 | | Legal Comedy (was Re: 2001 Set info)
|
|
Dramatis Personae: Our presiding villain -- Todd. The man who is sticking to his TOS and crumpling under threats of bad legal juju. Lover of the brick. Our heroes -- posters of leaked information. More than one and also lovers of the mighty brick. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Even if they have directed it at Target- and all their other retailers- it's ridiculous for them to try and stick the cat back in the bag. What possible purpose does it serve? Why does it benefit them to have people on Lugnet not talk about (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Todd: I realise that your best answer for this is the first thing you said here- that you aren't a lawyer- but are you really implying that discussing this information- in any way, in any forum- violates the law or infinges on TLC's rights? I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) control (...) I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were the legal grounds for the censorship? Scott A (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like. (...) Ding ding ding! Yes! (...) I definitely and without a doubt agree that you do not do that specific thing (whatever you or I call it) here and if anyone is thinking that I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) John, Was that a cleverly timed joke (if so, nice work! :-) or was your content clipped unintentionally by your WebTV browser? Looking at the incoming HTML-form logs, your browser appears to have chopped the text after the "an". Question: When (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I should add one thing here to clarify the context of what I mean. I'm talking of course about the newsgroups above. In contrast, the sets database is a completely different story: editorial control *is* and probably always will be exercised (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I absolutely and vehemently disagree with the assertion that editorial control is being or has ever been exerted. Perhaps we are working from different definitions of the term...? My working definition of "editorial control" is to edit or (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) One of them I have heard of is the distinction between an open forum and an edited publication. In an open forum, slander or libel is not the fault of the proprietor, but an edited one creates an expectation of an editorial standard and the (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) He wasn't censoring as he was not removing material for moral or political reasons... he was exercising editorial control. A very important distinction. (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) We may have to agree to disagree on this but there is no difference in kind between "deleting on whim" (which I agree you should not do) and "enforcing the T&Cs" (which I think most of us strongly WANT you to do) from a legal sense. In my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:Fz029E.At8@lugnet.com... (...) leaked (...) talking (...) do (...) it.....why not (...) thing....we (...) keep (...) pell-mell, (...) us (...) Hmm. I didn't make that out of Tim's (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) I definitely see your point. This sort of murkiness is, of course, what the civil courts of the world are for--someone has to decide if confidentiality was actually breached. I don't want to get into the wrinkles of Internet copyright law (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
"Tim Wilkins" <Tim.Wilkins@zurich.com> wrote in message news:Fyzz11.H3L@lugnet.com... (...) with (...) not (...) thing....we (...) I'm not sure if that is correct. I'm not a lawyer or anything but AFAIK there are European laws that safeguard (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) Let's do an experiment. Why don't you scan and publish the information you lifted from TLG's website, and provide us publicly with the URL where it can be viewed? I'd certainly welcome it (and be the first visitor), but you'd be absolutely (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) no (...) mell, are (...) Certainly not. A secret is only a secret if nobody knows about it. A leak is fair game and Target is hardly the CIA (...) By the way what is a troll ? Tim (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) with (...) no (...) are (...) No, but what he is saying is that LEGO has to contact each of us and _ask_ us to sign a NDA, which there is not a _thing_ they can do to make us sign. In other words, once the cat is out of the bag, it is too late (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) A Legalo man is a man who likes Lego but is concerned with Lego Legal matters. A Lego man isn't. His world is building Lego and unless Lego bring out minifig lawyers he has no interest in Lego Legal issues. Tim (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) It was friendly yet concerned, and extremely respectful and gracious. There were no veiled threats of any kind. It was also cordial and affable in spots, without being genial. A large part of it was explanatory. To be sure, it was not (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
(...) You're not seriously advocating that European companies and governments keep no secrets and allow the release of confidential corporate information pell-mell, are you? Bwahaha. best LFB (By the way, great troll!) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Do you mean why does LUGNET have this policy/requirement as part of the T&C? Because it benefits the community more in the long run to have this requirement in place than not to have it. Or, from a site survivalist point of view, it benefits (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I've got to champion Todd on this one. He's in a difficult position, given that he's admin of what is not only the most prominent fan site devoted to LEGO, but the *only* one that handles LEGO writ large (FBTB [1] and the like are theme (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What is a Legalo man? --Todd (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes: It can also open you up to legal issues. By the way what are the legal issues ? I printed out the new set Information when it briefly appeared on the Lego Site I could scan it and publish it in Lugnet. Is (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Actually, it is the key question in a court case ongoing in NYC right now...Is a link to a site that contains something illegal if a cease and decease order has been granted? I am refering to DeCSS, and www.2600.com, it makes for interesting (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Because, all things being equal, I think it's morally wrong to delete things, unless required to do so. It can also open you up to legal issues. (...) I believe that it's wiser and safer to require specific documentation and only to delete (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
