| |
Robert M. Dye <robdye@writeme.com> wrote:
> > As far as "paying" the price of ingratitude, I'm not worried. I'm
> > paying REAL GOOD money every year for products from a company that
> > before a couple weeks ago didn't seem to give a blurk about me one
> > way or the other.
>
> And you got what you paid for. Bricks. And instructions.
>
> Paying the price of ingratitude could mean seeing ALL copyrighted material
> come off the web. It could happen, and LEGO would be well within their
> rights under copyright law to demand it.
I'm probably in the minority here, but guess what? I don't care. I
think what Kevin has done with Brickshelf.com is AWESOME. Utterly
and completely AWESOME. I applaud his effort 100%. But you know
what? For all the scans I've browsed through and even considering I
ran wget once to grab the whole site, I don't need them. Don't need
them at all. You might. Todd might. Most people may think they
need them. But if TLC stomped brickshelf out of existence today it
wouldn't really *hurt* me. Inconvenience me from time to time,
perhaps, but not much.
Conversely, if they were to offer some sort of reasonable bulk
ordering service, it would *help* me much more than any online
repository of instruction scans ever would.
Regardless, I doubt they'll do anything as drastic as stomp out the
sites people are fond of promoting as beacons of TLC's wonderful
generosity. Even the dumbest of their lawyers must realize they're
only helping them.
> My point is that instead of being grateful for what we have, which is, for
> the most part, gravy, and something we were never entitled to in the first
> place, people are griping about things which LEGO has a legit common sense
> reason for not particularly wanting on the web.
I'm not. I never once, once Brad made it clear that the dealer
catalog scans were a no-no, argued otherwise. I think they have a
legitimate legal and ethical cause there. What I did argue, and
maybe this wasn't clear to everyone, is that if they put stuff up
on THEIR webserver, make it world readable, but for whatever reason
(be it mistake or intent) don't link to it, they have no legal (as I
understand it) reason to complain about me linking to it, nor would
I want to catch any flak here about linking to it if I saw it
mentioned elsewhere (say I saw it on slashdot.org and didn't bother
to browse through the entire lego.com site to see if it were
properly linked). Now if I MYSELF go browsing about, playing with
URLs, etc, and find something that may be questionable, as much as
it OUGHT to be fine to link to it since they've made a decision by
putting it there that they don't want it UNseen, I'll respect Brad's
further clarification that they'd like us to respect their "browsing
experience" or however he put it. I'm ok with that.
This whole gratitude thing is beyond me. I'm not particularly
grateful to TLC for anything outside of the fact of the large amount
of US dollars I pay them for their products, even if they have been
steadily declining in imagination and quality (piece-wise, not
materials). I'm an AFOL - Adult Fan of LEGO - not AFOTLC - Adult
Fan of the Lego Company. YMMV.
> This is just plain rude, and absurd.
Well, I'm not arguing any of that, nor do I feel that anything I've
said has been particularly rude or absurd, and based on the e-mail
I've received from people who might surprise you, the people that
matter don't either.
> I don't think it is "sucking up" to recognize that someone has a good common
> sense reason. And I think it odd that anyone would go to arguing the law
> when they can't get past common sense or manners. Yet that is what I have
> been seeing here the last 2 weeks, and it bothers me.
I agree with most of what you said there. I think you missed the
main point that Matthew, Jasper, myself, and others tried to make,
and there is little point in rehashing it because you've probably
just let your knee jerk at reading some of the inflammatory things
Jasper said or maybe some of the incorrect things Tony said, so let
me just leave it by saying:
I'll show TLC as much respect as it shows me.
I'll show Brad as much respect as I show Todd.
I'd like to think we ALL can show each other as much respect as we
want in return.
The people to people respect is, imo, more important than this
bizarre devotion to the Lego company.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) See, this is where you lose me. Completely. The prove it Prove It, PROVE IT! post struck me as amazingly rude. And NOT rude to TLC. To *Todd.* That's who is was being addressed to, no? Todd had taken a stance which he felt (excuse me for (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Enough already
|
| (...) Just stepping in to point out that the scans are invaluable to me and I would be impacted by not having them around. At least, I *would* be if I got off my duff and started turning the 200+ pounds of used, unsorted LEGO back into sets again. I (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Enough already
|
| Mike Stanley wrote: <snip> (...) Yeah, I think we got y'all's point. But I think the real point is: legalities aside, TLC didn't want that material distributed around. Just because one is *able* to get something on this side of a firewall doesn't (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Enough already
|
| ---...--- (...) And you got what you paid for. Bricks. And instructions. Paying the price of ingratitude could mean seeing ALL copyrighted material come off the web. It could happen, and LEGO would be well within their rights under copyright law to (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.admin.general)
|
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
|
|
|
|
