 | | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) Well... uh, I don't think I am advocating that, nor have I really seen anyone else DO that. I'm sure Brad is an ok guy. I'd like to meet him some day. Anything I say, good, bad, or otherwise, about Lego the _company_ isn't meant to "shoot" (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) I agree with you. No one can disagree with what you said. But why "shoot the messenger"? I prefer to be outwardly optimistic, and reserve cynicism. Just my personality..... (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Enough already
|
|
(...) Right. But let's not forget that many of us are FAR more enamored of Lego the PRODUCT than Lego the company. Aside from some recent slips in quality control (colors, mostly) Lego the PRODUCT has never let us down. Lego the COMPANY, though, has (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Catalogs, Justus and Lego
|
|
(...) Bull ;-) TLC will just price the bulk pieces high enough so that this is not economically viable. I just can't imagin them selling bulk parts for less than $.10-.20 on average, as that is what they cost in sets these days. -- Tom Stangl (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Jasper Janssen wrote: [RE: my hopeful dreamin' that LEGO will redesign their site for better usability and not for better security with obnoxious bells and whistles] (...) Well, to be honest, with the crew of designers they (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
