Subject:
|
Re: Enough already
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:13:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1761 times
|
| |
|
|
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 material and
the intellectual property of LEGO is just INCREDIBLE. We have access to
SCANS OF SETS WE DID NOT BUY. HUNDREDS OF THEM, and LEGO has not sent an
army of lawyers to remove them.
This said, I think it is in our best interests to avoid offending them. We
have it GOOD now.
The fellow who spent several messages last week screaming that Todd should
have to "prove it, prove it, PROVE IT! (that copyrighted materials belonging
to LEGO belong to LEGO, and that if they might be offended at releases of
retailer catalogs for the current and future runs might be offensive to them
then we ought not be releasing them) struck me as a moron. The position Todd
has taken is the only reasonable one, as far as I can see.
Look at it this way. We have a very nice yard to play in. It's big, it's
roomy, and it has many interesting things to play with. We COULD spend all
our time straining against the fence, but if we do, and we knock the fence
down, the owner of these nice things may come collect them, to prevent them
from being damaged or stolen. OR, we COULD simply appreciate the yard for
the many nice things it contains, and hope that more will be added in the
future. But to DEMAND that more things be placed in the yard, things WE did
not make and do not own...well, this strikes me as a trifle arrogant, and
ungrateful.
There is a price to be paid for ingratitude. Let us pray we do not have to
pay it.
Rob
----------
> From: lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman)
> Newsgroups: lugnet.dear-lego
> Subject: Re: Enough already
> Date: Mon, Dec 20, 1999, 12:41 AM
> 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.
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Calling Tom Stangl (or any of us) a moron is over the line. I'd like to note that the MAJORITY of the name-calling within our own community has come from the side of the fence that seems to want to shut people up if they aren't going to just (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
