| |
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?
I'm pretty sure Lugnet and Brickshelf DO still exist because of this. However....
> 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).
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 they DO post
something, I still am going to assume they HAVE A CLUE, KNOW about this furor, and
choose to ignore it (because if they haven't commented on it because their Legal/Mktg
are dragging their butts, they need to hire new people in those depts - they are PAID
to act quickly when necessary).
> 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.
And I think TLC has the brains to know that that would do nothing except HURT sales of
Lego, so it would be counterproductive. At least I hope they know that. Give them
some credit, I do.
> 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.
Yes, and until I see otherwise from TLC, I consider the "illegal 2000 scans" to be
"restrained and respectful use". I really DO want to hear from TLC about it, one way
or the other. Then I will respect their wishes (note I have only posted an HTML file
to easily view the pics, I have not posted, nor will I post/email, the pics to anyone).
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
