| |
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 it, since it's old?
And if TLC does care about the 1993 Dealers Catalog, what about my 1970 LEGO Dealer
Catalog, which is a SAMSONITE catalog. I don't think Samsonite gives a hoot about
whether it gets posted (since they have been out of the LEGO business in the USA since
1973, and Canada since 1986). TLC shouldn't care, since it's not theirs. Am I correct
here?
Gary Istok
Frank Filz wrote:
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
