Subject:
|
Re: neither sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company? (was : Re: an update -- and an apology)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 May 2000 19:15:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
294 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> 1. If you will/have accept money either directly or indirectly, or openly or
> anonymously, from TLC/TLG do you think it would be misleading if the welcome
> on the homepage (quoted below) did not change? (ie : Would you change it?)
We hope to change the text on the homepage as soon as we have more information
from Brad and his counsel/attorney(s) about exactly what the donation means in
his mind. His letter which accompanied the donation mentioned that it was
"made with 'no strings attached' whatsoever' but went on to say in the same
paragraph that "We at LEGO ask only that we may participate in LUGNET in a
manner best suited to your needs and that of your community of AFOLs." This
ambiguity is partly what prompted our overnight-mail reply letter last
Thursday, excerpted at the bottom here:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=6483
Our acceptance letter reiterated our understanding, in writing, that the
donation did not imply any agreement between LUGNET and LD or LSI or LEGO.
If it should come to light that LD's intention behind the donation was in fact
to secure some kind of agreement, however, then we'll have to return the
donation. We don't want any kind of obligation to LEGO (well, if they wanted
to donate ten million dollars, that might be a different story ;-). The part
of the letter shown in "[...]" was a paragraph reiterating to Brad that he is
welcome as always to participate in LUGNET discussion groups, subject of
course to LUGNET's Terms of Use Agreement (and included a printed copy).
IOW, LUGNET is under no legal or moral obligation to Brad or to LEGO Direct
or to LEGO regarding the formation or use of the discussion groups.
> "Welcome to the international fan-created LEGO® Users Group Network! This
> is a place for LEGO® fans of all ages to find information, meet one another,
> and share ideas. As an independent site by fans, for fans, it is neither
> sponsored nor endorsed by the LEGO Company."
>
> I think it could be very slightly misleading right now, as by posting here
> it could be argued that TLC/TLG are endorsing LUGNet?
Hmm, it could be maybe possibly argued, yes, in some sense of the word
"endorse" (it's a multi-definition word, after all) -- but I certainly
would not consider Brad's having posted here to be any kind of endorsement
(in either the approval sense or the legal sense) without an official public
statement from the very top (i.e., the CEO of LEGO), accompanied by an
official written letter from the top as well, and hopefully also co-signed
by at least one TLC attorney.
I think it could more easily be argued that TLC's (LD's) posting here is
simply an opportunistic use of the groups to its advantage. Surely online
discussion groups like RTL and the ones here must be a wonderful marketing
tool for LEGO Direct and may allow LEGO Direct to realize its plans weeks
(if not months) earlier than would be possible without the groups.
I do hope that a variety of areas of TLC "decloak" over time and participate
in meaningful ways, but I'm not holding my breath for any big sweeping
changes anytime soon. LEGO Direct's involvement is a win-win for LEGO and
its adult customers, and what better place to test-market something than a
captive and willing audience? (That's the only way I can view things,
anyway, based evidence available to me so far. Hopefully we'll be able to
learn more in an upcoming FTF meeting with Brad in a couple of weeks.)
> 2. If TLC/TLG did want to give an anonymous donation, what would their
> motives possibly be for doing this? If it is to allow me, and others like
> me, to think that LUGNet was independent of them - do you not think that is
> a little disingenuous ?
Quick answer: yes. Long answer: I have no idea what their motives would be,
but if they did ever request that some donation remain anonymous (which they
haven't) for the purpose of misleading others (not that there's any way to
actually prove intention), I would completely agree in that case that it would
be disingenuous. But that's just a pure hypothetical which I hope it never
happens. I'm relieved that BradJ mentioned on his own that he would like to
apprise the community of the donation after it was accepted. (I'm not sure,
BTW, if he actually has our acceptance letter in his hand yet -- according to
the USPS website it was received in his return-address in Enfield last Friday
but LSI may not have forwarded it on to him in NYC yet.)
BTW, for reasons which should be obvious, we also requested via e-mail to
Brad that he give the opportunity to review his statement regarding the
donation prior to his posting it. Haven't heard back yet on that, and have
no idea when Brad intends to announce the donation, but I would assume it
would be after he receives our written acceptance letter.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
