| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Richard Franks wrote:
> > 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.
By the same token, I could ask you to prove that they aren't secret. But with
the limited information that we have that would be fruitless. We are in
.debate, so I see nothing wrong with trying to discuss this intelligently.
My view is that what they have in the customer catalogues is what they want the
customer base to know. Otherwise they wouldn't bother wasting valuable
space having teaser adverts - coming in July etc. Retailer catalogues have
those secret sets matter-of-factly. Maybe they aren't the sort of secrets that
will break the company, but they are definately things that TLC decided *not*
to let the general public know about.
> > 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.
It isn't that simple - it stopped being about the original scans a long time
ago. Once you start displaying retailer scans, then by logical extension the
marketing information that the catalogues contain will be an issue.
> 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.
I'd be interested in seeing all of it, not only because I was so disturbed by
the "pastel = profit" statement. That doesn't extend to saying that I think I
have a right to see it, or that I think it should be displayed.
> > 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 Always out of date info, ROTTEN design, etc.
I don't see that as anything other than irrelevant, and ignoring the question
posed.
> The only good thing about the site is the contests.
Except that the US-only ones suck!
> 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.
Firstly, any such documents aren't needed to convince me that TLC don't
want/intend customers to see retailer catalogues. They contain sets not in
publicly released catalogues - that's enough for me.
Secondly, what shops decide to do with them is none of our concern.. and saying
that so and so did it, so it doesn't matter to TLC is tenous. It isn't about
whether we could "get away" with displaying the catalogues - we most probably
could - would doing so damage potential relations with TLC? Possibly.
Is it worth the risk? IMO no.
> You act like these are the fricking uranium refinement procedure docs during
> WW2! They are PICTURES!
I know what they are, and I know that displaying them could hurt us.
> 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.
I'm not annoyed at you, although I agree that this somehow has become more
personal than warranted.
If you're worried about popping a blood vessel, then I suggest that you stop
SHOUTING.
> 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.
Followups belatedly set to off-topic.debate
Requiring written proof is unreasonable, as it probably isn't going to happen.
Surely we are intelligent enough to come to our *own* conclusions? Or do we
really need a law for everything?
> 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 fact that no-one tells you to stop doing something, isn't a reason to do
it. It's called responsibility.
> The preaching on this thread is worse than some of the religious tripe I've
> seen on RTL!
Perhaps, but as far as I know I haven't told you that you are wrong or
shouldn't participate in the debate. Believe it or not, I am trying to
understand your reasoning.. but beyond "It's okay, they haven't told us not to
yet", I haven't seen much evidence of any!
> > 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?
Absolutely not - but we both know that the liklihood of a TLC lawyer replying
to this thread is unlikely.
I am more hopeful as to the success of Todds asking them directly to clarify
their position however.
> 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.
This possibly goes against the TOS, but I'll let it pass.
Self-righteous? Possibly. Wrong? Possibly.
> 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.
:) They could be a bit more responsive I agree.
> 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.
Interestingly http://www.duplo.org is still running, and with no front-page
disclaimer. Although maybe they don't protect that trademark as vigorously.
> Geez, I get zero sleep, and start mixing morality with legality - that's a
> NASTY mix!
Agreed.
Richard
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
