Subject:
|
Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 21:44:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
727 times
|
| |
|
|
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 :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Cats and pigeons...
|
| 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
