Subject:
|
Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Dec 1999 04:46:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2178 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, "Christian Gemuenden" <GECH1@t-online.de> writes:
> [...]
> 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.
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 revolve around a single company like we do as
fans, and have no loyalties like we do. (Not that there's anything wrong
with that...it's just a different mindset.)
In other words, there's no point in having a discussion about rebelscum.com
or <insert random SW fansite here>.com...nothing's ever gonna change there,
and besides, they're a different community of fans -- what they do doesn't
make the LEGO community look bad...it just makes the Internet as a whole
look bad, but anyyone who's worried about that is already convinced that
it's bad, heh :-)
> 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.
I think it also happened in August & September of 1998 -- for the 1999 Star
Wars and Rock Raiders minifigs.
> 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).
I can't speak for others, but the reason I didn't say anything was because
(a) it was still quasi-rumor at that point, and (b) once something's all
over the SW fansites, it's as good as released to the public (in terms of
the publicity in that area).
> 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.
(Hmm, I seem to remember getting chewed out for putting those in the DB.)
> 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.
Wow, where'd you hear that? (If you can say?)
> 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.
I'm about ready to stop beating this very dead horse at this point, but
again, this is about perceptions more than legalities. It may technically
be legal (aside from the obvious copyright infringements) to publish
retailer catalog scans, but the perception at TLC is likely to be negative
rather than neutral. (This is just my opinion.)
> 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?
I can only guess, but my guess is that the reason the retailer catalog is
late this year (it usually comes out in August-September, I believe) is
because LEGO wants to minimize the possibility of leaks. It's see far too
many leaks lately to remain comfortable. (Disclaimer: this is just an
educated guess.)
> 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.
I'd be disappointed if they didn't. However, it still probably makes TLC
nervous when this sort of thing happens, and I think it -may- potentially
damage the goodwill slowly being built. Then again I could be wrong.
> [...]
> 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?
It came from the S@H computer database a few months ago. Given out freely
over the phone. (See other posts on this thread for more details.)
> [...]
> 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.
IMHO, Huw is fully entitled to put whatever he wants in his databases, as
long as he feels that it is morally right to do so. If he thinks it doesn't
make us fans look bad to do that, or if he agrees that it makes us look bad
but doesn't care, that's up to him.
> 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.
Y'know, here's the funny thing, from my own personal (not professional)
point of view. IMHO, it's not morally wrong to put up the information. It
might be legally wrong, or legally sketchy, but not morally wrong. Still,
even though not morally wrong, IMHO, it could still perhaps be a bad idea.
In other words, something can IMHO be both "not wrong" and "unwise" (two
different but compatible angles).
> 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.
Nope, nothing you did is wrong (IMHO) -- and welcome!
> 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.
Oh, no. No no, no no. There's no censorship here, except voluntary self-
censorship. There are guidelines and rules of conduct, but as far as ideas
and opinions go, feel free to call the syadmin a bloody freaking loser
garbage butt-face arrogant nutcase if you feel like it.
> 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.
Oops, time to rewind a bit -- We don't delete posts ever unless someone
specifically asks for it on their own accord (and only then when they can't
do it themselves from their newsreader) or unless a post contains some odd
kind of purely technical problem (like exact duplicate messages or some
mysterious binary garbage attachment, if we happen to notice it). If you
accidentally post leaked information, that's your own problem to deal with.
The Terms of Use ask not to (among other things) infringe on privacy/
publicity rights to hopefully prevent that as much as possible in the first
place, but also to form the basis for ultimate ejection if necessary.
(Note: no one has ever been permanently ejected yet ouf hundreds and
hundreds of people. People have come close, but that was a community vote
and a long 'nother story.)
> 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 never would've guessed that English wasn't your first language.
> ( I know Todd speaks a perfect german btw.)
Wow, flattered! No, actually I only had 2 years of German at school and I
just get lucky once in a while with a few simple sentences. (Ask Marcus
Noga :-)
> If possible answer some of my questions. The most interesting for me is your
> opinion about the leaked information on rebelscum and theouterrim.
I answered what I could, and maybe Suzanne can fill in some more later if
she gets time.
Keep in mind, also, when either of us post from a non-lugnet.com address,
we're not acting in an official LUGNET capacity. I don't think we've even
really ever needed to do that yet, either, hmm...
--Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) ---- (...) ---- From what little I know: retailers (the small shop kind) order from a typed list months in advance or else they prepare by requesting "one case of each of everything new ASAP." The pretty color catalog comes later, close to (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| 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" (...) (25 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
