Subject:
|
Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:44:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1764 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Suzanne (and everybody else who cares),
I mostly agree with you but there are some points I do not entirely
understand.
First can anybody tell me why we suddenly have such a discussion but we did
NOT have one in october when "the nameless beast" sent information to
rebelscum.com. This was probably (as far as I know) an employee of TLC who
published information on new minifigs illegally (?) while the official year
2000 catalgoue was not out yet.
A bit later the same thing happened again "on the outer rim". Many
prototypes were shown and even lots of wrong (as we meanwhile know)
information was published. I do not say that this was good, but nobody was
concerned about copyrights there either, I have not seen anybody reacting
concerned and the set numbers were shown on lugnet the following days (I
might be wrong here please correct me if so).
Well, this is not all yet. In february 1999 was a retailers only toy fair in
germany. Retailers were shown many of the Episode 1 LEGO sets there and they
even had to sign with their names that they will not talk to any other
person about what they have seen. Well, you do not have to sign to get a
retailers catalogue and if TLC would want to do this they easily could note
this in their delivery contract. However around that time we were able to
see the new Episode 1 set numbers and names in the Pause Magazine and I
think they were also published illegally at that time as they were not
released yet. I even heard rumors that those set numbers were totally
illegally stolen from the S@H order data files but I am not sure if this is
right. Many other companies that do also produce Star Wars toys were able to
get to know the ships that TLC plans to bring out with the movie and they
could have easily copied this strategy for their own products. This might
even have been really harmful for The LEGO(R) Company and/or Lucasfil Inc.
Those were news which were not know yet and at this point the things are
very different. The official 2000 catalogue has been found yet and most of t
he sets are known already so where is the difference.
I understand that you think retailers catalogues have to be protected but me
too I know a few shops in Germany who simply put the retailers catalogueon a
shelf and fix it with a small iron chain. You are not able to take this
catalgoue with you but everybody is obiously able to look at the pictures.
This is just one point.
Suzanne D. Rich <suz@media.mit.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
FMAG6z.IB4@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, Jeremy Rear writes: • [snip]
>
> with all due repect, you're missing the point.
I hope that I brought up some new issues and that I did not miss the point
too. If so, please excuse.
> If heads of the LEGO Company wanted their retailer catalog to be publicly
> available, they most certainly could publish it online all by themselves. • But
> first, I think they would distribute it to all the retailers who right now • are
> waiting for their copies to arrive.
As mentioned above some retailers show the pictures officially and on the
other hand they never signed for protecting them although retailers have to
sign for other product information, also for LEGO(R) set picture
questionnaires or anything like this. If you want to know an example for
this feel free to e-mail me privately as me too I know some facts that
should not be posted here*.
Also if there are still retailers waiting for their catalogues to arrive why
do they yet ship out the consumer catalogue and why do they usually ship out
the first new sets around beginning of december?
> And, this incident has nothing to do with the adult user crowd's size or
> juxtaposition to children and their toy buying parents. Please don't • bother to
> bring that up again.
I think I do have to agree here. The companies that might misuse the
information are not children it is other toy companies. Playmobil (R) and
LEGO (R) for example do sometimes have similar themes so at this point it
does not depend who gets to see secret informations that we AFOLs publish,
it might really get into the wrong hands. But those huge companies with
secrets who are really interested in leaking information certainly have
other sources than lugnet for illegal information.
> This is about common sense and respect. I would never normally admit this, • but I
> too (woo-woo) have copies of retailer catalogs going back a number of • years. But
> I know when I have something special in my posession and when it's worth • keeping
> quiet about. I would never publish scans of those catalogs on the • internet. They
> contain information about company marketing strategy, TV ads, promo-packs,
etc.
In my opinion it depends on what kind of information you publish. The set
pictures that Huw had published did not contain any information besides the
set numbers and pictures and if they were that secret they would not send
them out without retailers signing for it or as an example not showing a
real picture. If you have seen the pictures on Huws pages you'll know thate
there were some set numbers but no pictures shown combined with them. This
is also because TLC keeps the right to change the final version of a product
espacially for software and other computer components. If the company
themselves have doubts they also do not publish the pictures.
As for the retailer catalgoues I do also have some questions. I only have
several german ones so it would be nice to know how different they are in
contents. Maybe the US ones show a lot more information that needs to be
protected than the European ones. Maybe this will not be a good subject to
be discussed here either and you sure won't share all information with
someone who is new to lugnet.*
> I am very disapointed in this insipid behavior. Acting proud about • "knowing
> someone on the inside" and doing something wrong to prove it does not make • a
> person cool -- It jeopardizes their moral character.
Actually I would have to agree with you in this point as the fact is correct
but you should not draw the wrong conclusion that this point makes out the
whole character. Huw Millington is a very reputable person and just because
of this problem you can not explain the whole character.
> Trust me. this one is not worth it. please let it go.
