General Discussion : 11476


General / 11476	11475 \| 11477

Subject:	Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
Date:	Wed, 8 Dec 1999 13:54:30 GMT
Viewed:	138 times

Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote: > > Actually, NO, with the available evidence (i.e. NOTHING said from TLC so far), it > is correct, not wishful thinking. We have ONE point of reasonably solid information in this subject: We have a statement from a TLC employee that they could be FIRED for showing a consumer the retailers catalog. Well ok, we have two pieces of evidence. The only way TLC has come down on fan websites is when they use LEGO in their site name. It would seem from this that TLC does not care about how their intellectual property is used by fans on the web, so long as it is absolutely clear that a fan site is NOT a TLC site. But there is also a hidden significant item. The two fan sites which stretch the "fair use" clause the most, are also very restrained, and would never consider publishing this information. Think about that. What is the possibility that Brickshelf and Pause are allowed to exist because the editors of those resources have consistently shown restraint, and respect of TLC's intellectual property? How would you feel if TLC decides that fan abuse of their intellectual property is such that they will come in and shut down EVERY fan site which references the brick (check out what TSR Hobbies did to Dungeons and Dragons web sites if you want to see how a company could chose to react). Where would we be then? You can darn well bet that if TLC decided to take such a position, anyone trying to maintain such a site on the web would find themselves in court. Heck, they might even be able to shut down Lugnet completely. The way I read TLC's position is that restrained and respectfull use of their intellectual property (which implies not publishing information "too early") wins their respect, and the biggest element of that respect is allowing such use to continue. -- Frank Filz ----------------------------- Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please) Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
Wow Frank, Well stated! I can't argue with that. One other item of discussion (I'm not sure this was answered, since I'm having server problems, and haven't read all of the lugnet.general posts), Ben had a 1993 Dealer Catalog. Should/can/may he post (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

		Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
(...) NO. We have a report from another person that a Lego employee said that. I've been told lots of things by store employees, and trust me, you shouldn't _always_ believe what someone making low money to stand on their feet all days says when it (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

		Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
(...) I'm pretty sure Lugnet and Brickshelf DO still exist because of this. However.... (...) That would be a MAJOR shift from their current Fair Use Policy, and I'd expect them to post such a change on lego.com and put a pointer to it. And until (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
Actually, NO, with the available evidence (i.e. NOTHING said from TLC so far), it is correct, not wishful thinking. If I would have seen ONE message in here or on lego.com asking that the pics be removed from sites, then I would agree with you that (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, 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

Custom Search