Right on Burkhard ! We are Lego Men. Poor old Todd and his friends are Legalo men. (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Legal,Legal Legal and another thing
|
|
A few weeks ago all of the new upcoming sets (including 2001 ones ) appeared in the Lego Online Catalog for Europe. I was so excited that I telephoned Lego in Switzerland asking about delivery and they said they did not know anything abou the new (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Legal Legal legal
|
|
Tim, you're perfectly right. But that's the way it is in USA. It's ridiculous - noone cares about the impressive collection of automatic guns you may have at home, but one wrong word in a public forum, and a dozen of lawyers are breathing down your (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
How about we just call TLG's reaction BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS? I mean, the info has already leaked out, no matter how accurate it is, and having Todd cancel all posts containing a word about the sets is a really POOR idea. Either we're just a couple of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I obtained clarification from LSI Legal today on the telephone and it was indeed also true legal request and represented LSI Legal's position. (...) No, it was a formal legal request. And the phone call confirmed this. --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Legal Legal legal
|
|
I read with amusement some of the posts on legal matters concerning leaked information. I treat this site as a discussion group. People just talking about Lego etc just as if they were face to face. What has this got to do with lawyers ??? If (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Clarrification needed
|
|
(...) It's really for however Brad and the community (working together) thinks it best suits the both together. Personally, I would take a debate analzying LD's actions elsewhere and come back and summarize concisely after it concluded, so as not to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Why are you so afraid of nuking posts on your own system? Do you really have a legal obligation not to delete posts without a formal legal request? I would only call to confirm if you *disagree* with the request, and want to see if they (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Possibly, but also consider that it is probably far worse to hurt their own legal reputation by letting something like this slide. I can certainly imagine that as part of their investigation and any actions they may take in the future, they (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Censors / information
|
|
(...) That's correct. (...) You can say whatever you like -- but if you post something that infringes on someone's privacy rights and they make a legal request that it be removed, it has to be removed. (...) yes, indeed. I don't know about other (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) No, LEGO asked Todd to remove certain messages on a thread containing confidential information, thus causing them to discontinue to be published, and he complied with that particular specific legal request. --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) My primary suggestion is to start with the person who posted the information, rather than talking to Todd first. Don't send a threatening legal letter, but nicely say that Lego prefers to keep that information secret, and and ask the poster to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Why would you think TLC haven't already complain to Target also? (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I just received an email reply from Brad to my earlier message to him today. He reiterated that the original request was a formal legal request and noted that he could not give permission for me to post the contents of the message. He said (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
exactly... I think Todd did the right thing in responding to LEGO's wishes (formally or informally legal). However, LEGO should have directed this 'problem' at Target - NOT at LUGNET... Just my 2 cents.. Gene (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) That's a question for Brad or LEGO Legal via Brad. I am not a lawyer, so I can't give you legal advice on how not to break the law or how to avoid infringing on the LEGO company's rights. The policy is: Don't infringe on anyone's privacy or (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Actually, probably a few days. Just spoke with the LSI attorney who Brad consulted with before sending the request, and I got the distinct sense that this is a issue which LEGO wishes to address quickly and devote whatever time and resources (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <clip> (...) I can say with confidence (because I am in a business where we frequently get prerelease product info and training material that is covered by a non- disclosure agreement) that LEGO has this in place between themselves and Target. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) <sheepish> Um... OK... I didn't mean that the way it sounded. :-| </sheepish> -Duane (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Is that your policy Todd? Can I talk all of the about the sets that I know about? If we find out about leaked information (from some other site for example), can we talk about that information in other casual conversations on Lugnet? Ben (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
You've got a point. IF Jorge Rodriguez was honest about Targets policy I don't think Lego would be so tight up about their sets for next year. Of course, Lego seems pretty bottled up abut everything now a days. ANY WAY, someone's gonna be really (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Whoa whoa whoa! Watch what you say, please. For the record, I have *NEVER* censored a message here and never will. Any message I have ever removed has been under one of four cases: 1. Someone is unable to cancel their own message for whatever (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. I sent a polite request to Brad today asking for his permission to post a verbatim copy of his email, and cc'd the LSI attorney who he originally cc'd on his request, and also left a phone message (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Todd, as the big kahuna, has the right to censor messages at his discretion since LUGNET IS afterall, his site. He's done it before, he's done it in this case and I'm sure he'll have to do it again. It's in the best interest of the LUGNET/TLC (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I'm also voting for this. If you (Todd) are going to cancel a post by someone at the behest of Lego (who neither sponsor nor endorse LUGNET), release the legal document asking you to remove it. I suspect that it was in the form of a 'please (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
