 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) We have ONE point of reasonably solid information in this subject: We have a statement from a TLC employee that they could be FIRED for showing a consumer the retailers catalog. Well ok, we have two pieces of evidence. The only way TLC has (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Wow Frank, Well stated! I can't argue with that. One other item of discussion (I'm not sure this was answered, since I'm having server problems, and haven't read all of the lugnet.general posts), Ben had a 1993 Dealer Catalog. Should/can/may he post (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Gary Istok <gistok@umich.edu> wrote in message news:384E74BE.A847E7...ich.edu... (...) having server (...) 1993 Dealer (...) LEGO Dealer (...) hoot about (...) the USA since (...) Am I correct (...) Brickshelf has several old vendors' catalog (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) NO. We have a report from another person that a Lego employee said that. I've been told lots of things by store employees, and trust me, you shouldn't _always_ believe what someone making low money to stand on their feet all days says when it (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure Lugnet and Brickshelf DO still exist because of this. However.... (...) That would be a MAJOR shift from their current Fair Use Policy, and I'd expect them to post such a change on lego.com and put a pointer to it. And until (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) However, if the rep doesn't preface some tidbit with "don't spread this around", or similar, I try to remember to ASK. I have kept things in confidence many times when ASKED. It's common courtesy. I'm waiting for TLC to ASK or TELL us what (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) What do you think they will say, bearing in mind that these are secret, not for public use documents? Hearing the phrase "pastel = profit" from a 1993 retailers catalogue may seem funny or harmless. But it makes me dislike the girly LEGO even (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) And I ask YOU honestly, isn't the fact that TLC hasn't said anything about other things on other fan sites taken as implicit permission to do them? What's the difference? I'll be happy to eat crow if some TLC official makes a statement about (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) In my opinion? Certainly not! Grudging permission, tolerance maybe. But then it is not the charter of pause and brickshelf to contain company secrets. I really don't understand this "They haven't told us not to, so it's okay" attitude! (...) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) 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. (...) Um, when did ANYTHING BUT the pics ever creep (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) You don't? OK, we'd better shut down Brickshelf and Lugnet. RIGHT NOW. Because Richard says that since TLC hasn't told us not to, it's NOT OK, so all of Kevin/Todd's scans have to go. Take them down. Richard says so. If you can't see the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) You sound pretty sure of that. --Todd (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
OK, let me clarify - at NO time publicly has TLC stated anything about Brickshelf, and Kevin has repeatedly mentioned he hasn't heard from TLC. Yet by Richard's Holy Rule, since TLC has said nothing about posting instruction scans, and posting them (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) You call them company secrets. Company secrets that are so important that they're stored in catalogs that many retailers leave on the shelf for customers to see. The thought that, 2 weeks before these hit the shelves (or 2 months, or whatever) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Well, if he's wrong then say so. I distinctly remember Kevin on numerous occasions mentioning something to the extent of "well, the less attention we make TLG pay to the scans site the better" - basically, like in the case of the loser selling (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Right, not much. And as much as I trust Todd, and I do, I don't accept his opinion as gospel truth about all things related to how TLC/G feels about all issues. Certainly not based on the few haizy references I've seen to "private" (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) As much as this thread has stirred up some strong feelings (no real anger on my part - hope there isn't on most other peoples') this made me laugh and laugh and laugh. Pssst, hurry up... while they're still quiet. Bring up the cans and the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Inasmuch as I dislike "tooting the horn," I also try not to keep important things like that secret, assuming I am able to say one way or the other. In October of 1997, for example, I did mention that Suzanne and I had had a meeting with two (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) (Just re-reading what I just wrote) Bad wording -- I didn't mean that to sound like a back-handed slap. And I don't mean to demean educated guesses. I just meant that maybe the tone of this message, (URL) a bit strong, given the known facts. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Whoops, darn it, I did it again. I meant this message, (URL) #2743. Sorry. --Todd (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
