Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 05:12:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
79 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> What do you think they will say, bearing in mind that these are secret, not for
> public use documents?
Oh? - PROVE IT! Quit shoving it down our throats as gospel, and PROVE IT. SHOW us
the documents proving these are "secret". Are they limited
production/circulation? Yes. Secret? PROVE IT.
> Hearing the phrase "pastel = profit" from a 1993 retailers catalogue may seem
> funny or harmless. But it makes me dislike the girly LEGO even more - that they
> weren't trying to produce something because they thought girls would benefit
> from it, but because they wanted to make money!
>
> Obviously, being a company this is their goal.. but if they had the phrase
> "pastel = profit" on their website how many parents do you think they'd entice
> to buy their products with such a cynical statement??
Um, when did ANYTHING BUT the pics ever creep into this. Oh, that's right, they
didn't, you JUST brought the Marketing crap up. I am only talking about what
EXISTS out there now - the pics of next year's sets. I personally couldn't care
less about Marketing drivel (it's drivel at ALL companies), and think it would be a
waste of bandwidth to post it, except in the future as historical significance.
> And if they want it as private statement to retailers, and they wouldn't
> tolerate it on their own website, then why the <expletive> would they say "Sure
> go ahead, put it on another website" ??
"Tolerate it" on their website? Like their website has ever NOT sucked. Always
out of date info, ROTTEN design, etc. The only good thing about the site is the
contests.
Show me the contract, flier, document, WHATEVER, that specifically states the pics
are not to be released to ANYONE at all, and I may agree with you. But I still may
not, as historical notes in here and RTL speak of people walking into shops and
reading the dealer catalog OUT ON THE SHELF FOR ALL TO FRIGGING SEE, and never did
we hear that TLC marched some lawyers over there and put a stop to it. If you
can't show me those docs, then GIVE IT A REST. You act like these are the fricking
uranium refinement procedure docs during WW2! They are PICTURES! Quit popping a
blood vessel over it, and quit raising my blood pressure with your whining (or I
may pop one)!
There, see, enough argument over something that TLC doesn't seem to give a S!!T
about, and we're all pissed off at each other.
Either accept the fact that you WILL NOT CONVINCE those of us who see nothing wrong
with the pics of anything whatsoever without WRITTEN proof, or go rant in a corner,
not here. I'm tired of this BS. YOU are acting like you KNOW that TLC cares, or
is pissed. *I* am telling you people to give it a rest, and wait to hear from
TLC. If they really give a S!!T, they'll say something. To date they haven't, so
as far as I am concerned, the pics are not a problem.
The preaching on this thread is worse than some of the religious tripe I've seen on
RTL!
> I ask you honestly - is there a possibility that you are using the fact that
> TLC will most probably not answer you to justify doing something that they
> probably wouldn't like and could hurt the community?
NO. I'm actively (in here) ASKING them to clarify their Fair Use Policy. You have
a problem with that?
If they don't like it, all they have to do is ask us to stop. I, personally, will
then delete the pics from my hard drive. Until then, you can just bugger off with
your self-righteous attitude.
> I have no problem with being wrong, it's useful to expect that from time to
> time. But when I know that I could be wrong I would not risk something like
> hurting TLC-FOL relations, without good reason - and "Mummy didn't tell me not
> to paint the dog blue" is not an excuse to do it!
The current relationship:
TLC: <silence>
FOLs: "anyone there?
TLC: <silence>
FOLs: "We'd like to give you suggestions on how to make more money from us!"
TLC: <silence>
FOLs: "We have concrete orders for $10K+ of ONE SINGLE Lego part, can you sell it
to us?"
TLC: <silence>
FOLs: "We're gong to paint you blue"
TLC: <silence>
Oh, yeah, great relationship there. At that point, I certainly would start mixing
the tints with the primer base, just to check to see if the company was alive.
The ONLY relationship is the lack of shark lawyers. And the lawyers at TLC crack
down pretty damned quickly on the one thing they really hate - using "lego" in a
domain name. I KNOW they have the speed to react. They haven't. So the evidence
TO DATE, SO FAR, is on MY side.
Geez, I get zero sleep, and start mixing morality with legality - that's a NASTY
mix!
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
