Subject:
|
Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 07:18:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1303 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, "Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence_wilkes@msn.com> writes:
> [...]
> So far, I have not seen any requests (at least in public) to have these other
> sites remove their scans, yet they are announcing their existence through
> exactly the same channels as did Huw originally.
Huw made a mistake, but he also had the intelligence to realize this and the
moral integrity to do something about it.
I don't think you're going to see many requests from people asking other
sites to remove the scans because at this point anyone who hosts public
copies of the scans obviously doesn't give a rat's reeking behind about the
publicity rights of the LEGO Company, or about embarassing the whole AFOL
community in front of LEGO.
> So Huw puts in the hard work, and everyone else gets the hits.
This wasn't about Huw and it certainly isn't about hits. This is about
"playing fair" and about having the basic common decency to respect the
rights of a company whose toys have brought us all so much joy over the
years.
And how do you figure that making illegal scans of non-consumer materials --
prior to product launch no less! -- is "putting in hard work"? It's theft,
pure and simple. Whoever scanned those images for Huw should be ashamed of
themselves, not proud.
Is this what our rotten mixed up society rewards these days?
:-/
> So rather than have effect that the folks who asked for them to be removed
> had in mind, there is now 10 times as much publicity and many more sites
> hosting the pictures they sought to remove
I think you've missed the point of all of this in a big way. The point
isn't to remove the scans as quickly as possible (although that's certainly
the best way for someone to save face), and *of course* they're going to pop
up again lots of other places -- for every one decent self-respecting person
like Huw there are probably five losers out there who don't care what
happens. The point is that the adult LEGO community needs to realize that
it is *harming* itself, rather than helping itself, by stunts like this.
> as Sir Cliff Richard has found, the best way to get to number one in the
> charts is to get your record banned (sorry only the brits will understand)
That's a very poor analogy.
Getting a book banned gets it noticed more, and that makes a difference
because it's hard enough already for books to get noticed.
With this stuff, on the other hand, it gets noticed just as much either way,
because it has absolutely no trouble getting noticed: it's automatically
the most important news of the day, if not the whole week.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
| Are you so convinced that it's such a horrible thing to post those scans? I threw them up a little while ago because I'm trying to make some die-hard lego fans happy, and those tiny little pictures give us an adequate idea of the lineup with no real (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
| ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> (...) This is not fair. Nobody sure that it was a mistake rigt now. It's been suggested that it MIGHT BE a mistake, since nobody knows anything about the (consistent) policy of TLC (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
| (...) May the gods love you, Todd. Do you have any idea how such a statement reads? From my view, very moralizing and very much adopting a parental voice. I'm sure you intend for this to be complimentary, but its quite backhanded at best. Basically, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
| Without any great surprise, the requests and subsequent rants to have Huw Millington remove his scans of the 2000 dealer catalogue only drew even greater attention to them. As a consequence, a quick look around the newsgroups shows several sites are (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
116 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
|
|
|
|
