 | | Re: newly scanned/dig-photographed: c83usts
|
|
Ok, forget about it. most of the pictures weren't nearly as good quality as I made it sound. (although a few [2 of 12], surprisingly, were) I'm going to borrow a friend's scanner and scan these the REAL way. sorry pplz. Jonathan Gevaryahu (...) (26 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Scans on CD?
|
|
The last time I complained to Ebay about someone selling instruction CD's they sent me a form letter stating that the rights owner should join Ebay's VERO program and kill the auctions themselves. Apparently it wasn't blatant enough for Ebay to take (...) (26 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Scans on CD?
|
|
(...) This has come up before, and I think that eBay said something like "If Lego says that it's not ok, we'll take it down". If you don't think it's right, it wouldn't hurt to complain to eBay. If enough people complain about one auction, someone (...) (26 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Scans on CD?
|
|
Hey: Check out: (URL) like a cool collection, but I think the suggestion is that the majority of the instruction manuals are on cd (thanks to brickshelf). It just seems wrong to me to capitalize on the generosity of others -- and if anyone was to do (...) (26 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | newly scanned/dig-photographed: c83usts
|
|
I have just located an old 1983 catalog at a friends house (c83usts, in VERY GOOD SHAPE, a few barely noticible creases) I took hi-quality pictures of all the pages, including both covers with a digital camera, with 1280x1024 fine jpg compression (...) (26 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote: [...] (...) For the record Kevin, I strongly respect your position on this. -Suz. (26 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) You should trade the work back to them for $500K in bulk ordered specialty parts -- and then share it with all of us member lugnuts. In all honesty, it would be fair... -- Richard (26 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) Forgive me if my memory is faulty -- but I thought it was you, Kevin, who interpreted a statement of Brad Justus' to mean that up to the present/current scans were okay. I think it was stated in one of those tedious threads about the Huw (...) (26 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) The original purpose of the scans archive was as an historical archive. (...) It would cost them well over $500K, perhaps $1.5M do do it themselves. (...) I'm not opposed to having current sets but the current policy stands unless TLC offers (...) (26 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
Richard Marchetti wrote in message ... (...) disregard (...) get a (...) care; (...) making (...) Exactly. If Lego has a problem they will let it be known. At the very least, how about some 1998 scans? www.brickshelf.com still says no scans after (...) (26 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
