 | | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) Yah Rose! I'll add my support behind everything she said. Three cheers for Rose for the courage to write it! Kevin Loch has done wonders with his site, and his self-imposed restrictions make perfect sense to me. When I read Brad's note, I (...) (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
|
|
(...) 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: Fair Play (was Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs)
|
|
(...) Not given the softer re-clarification, no. (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Yeah. Right. Color me skeptical. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) No, they are not. One cannot give a URL to take a person directly, one has to quote navigation path. That's bogus. Followups to .publish, this is a pet peeve of mine that I have expounded on there before. (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair Play (was Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs)
|
|
<SNIP> (...) But if it *wasn´t* available through www.lego.com, then, linking to it would be a violation, right? So, if LEGO makes a new "fair play" document and keeps the old one, then would I be allowed to link to it? All this is somewhat (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
Doh! NLP means Non-Lego Parent. Will Visit the Lego Beach Fire and Rescue Service (URL) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) of (...) I'll put my .02 in... (...) sets (...) sets (...) The economic sense is that if you can acquire parts in bulk (and I mean really obscene amounts here) you could undercut TLC's pricing and still make a decent profit. (...) This is (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Agreed, but when done wrong, they can be very bad.. Michael (URL) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Horrible quote from the Scala web catalog
|
|
Suzanne D. Rich wrote in message ... (...) and (...) I hardly see anything wrong with it myself :-P -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL)There is an interesting book, which I'm sorry to say I've only (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.scala, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) I am not sure that instructions scans would hurt their business. They dont sell instructions (though you might want to argue that are part of the set inventory I suppose) How would it hurt their business? 1. People making up the sets from the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
(...) Frames are EXTREMELY useful....when done RIGHT. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
John Neal wrote in message <385C79AE.8C1BD78D@u...st.net>... (...) current (...) publish (...) John, I think that is a bad idea. It seems to me that Brad typed too fast for his own good. I don't think TLG would like us scanning and sharing current (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) A complete analysis of "limited extracts" as it applies to brickshelf is an extremely complex matter that need not be discussed here. Suffice to say that the site has been in operation for almost 2 years and "limited extracts" has always been (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) I see "limited extracts." What are you seeing? Both of these words would seem to me to have the effect of reducing the scope of what should be published by anyone but LEGO -- and maybe even including old instructional booklets. When I read (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote: <snip> (...) I did. See earlier post. (...) I didn't. (...) Kevin, in light of Brad's latest post, why continue your policy to not publish current instructions? Just wondering. -John (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
Brad Justus wrote: <further clarification> (...) Thanks for the further clarification! I think you'll find most of us to be a lot more willing, even eager, to abide by intent and desire when phrased this way, than to abide by it when phrased in (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
