To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 11507
11506  |  11508
Subject: 
Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 19:53:53 GMT
Viewed: 
75 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
Here's my quick opinion:

TLG has the right to do as they wish with their information, and that
includes putting restrictions on how and when (and if) it is made
available.


True, but:

1. I have never seen nor has anyone ever produced anything in _writing_ that
indicates that a Vendors catalog is confidential, or privileged information.

2. It is true that they hold them close and don't give them out to everyone.
It is left up to the bearer what to make of that.

3. There is absolutely nothing in a vendors catalog that is not also in the
consumer catalogs except for casepack information (yawn), and pictures of the
boxes. The pictures of the boxes are of particular interest to the fan
community (in addition to the usual historical interest).

4. Separate from the vendors catalog is a price schedule, which common
sense would dictate is priveleged and confidential with or without markings.

5. For a long time I have had several _old_ vendors catalogs online, and no
one has ever said anything in public or private about the merits or morality
of hosting them.  I have witheld more recent vendors catalogs because I felt
they should be a few years old before going online, similar to recent
instructions.

My opinion (and experience) is that vendor catalog scans are perfectly
acceptable as long as they are a few years old.  Maybe even one year old,
but I agree that publishing a vendors catalog with not-yet-public sets was a
bad idea.  It's not the catalog, it's the not-yet-public information that
was a problem.

TLG doesn't respect us much, if at all, as a corporation now.


Do you have any evidence to support this?  I bet they're laughing at what
a big deal we made out of this.

KL



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
 
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message news:FMFtxt.5K6@lugnet.com... [snipped well written, agreeable points throughout] (...) the (...) the (...) This may not be so, Kevin. For this year, Lego has apparently _intentionally_ left (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
  Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
 
(...) Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that TLG/C DOES respect us "much" or at all? I bet for every instance of an _individual_ Lego employee showing respect for another individual AFOL we can come up with at least one example of a (...) (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?
 
Here's my quick opinion: TLG has the right to do as they wish with their information, and that includes putting restrictions on how and when (and if) it is made available. TLG doesn't respect us much, if at all, as a corporation now. This whole (...) (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

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR