Subject:
|
Re: Cats and pigeons...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:06:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
710 times
|
| |
|
|
Not that it matters to you, but my opinion of you is undiminished in the least
bit by the whole mess. As far as I'm concerned, your reputation is intact.
I never understood the line of reasoning that you were endangering
our "relationship" between AFOL's and Lego. As I understand the relationship,
they produce high quality bricks that we know and love, and we buy them to
build with. That's the extent of. Save for a possible handful of exceptions
out there, has Lego REALLY ever done anything for us beyond the
producer/consumer relationship? If they truly are upset my your actions, what
will they do? Not allow us to buy their product? I seriously doubt it.
A lot has been said to the affect of, "Oh well Suz knows a lot about things
like this". Maybe it's none of my business, but how do we know that? What
does she know? What is it that makes this retail catalogue so secretive? As
has already been pointed out, and to the best of my knowledge, no information
was made available regarding MSRP, retail cost, marketing, etc. There were
just pictures of Lego sets we can expect. Huw, is it stated, implicitly or
explicitly, anywhere in that catalogue that the information contained there in
is priviledged for the exclusive use of the retailer? If it does, I would say
that Suz et al are correct, and that it should not have been made available.
If not, then what is the big deal?
For the record, I have had access to these at TRU in the past as well. I
asked if I could have it, and was promptly told no, but they were more than
happy to let me look at it.
Also in Todd's defense, I have to agree 100% with the way he handled things.
He stated his feelings, but he kept the integrity of Lugnet on an unparalled
level. He could have easily said, "Well it's my ball, and if you don't want
to play how I want you to play, I'm going home." He could have just cancelled
all references to the post. But he didn't. He let Huw decide on his own what
to do. That took a lot of integrity.
As for the people who first jumped on this, why couldn't it have been done in
private via e-mail? Did it have to be public knowledge that you disagreed?
Eric
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington writes:
>
> First, let me state that it was never my intention to do anything that TLC
> would object to, or that would upset this 'delicate relationship' that is
> apparently being fostered between TLC and AFOLs (but until now, to me at
> least, was not immediately obvious)
>
> When I received the scans from my 'correspondent' by e-mail I was of course
> very pleased, 'on a high' and wanted to share them with others that would be
> equally pleased to see them. There is no sin in that, I'm sure you agree. My
> 'correspondent' who does not work for LEGO, and whom I have never met, and I
> shall not be naming, made it clear that s/he wanted me to publish them. I do
> not know how s/he got them, it wasn't stated, but I do not have any reason
> to believe they were stolen or otherwise illegally obtained.
>
> I can think of several instances when information from retailers catalogues
> have been published, occasionally before information contained therein was
> available in particular markets:
>
> - Earlier this year, details of the Episode 1 sets were circulated, having
> been gleaned from retailer's catalogues, long before they were publicly
> announced.
>
> - In January this year, someone from Australia posted a list much like the
> one I did containing details of the '99 sets (and IIRC their prices), which
> was before the consumer catalogue was available in that country. A few
> 'unannounced anywhere else' sets were also among the list.
>
> - IIRC, BrickShelf contains a number of old retailer's catalogues.
>
> It was therefore, as someone else has eloquently put it, not 'immediately
> obvious' that it was wrong to post them.
>
> Another thread among the ensuing argument is something about revealing sets
> that TLC don't want us to know about, and 'spoiling their surprises'.
>
> If you look at it from LEGO UK's point of view, they don't want anyone to
> know anything about 2000 sets yet because our catalogue is not out yet.
> Therefore BrickShelf has spoiled the surprises they have in store for us by
> publishing your 2000 catalogue.
>
> When the European catalogues appear in a few weeks time containing details
> of the Mickey and dino set, will posters of those images be slated for
> 'spoiling your surprise' and going against LEGO US's wishes? I expect it'll
> be different then.
>
> The sets they truly don't want us to know about, like the new Mindstorms
> sets and the Kids set 'The Intelligent brick' (and in 1998, Cybermaster) are
> not even illustrated in the retailer's catalogue.
>
> I am not using any of the above to justify my actions, just trying to state
> my side of the story and what led to their publication. I was particularly
> galled by Suzanne's dictatorial attitude and have to state that I did feel
> 'bullied'. At the time I did not see any reason to, and she certainly did
> not put, to my mind, any valid argument forward. Todd, as usual, was calm
> and collected and a put forward good reasons as to why it was perhaps not
> such a good idea after all. When other 'LUGNET elders' jumped on my case, I
> felt I had no option but to comply or be ostracised. I was gutted. I thought
> I would be a 'hero', but ended up a villian. I can tell you I had a
> sleepness night on Sunday - it happened at about 10pm local time.
>
> If nothing else, it has caused a great amount of discussion about what's
> acceptable and what is not when it comes to LEGO's copyrighted material. If
> only we had some solid guidelines, none of this would have happened.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Cats and pigeons...
|
| I seem to have put the cat amongst the pigeons well and truly. I have deliberately kept quiet on the 2000 scans issue until now, but have been reading the threads with interest. First, let me state that it was never my intention to do anything that (...) (24 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