i agree completely. i didnt get to see the set info before it was canceled, so i dug around and got it from a confidentail source. This is outragues and i think TLG needs to stop overreacting. ps if you want the set info.. .email (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Eugwe Coral <eugwecoral37@cs.com> schrieb: FyyoI7.MJ1@lugnet.com... (...) What you wrote makes a lot of sence for me, but if this was the case, why did TLC ask Todd to cancel the message and not Target. Note that only Target would be affected if (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Clarrification needed
|
|
Todd, Is this section for debate about how Lego and LD are working with the consumer? Or should all that be moved to .debate? I was wondering because I posted a large opinion piece about LD and "recent events" into .debate. Bryan (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) reading (...) Ooh, mabey they'll cancel the M****** T* M*** like sets and make pirats!!! NICK #:^A (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J. (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row) TLC's reasoning (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Uh, kinda... NICK #:^< (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Even worse, they didn't even ask us. They asked the admin of the site to remove the posts. (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Exactly. What, precisely, is the point of telling us not to talk about it? The sets might get cancelled? The prices might change? I think anyone reading this information knows that might happen. Competitors might get the info? Uh, so? I'm sure (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Either way, the problem is at Target. Once it's out, it's news. Frankly, I find it silly when companies "crack down" on things like this. It's their own fans they're hurting -- and it's the most rabid fanatical ones who *care* about stuff like (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) No, Lego asked Todd not to publish information they consider "confidential", and he agreed to not do that. You're still free to discuss it. But, if you want to *publish* it somewhere, you'll have to find a publisher that won't honor Lego's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Not if they can then push Mega Bloks more and make up for it.... (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Which again would cause them to loose sales/profit? In the UK there is a phrase "cut your nose off to spite your face" - that is what target would be doing if they even deliberatelly reduced lego sales by 1%. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) This cuts both ways, Target can't NOT sell Lego at all or they will lose sales too. However they can deemphasize it or cut shelf space for it (which seems to be happening at Target and Kmart at least) ++Lar (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) The problem here is that target is so big that they could take action against efforts by TLG to tell them how to run their stock systems or whatever (e.g. discontinuing the sale of lego) and that would loose sales for TLG. (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
However, In reality LEGO was only doing their usual pre-sale marketing prep... ie: updating retail store databases in preparation for the upcoming December release... This however should be a problem directed at Target abd its handling of said (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Apple's quiet crackdown began more than two years ago. Heads rolled, because they leaked bogus information that was planted to detect the leak. Apple may have gotten "better publicity" for last month's crackdown on photos of "the cube", but it (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Me too. But in this case, *Target* is the source of the leak. At this point, it's fair game. The only issue that comes into it for me is the one of respect for Lego. Out of respect for them, I personally will avoid posting data that I might (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Interesting question. The info is out there. It WILL be discussed. I've received numerous copies of it already. I could simply post it on my website or to RTL or any number of places (either taking credit for it or as anonymously as possible) (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I don't really have a problem with your reasons for canceling the various posts that began this thread. My problem is that TLC seems to be asking you to replace their clothing when *they* are the ones walking about nude! If they have a problem (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Well, you know, the same exact thing would have happened if LEGO had asked the same thing a year ago. The only difference now is that they're paying attention, so they notice things like this. And they use e-mail, which makes things go faster. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What if someone goes in to Target, asks an employee for that info, gets it, and then posts it here? (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Yes, I deleted as few messages as possible -- only the ones which contained references to the materials which were asked to be deleted. --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Oh, and P.S.: Todd only deleted a lot of the reply messages because the original message was in with the reply, which makes a lot of sense. Most of the replies were mostly "Wow, that's cool" so, personally, I feel Todd did exercise good (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Well said. ~Nick (URL) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Gotta agree with Eric here. And wow, I guess I either need to spend more time reading various groups again or give up entirely. In fact, I'm a little scared after looking at the little dots view of this thread. Most of what I'm seeing are (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Ahh, hmm. So, the information has been released to Target Stores, and Target has placed it in their computer. An employee of Target who has access to that information legally (ie, he was not sneaking into his bosses' offices) shared it with (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct) !
