Subject:
|
Re: Trademarks & Copyrights (Swimming pools & movie stars)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:13:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1015 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Matthew Gerber writes:
> > Windows. <snip>Apple Records went after them based on the word
> > alone.
>
> Neither of those examples reassures me it isn't just the usual corporate
> abuse of power and money. How different we feel when it's eBay v.
> Brickbay...then it's just words that should belong to everyone. I feel the
> same about GOB. It's just words.
Or is it an issue of community...where we, as communtiy members, should
support each other when taking chances or making a difference or providing a
service?
I don't buy from Brickbay (just once), yet I'm willing to support Dan as
much as possible because he provides a service that so many community
members find very valuable.
I've never bought a GoB set from any of it's members, yet I'm willing to
support the builders because they are aspiring to bring a new level of
involvement to the hobby, marketing their designs and selling their kits
with an assurance of quality that can only be rivaled by The LEGO Company
themselves.
I hope that the community at large is in support of me, and my efforts to
develop and run BricksWest, even if they can't attend (and judging from the
feedback I have received, I do have just that kind of support).
> Anyway, I just think the GOB thing is fine as long as it doesn't take over a
> newsgroup for any significant length of time. I am not telling anyone not
> to post their GOB stuff, just to please keep the thread to a fair length.
> If it must run on and on, perhaps it's fair to place it where we place all
> non-Lego commercial product stuff -- in clones.
But no one from GoB has really taken part in this current part of the
thread...and even when they have, it hasn't been to promote their group at
all...in fact, I'd be surprised if all of this talk hasn't really hurt them
much more than it has helped them, business-wise...
I don't understand how anyone can complain about LUGNET being used for its
intended purpose...discussion!
This issue has been coming more and more to the forefront lately for some
reason, both publicly and privately...I can attest, since I have been
involved in one of the private discussions, which was directed at an action
on my part. Compartmentalized Dork Syndrome aside, why would anyone have a
problem with discussions...ANY discussions...taking place at LUGNET? Isn't
that what it is for...isn't that why we are here? Who decides what a "fair
length" for a thread is, and at which point it has "taken over" a group? I
don't think that this can or ever should be regulated.
> If TLC chooses to release a
> fan designed product as an official release, obviously it changes status
> (side note: I don't think being a GOB member has anything to do with what
> kind of builder Suskind is, we have to take each designer on their own).
Ross coverd this nicely...the two are nearly inseperable.
> In general I object to the commercialism of the many lugnet newsgroups,
> that's not why I read them. Marketplace is certainly the place to post about
> new MOCs or what-have-you for sale, trade, or whatever -- but that doesn't
> give any one person or group the right to monopolize the newsgroup.
Again, why would you possibly begrudge folks for having discussion here at
LUGNET...that's what it is for! Just because something happens to be a hot
topic, and gets a lot of post time? Too bad...that's the way it is
sometimes. Same applies to most of the other "abuse of groups" arguments
floating around out there. Obviously the topic is of enough interest to
enough folks to keep it alive and active...if you don't care for it, too
bad...there will likely be a long, drawn-out thread that you are involved in
soon that I won't give a care about, but I won't complain about it...it's
not my place to try and squash your discussion.
> Previously this thread was spread across three of the Marketplace newsgroups
> for something that was arguably of interest only to a very few persons, or
> worse -- thinly disguised and somewhat excessive promotion for GOB.
See above...I know I don't have any vested interest in GoB, and I've been
right in the thick of this all along. I think you are quite off-base about
this point.
> I think of Lego as a DIY hobby, and the whole idea of GOB seems to run
> counter to that. YMMV, but that still doesn't give GOB any rights beyond
> what everyone else can or should expect in terms of abusive posting in a
> newsgroup. Lengthy discussions about their trademarks, etc seemed beyond
> what should be expected in the marketplace newsgroups. Maybe a newsgroup
> should be created for MOC kits and sales theory -- otherwise it's kind of
> obnoxious to place this stuff alongside official lego stuff. And if it's
> not, I'd like to see the dinstinction between official and clone disappear
> immediately -- because GOB is not official.
CDS in action once again...and TLC DID place "this stuff" alongside their
official sets...and personally, I'm damn happy for Dan over it!
> I am not the final word on that, this is just MY opinion.
And a very well stated opinion it is. I just think you might need to
re-evaluate where your opinion is coming from...
And that's my opinion.
Matt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
