Subject:
|
Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 07:33:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1331 times
|
| |
|
|
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 specifics. :)
Does that make me a loser?
--
Paul Davidson
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:384dff31.64162272@lugnet.com...
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 8-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
|
|
|
|
