone. Rather I was just making a point in general.
> 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.
I'd say that the difference here is that this is consumer level media we
are talking about. Yes, consumer media from one country may in fact be, in
effect, "a sneak peak" at what's to come, for another country. But I'd say
that it's up to marketing folks at TLC to take these things into account
(just as any international company must) and plan accordingly.
> 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.
True enough, and an excellent point.
|
|
|
