Subject:
|
Re: Enough already
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:41:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1877 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, "R2" <r2eng@primenet.com> writes:
> I may be in the minority here, however I am really tired of all the
> complaints people are having about the post from Brad Justus, concerning the
> legality of Lego scans.
>
> We asked for clarification from LEGO and we got it!! I may not agree with
> it, but I will respect it. It's not my company!!!!! Please have some respect
> for their opinions.
Hear, hear! IMHO, all of this backlash is ridiculous. The LEGO Company is
being *extremely* generous in allowing scans of any their copyrighted materials
up on websites *at all*[1]. Yet, all some people can do is complain that they
aren't getting enough.
Someone yesterday even called it a "tragedy" that recently leaked retailer
catalog scans were taken down, calling them "previews" rather than what they
really were. Short of calling statements like that entirely absurd, it's hard
not to point out that statements like that show immense amounts of disrespect.
It's good to nail down legal idiosyncracies (tactfully and politely, as Larry
did) and to separate the true legalities from the polite wishes, but there's a
point where all of the bickering and ungratefulness turns sour and becomes
nothing but annoying noise for Brad and his colleagues. I don't think LEGO
Direct came here to be disrespected.
FWIW, Rose, I suspect that you're actually in the majority rather than the
minority; it only takes a few loud-mouths to make a big uproar, and I sense
that people who do respect LEGO as a company are generally keeping their mouths
quiet or standing up to defend its ideals.
> Kevin Loch has the right to limit the posting of any material on HIS
> website. He chooses to take a conservative stance on this and I say YAH!!
He sure does! I can't believe that anyone would question Kevin's personal
decisions, especially after he's explained them so many times already, both
here and on his website. It really sickens me when people disrespect him,
implying that his self-imposed restrictions are too conservative.
> I find his instruction scan links invaluable and I would not want anything to
> jeopardize this.
Back in 1993, before rec.toys.lego existed and alt.toys.lego was still in its
infancy, Steve Putz wrote LEGO Systems Inc.'s Legal Department and asked for
permission to publish scans of old instructions on the Internet and whether the
general practice was OK. The reply came in February of 1994, and the answer at
that time was "No." Within hours of Steve's report, Paul Gyugyi, who had been
hosting the earthsea.stanford.edu FTP site, voluntarily removed the scans that
had been hosted there, out of respect for TLG's wishes. Everyone was sad to
see it go, and Steve caught flak for doing what some people thought was a
stupid thing, but Steve did act responsibly (and subsequently so did Paul).
Two years later, in March of 1996, when www.lego.com went live, its generous
"Fair Play" document further clarified TLG's positions and also gave a notable
amount of new freedom to fans.
The "Fair Play" document, however, never really went into detail about what
"limited extracts" meant, thus leaving it up to the community's best good-faith
interpretation. Kevin took the radical path and interpreted "limited extracts"
to mean full scans of anything not in the current mainstream product line.
This seems to have paid off: as far as we know, LEGO has no problem with what
Kevin is doing, since they have not shut his site down. And given that it is
such a high-traffic and visible site, it's tough to imagine that they wouldn't
shut it down if they actually felt it was a problem.
Notwithstanding, for anyone to throw stones into the pond on the larger scans
issue is probably to upset a delicate balance, and I don't think any of us
wants to see Kevin's site jeopardized. Whether leaked scans of retailer
catalogs or other illicitly obtained materials on other sites have a negative
impact on Kevin's site is something that only LEGO knows, but at best the
impact on the community is neutral if not very negative.
> Give LEGO and Brad Justus a break! It is the holiday season.
>
> We have been brow beating them (Lego) ever since Brad's first posting and I
> am ashamed of the model were are presenting of the AFOL's.
I am ashamed as well. 99% of the people here are, I think, mature adults who
respect LEGO as a company and would bend over backwards to play fair, given the
magnitude of the leniency that LEGO has shown in recent years. Because of
that, I think it's unfortunate that a few sour grapes are able to make such a
stink. Inasmuch as it's anyone's full legal right to make a stink and express
opinions, I think the result only slows down the chariot.
--Todd
[1] except of course in cases where fair use law would override official
statements anyway.
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) materials (...) <snipped to conserve bandwidth> You are certainly not in the minority here. I'm quieter than I used to be, (and I wasn't very loud to begin with.) TLC has done a whole wide world of service to all of us, just by coming up to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: Enough already
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message <385ce0d5.267874625@...et.com>... (...) Well put, Todd. After reading all this, including my wife's post, here's my "boiled-down" philosophy: 1) Brad (and his employer, TLG), have begun a dialog with us. Hasn't this been (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: Enough already
|
| I have to say, I agree with Todd (and Susan, I presume). It seems to me that there are an awful lot of folks who are doing an awful lot of bellyacheing, and this over VERY minor things. The wealth of online matereial which is, in fact, copyrighted (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) materials (...) they (...) Lego is being generous? I would say they're being practical, having concluded that the ill-will generated and costs involved in pursiring the removal of scans is not worth the perceived benefit. Let's not forget that (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: Enough already
|
| Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:385ce0d5.267874...net.com... (...) <snip> (...) with (...) respect (...) <snip> (...) Larry (...) there's a (...) LEGO (...) sense (...) mouths (...) What are you trying to say? Don't you think (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: Enough already
|
| Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) It saddens me that this "backlash" is taking place at this time...as a community made up of many individuals with strong opinions there have always been voices opposed to Lego Company practices, but it's too bad that (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Enough already
|
| I may be in the minority here, however I am really tired of all the complaints people are having about the post from Brad Justus, concerning the legality of Lego scans. We asked for clarification from LEGO and we got it!! I may not agree with it, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
72 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
|
|
|
|
