| |
Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote:
> >
> > Actually, NO, with the available evidence (i.e. NOTHING said from TLC so far), it
> > is correct, not wishful thinking.
>
> 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.
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 involves doing something
out of the ordinary on the job.
Now am I saying that the AFOL misunderstood? Heck no. Am I saying
the Lego employee was less than truthful? Not really.
But "Oh, I can't do that - I'd get in trouble" is a fairly common
excuse for just about anything that doesn't fit into one's normal
activities.
So pardon me if I don't accept the word of some part-time young
person (all the employees *I* saw at the Disney Lego store were
kids) as absolute gospel when it comes to OFFICIAL Lego policy.
Does that mean it isn't true? Nope. I think that means we haven't
really officially heard from TLC on the issue - just like we haven't
heard from them officially on a LOT of issues that people seem to
accept as ok.
Oh, and for the record, I keep seeing reference to "well, this set
number and info were given out to the public over the phone at such
and such time" with respect to the Star Wars bucket thing. Again,
not calling that statement untrue, but I'd have to point out that I
and Larry and Tom S. have ALL gotten S@H reps to tell us things that
they probably don't tell just everyone - either openly or just in
casual conversation. So, in my mind, the above might contain just a
tad bit of convenient rationalization as well. :)
> But there is also a hidden significant item. The two fan sites which
> stretch the "fair use" clause the most, are also very restrained, and
> would never consider publishing this information.
>
> Think about that. What is the possibility that Brickshelf and Pause are
> allowed to exist because the editors of those resources have
> consistently shown restraint, and respect of TLC's intellectual
> property?
More speculation, I say.
> The way I read TLC's position is that restrained and respectfull use of
> their intellectual property (which implies not publishing information
> "too early") wins their respect, and the biggest element of that respect
> is allowing such use to continue.
Ok, that's how you read it. I read it a little differently. And I,
for one, don't really think different interpretations of SILENCE is
a useful measurement of how we should view the actions of some
AFOL's - some as GOOD and RESPECTFUL and others as BAD and
DISRESPECTFUL. Think about it - some of us are actually listening
to the SILENCE and getting from it and some assumptions that "this
is ok" and "this is not". Sounds like a lot of crystal ball
nonsense to me.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