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Well, at least that proves it wasn't a hoax... (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
Oh OK. Sorry LEGO (...) Jorge Rodríguez rodriguez.136@osu.edu (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) LEGO has respectfully requested that the leaked information on this thread be deleted or otherwise removed from view. Since this was a formal request and TLC's privacy rights are in question here, this is a legal issue and I will be deleting (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.announce)
|
| |
| | Lego.com Builder's Gallery Down
|
|
I just wanted to point out that the Builder's Gallery at lego.com is down. When you click the "vote for model" button, none of the pictures on the new page load. Also, if anyone from TLC is reading this, I think you should check out this line of (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
|
(...) Amen to that. After all, we are talking about a child's toy. TLC *should* stick to marketing to the youth of the world (God knows we need kids playing with LEGO a lot more than Ninetendo, watching MTV, etc) while providing bulk services for (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
|
(...) That's good to hear Todd. I think it's wise for TLC to leave LUGNET's market alone. LUGNET continues to improve at a pace that suits most users needs, or so I would hope. It meets mine. Really is time I sent you my membership fees too. :-) I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Ording Downside?
|
|
I would say that until bulk ordering is up and going full speed we need the parts packs. At the moment the parts packs are offering pieces (doors, windows, minifig accessories, corner roof pieces, a larger selection of plates) that are not available (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
|
(...) Thanks James, I hadn't been there before. <ICS> (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom MOC kits (was: Re: Brickmania calls it quits on custom model kits)
|
|
(...) A fair number of *AFOLs* liked them, at a *huge* discount. That's bad for TLC one of two ways: If we're a significant part of the market, make us sets we want to buy at full price and don't take the hit on margins, because we're big enough to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom MOC kits (was: Re: Brickmania calls it quits on custom model kits)
|
|
Of course, flops can even depend to some extent on whether the set will make it as a parts pack, after people have said they don't want to buy it! ;-) For those in the USA and other high-usage LEGO areas, there are also the sets that are not very (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom MOC kits (was: Re: Brickmania calls it quits on custom model kits)
|
|
(...) For the record, I dispute that TLC is "great at designing sets which appeal to kids or JFOLs". I think we all can recite a significant list of recent designs that, based on shelf dwell time, appear to be flops. If we wanted to, but I don't (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Ording Downside?
|
|
(...) Right. And this is because everyone loves Rock Raiders, the new and vastly overpriced AND vastly juniorized town sets, arctic, castle, etc? Guess again. I am not touching that large castle set except at deep discount. In fact, I won't touch (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Ording Downside?
|
|
(...) I don't really consider discounted sets as any sort of competition for bulk. In part, I think that what we are seeing is a bubble which is going to burst. To some extent, right now we are flushing out a bunch of excess, poorly distributed (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
|
(...) Phone conversation -- January, I believe. No request, explicit or implicit, to keep the information private. I just remembered it yesterday. It's not a new or novel idea, so it didn't stand out at the time. (...) I just found a sheet of paper (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Ording Downside?
|
|
(...) I hesitate to agree with your opinion on the matter, John. I'd be more impressed if the current bulk orders were more compelling in terms of items offered, quantities available, and price. I liked the tiles, the small window, and the small (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Custom MOC kits (was: Re: Brickmania calls it quits on custom model kits)
|
|
(...) I certainly can't, since that's all I know, and I don't know anything else that I can't pass along (I haven't signed any non-disclosure agreements and haven't been given any private or secret or sensitive information except one thing from a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Ording Downside?
|
|
(...) Easy there cowboy. Try and look at the big picture. Bulk is berry, berry good in every way and here's why. Take the roof bricks pack for example. I have purchased dozens of those and am left over with many elements I don't want. Bulk lets me (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
|
(...) How about going to: www.bricksmiths.com. We don't have a single list of items for sale at a single time, because some stuff is constant (my 2 smaller kits for example), and some stuff (for example my Tyne Dock hopper) is limited production. (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Custom Kits & Communications
|
|
(...) I missed Dan's offerings. Larry, I have seen your hopper cars. Does anyone have a comprehensive list of sets being sold by individuals? I would guess it's short and sporadic. (...) Really? When and how did Brad say this? (...) I agree. I'd (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Bulk Ording Downside?
|
|
I just wanted to voice my concerns about the aparent downside to the Lego Company's new method of selling parts. While I love the idea of being able to order bulk parts, especially when they are special parts the you normally have to buy several (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickmania calls it quits on custom model kits
|
|
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Todd Lehman writes: <Dan Siskind is exiting the custom kit biz, but may make a CD of instructions available at some point> (...) Can you, or Brad, elaborate on this? It begs a lot of questions: - Any restrictions on (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
