| |
For the sake of community harmony, I'll try to get a quick resolution to this.
I honestly don't have all these answers right now, but I'll be in Billund
early next week, and will obtain clarification (mine is not the only voice in
determining such policies). In the meantime, this is your community, and of
course you are free to conduct your dialogue as you see fit, but... I think it
would benefit everyone if we could simply put the fracas on hold for a few
days. (In other words, until we have some answers, let's not post anything
questionable, and let's not argue about it.) I'll try to have a response back
to you all by Tuesday.
-- Brad
Brad Justus
Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
legodirect@lego.com
In lugnet.dear-lego, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Dear LEGO
>
> Right now there is a bit of a brouhaha brewing about Y2K information.
> Bad feelings are rising and tempers are fraying.
>
> It would be helpful if you would formally reply as to what your position
> on stuff that can be found on your website is. Someone is in danger of
> having their LUGNET posting privileges yanked because they were able to
> find images on your website that have some 2K information.
>
> Here are a few questions
> - Is it your position that only images that can be navigated to using a
> series of clicks starting at www.lego.com are to be viewable, and
> whether or not an image is on your public website is irrelevant?
> - Is it your position that if an image was reachable that way in the
> past, but no longer is, that it is not to be viewable?
> - Fairplay says that images of catalog items are OK for fannish
> noncommercial use. If something was saved by one of us because it WAS
> publicly viewable, but now isn't, isn't it of historical value? (for
> example, images of the 1999 sets several years in the future would not
> be on your site any more because they will no longer be available. But
> having these in the Lugnet database will be invaluable)
> - Why do your web developers use a "public side of the firewall" server
> for staging? This is just asking for trouble. That one really has my
> scratching my head. It's bad IP law practice as it erodes your rights in
> most jurisdictions.
>
> It would also be helpful if you would formally clarify what your
> position on retailer catalogs are.
> - IS a retailer catalog OK to be viewed by the public? If it is, WHEN is
> it? before the sets are generally available (almost certainly not!)
> While the sets are available (maybe a good idea, maybe not) Several
> years after they go out of production (excellent for research purposes
> and I'd encourage it)
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> 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 :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
2 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
