Subject:
|
Re: Cataolgs, Justus and Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:50:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1453 times
|
| |
|
|
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?? 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)
and Huw's wrong was righted by his removing of the scans.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cataolgs, Justus and Lego
|
| Ryan Dennett wrote in message ... (...) catlaogs. (...) tragedy (...) to (...) that (...) Brake the rules huh? I hope the high hopes you have placed in this Close Encounter of The Lego Kind will be fulfilled. (...) and (...) law) Big deal. I could (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Cataolgs, Justus and Lego
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
