 | | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | (...) 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | (...) 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?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) 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?) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 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?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) (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?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) 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?) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) 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?) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | (...) 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: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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?)) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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?)) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) 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?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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?)) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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?) —Mark Koesel
|
| | | | | "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?) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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?) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | 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?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) "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?) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) ...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?) —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) 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?) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