When I first saw the pictures - espacially the ones marked as "continue in
July 2000" in the official 2000 catalgoue - I was very surprised and very
happy to see them but as this might also influence the future strategy of
TLC you might be right that this one is not worth it. TLC will really become
more careful if this makes the round inside and we will see all the pictures
in a few weeks. But I am sure there are pictures excisting that would be
worth to break the copyright, who would not want to see a picture of the
mysterious Star Wars bucket 1886? Oh yes, by the way. Am I wrong there or is
this information (set number and name) from a retailers catalgoue and not
officially proved? If so why can you find it in the Pause Magazine although
this information was only for retaiers. Well, this is because you want to
let every LEGO fan know that this number excists. You want the LEGO(R) set
number lists to be as completed and as accurated as possible too so you too
published information which was never officially released. And now please
tell me where is the difference between those two cases? We all do know that
the sets Huw showed are supposed to come out next year and they are most
probably confirmed, so why should he not share the information. Okay, the
pictures are a very critical point but what would you say if he would
publish all the set numbers without pictures just as you did? Of course you
will still disagree or why else should Huw agree to delete his posting?
Please don't think I would not take this problem serious as I really do
agree with you and Todd in most points, but I think at least the set names
and numbers should still be shown in Huws databases.
I am not completly sure about wether my opinion is right or wrong but I
don't think the problem is as serious as we discuss it here. I do take it
serious but the real security questions are made within and only within TLC
not permitting employees to talk about anything they invented or they have
seen at work. I do totally agree with those rules for the employees but on
the other hand I wonder why they do those strange things like selling few
Rock Raiders sets unofficially in february far earlier than the official
release date or giving away free Darth Vader keychains while the Star Wars
sets are not out yet and other things. The most confusing will allways be
the different set varieties within different countries. I know for some
reasons that we in Germany do have more train sets and other things as they
might sell better and that the US market has many products that are not
present in my part of the world. They should at least inform the consumer
service about this. I can call them up several times to ask if the new Ninja
sets (3050-3053) will ever be available here in germany. As expected they
keep telling you that they can only ship out what is in the official
catalgoue (although they know of hundred sets available that are not shown
in the catalgoue) and no other person of TLC is able to answer this
question. Okay so I will order the sets from the US, take the job to find a
fair trading partner, having the risk that both - money and sets might be
lost or damaged and even be forced to send large amounts of cash overseas
illegally although there is no other solution. Fine, this is okay for me as
I really want the sets but while they are still on the way I enter a local
shop to find out that the Ninja sets which are not in the catalgoue are on
sale for half price and me having paid three times the prices for crushed
sets that they anothe two months to arrive.
This is why I would take the right to publish a retailer catalgoue as it
gives us necessary and really helpful information that TLC could provide us
but is not able to. Retailers usually know more but you never know what to
believe as both - the official and the unofficial catalgoues are wrong at
least once a year!
- US S@H catalgoue telling "not available in any shop" is usually wrong.
- retailers catalgoue telling avaiable in "'any month'" is sometimes wrong.
The time has shown that TLC often provides wrong information and we can only
keep collection when we share what we know. Of course we will have to accept
the rules of the company but as long as it is not strictly forbidden we
should take our right and share what we know to help each other. If we do
this carefully it will not be our fault if any information gets published
too early.
> It doesn't take a leak to be popular. I know you're all capable of • investing
> your enthusiasm and efforts in far more productive ways.
I am new to lugnet so if I mentioned something totally wrong or even against
the terms of use please point this out and I will apology for this. Also if
you do think that this posting is in any way not allowed to be officially
shown please feel free to delete the whole e-mail or to censor some
paragraphs, this is totally okay for me if I made anything wrong (or even
against the law) without knowing. Also you can delete all other postings I
sent earlier if you want me to. A few days ago on lugnet.dear-lego someone
had the idea that a new trans-purple space theme would be nice. I meanwhile
replied that the new 2000 sets would contain this new colour so this might
also have to be deleted after your definition. If you do think so go ahead,
I will totally agree with it.
Ignore some gramatical mistakes; I do my best to find the right words but my
native language is german. ( I know Todd speaks a perfect german btw.)
If possible answer some of my questions. The most interesting for me is your
opinion about the leaked information on rebelscum and theouterrim.
> -Suz.
>
> These words are my own and in no way represent the MIT Media Lab.
Bye, Christian.
------------------------------------------------
The World is full of AFOLs - * gech1@t-online.de
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) Yeah, that's easy: Because Star Wars fans online make a living of trading leaked information every single day, and they'd laugh in someone's face if it was suggested that what they were doing made them look bad as a community. They also don't (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) Jeremy, with all due repect, you're missing the point. If heads of the LEGO Company wanted their retailer catalog to be publicly available, they most certainly could publish it online all by themselves. But first, I think they would distribute (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
