Subject:
|
Re: Cataolgs, Justus and Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 03:56:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1235 times
|
| |
|
|
Ryan Dennett wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Tony Kilaras writes:
> > I have read and understand the policies regarding the scanning of • catlaogs.
> >
> > I disagree with any policy purporting to restrict the scanning of any
> > catalog, instruction, advertisement, photograph or any material that
> > concerns any currently or previously available lego product. It is a • tragedy
> > that Huw decided to remove his excellent preview scans and that Kevin has • to
> > impose a ridiculous restriction against post 1997 set instructions on his
> > web site. Lego ignores the AFOL community for decades, and now that they
> > finally decide to start getting with it I suppose we all have to roll over
> > and play dead.
>
> And I suppose that now that you AFOLs have Lego's attention, that you would
> like them to start ignorring you again because you openly brake the rules • that
> they have set forth??
Brake the rules huh?
I hope the high hopes you have placed in this Close Encounter of The Lego
Kind will be fulfilled.
> Like I'm sure many people have said, those were not
> preview scans, they were illegally scanned(knowingly or not, we don't know) • and
> illegally posted on a webpage(not done with the intention of breaking the
law)
Big deal. I could understand all the hulaboo if these were Futura
prototypes or something.
> Also like Kevin said, the restriction that HE imposes on HIMSELF is very
> logical because the only scans he allows are those of sets that are no • longer
> in production, and thus not redily available.
Would be nice if no restriction had to be imposed at all ie, Lego did the
right thing and told him that current instruction scans were ok.
> How would you like it if you had pictures of your models on a website with
> something to the effect of "do not re-publish or re-print these images" on • the
> page, and then next thing you know those pictures are in a magazine. You
> wouldn't be very happy would you? Well according to what you said above, it
> doesn't matter how you feel or what you want, because everything is free to • be
> used however someone wants, etc.
Above all else, I'm a realist and I would *expect* taht to happen. This is
the Internet, where it's all out there, and it's all for free.
> > I encourage anyone who has any interesting tidbits about Lego that would • be
> > deemed "inapporpriate" by the misuided to share them with those of us who • do
> > not appreciate having morality dictated to them. However, please use the
> > rec.toys.lego newsgroup or e-mail and not LUGNET, as this is Todd's place
> > and his stance on the issue is clear. Although I disagree with it, I
> > understand why he has to do it.
>
> Ooohh, looks to me like you're just asking to be revoked posting privilages • to
> Lugnet. If I were Todd, I wouldn't hesitate because I wouldn't want people • who
> openly brake or want to brake laws being able to post to my TOTALLY • EXCELLENT
> Lego newsgroup.
That are you talking about? Rec.toys.lego isn't my newsgroup.
> Just my $.02, but I think you're being a total jerk among other things(1)
>
> Ryan
> [1] You as a person may be OK, but your attitude stinks
I'd like to rip you a new one, but Todd asked that I refrain from using
profanity.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cataolgs, Justus and Lego
|
| (...) And I suppose that now that you AFOLs have Lego's attention, that you would like them to start ignorring you again because you openly brake the rules that they have set forth?? Like I'm sure many people have said, those were not preview scans, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