Well, the other side of the coin is that YOU, and ONLY you, knew the full details of what they did/did not say was OK. All we have to go on is the Fair Use Policy posted on lego.com. We (the unwashed <g>) won't know any better unless the Policy is (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Regardless, UNaltered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Jasper (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Only if you make it an issue. Huw never even mentioned having that info. (...) I'm disturbed that you are disturbed about such a silly marketing slogan. Did you ever think TLC was NOT a for-profit company? (...) Sorry, I guess I should have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:384F3A51.4FCDDF...faq.com... (...) scans" (...) TLC (...) not for (...) SHOW us (...) Tom, I mean absolutely no offense here (and I've already brought this up in response to another (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) It comes from lawyers and politicians and owners of corporations. If they don't make a statement a subject, then they've neither blessed it or cursed it, and they have an open field to react to later developments. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Dissemination of certain types of information, however, is not encouraged here. For example, leaks or other information which intrudes on the rights of the owner. Maybe that's OK other places, but it's not OK here. In fact, it's specifically (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) That takes me back.. does that guy still post his orbital mindcontrol laser stuff (or whatever it is, I can't recall, but it's some of the most convoluted conspiracy theory stuff I've ever seen) ? (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Does this imply that your steamy entrails are not nice? Or that your entrails are not nice and steamy? ;-) (for the clue impared) Chris (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) Both and also legal. --Todd (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) What do you mean? There is some evidence for both sides. They do go to the effort to restrict the general consumer flow of information - for whatever reason - so obviously they care at least a little. There are many cited examples of retail (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) I want to understand your point here better. The above reads to me that you only respect property rights when you have willingly entered into a contract with someone. Is this really true? Do I need to sign a contract with you before I let you (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) One interesting question is how does one determine that someone has accepted an implied or understood contract? (...) Ok, now how are TLC's intellectual property rights different from the property rights of me for my LEGO collection? Or is the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Just to clarify- say I get a retailers catalogue like Huw did, and I want to share it with fellow Lugneteers. Is it okay with the T&C if I post stating that I have it, and that they can look at it on my page, as long as I don't actually post (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) I'm curious: Do you consider intellectual property rights to be a subset of property rights, or something totally separate? The original issue, I think, was at least partially about intellectual property rights. --Todd (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) Hi Frank, Actually, the reasoning for why your property is safe while I'm in your apartment falls under both my contract and aesthetics categories. When I refer to contracts in a broad sense I don't just mean reams of legalese with hundreds of (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Nah, McElwaine is long gone, just like Neutronium and most of the other net.legends. There've been some revivals of McElwaine, and a lot more of neutronium recently (likely by a 'bot for the latter), but it is highly doubtful any of them are (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Yes, I believe that would be technically OK with T&C. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it would be morally right, or legally right, from TLC's or anyone else's perspective, or that you wouldn't be an instant criticism- magnet. You (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
|
(...) Sometimes that's hard. Misunderstandings and differing expectations happen all the time and largely it's because of different world-view which is kind of the same as having accepted different implied contracts. I (sort of) keep track of what (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) LEGO made an official statement today: (URL) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
Yep, and I'll respect that statement. But I certainly WON'T agree with it. Putting pics on an open website and then saying "hey don't look at those" is NOT the way to run a website. Don't put them there in the first place, if you don't want them (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) "If you don't want me to drive away in your car, don't leave it in the parking lot." 8^) All in fun, Dave! (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Well, it was apparantly an error on somebody's part, because the pics and links are gone. Honest curiosity, how does that affect the 'public info' thing? I mean, I agree with most of the people around here, that if information is on the public (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) ...unlocked, with the keys in the contact, pink slip on the dashboard, and with a sign in the window saying in large, friendly letters "This car is free to anyone who wants it". Just to complete the analogy, and all. Jasper (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote in message <385AA831.A7538733@vfaq.com>... (...) is NOT (...) don't (...) Yes. You are 100% right. The problem is 100% with TLG. Somebody there is pretty naive I think. Crazy way to run a company - I have to use get past 2 (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
