Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:29:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1744 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
> > Um, when did ANYTHING BUT the pics ever creep into this. Oh, that's right,
> > they didn't, you JUST brought the Marketing crap up. I am only talking about
> > what EXISTS out there now - the pics of next year's sets.
>
> It isn't that simple - it stopped being about the original scans a long time
> ago. Once you start displaying retailer scans, then by logical extension the
> marketing information that the catalogues contain will be an issue.
Only if you make it an issue. Huw never even mentioned having that info.
> > I personally couldn't care less about Marketing drivel (it's drivel at ALL
> > companies), and think it would be a waste of bandwidth to post it, except in
> > the future as historical significance.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing all of it, not only because I was so disturbed by
> the "pastel = profit" statement. That doesn't extend to saying that I think I
> have a right to see it, or that I think it should be displayed.
I'm disturbed that you are disturbed about such a silly marketing slogan. Did you
ever think TLC was NOT a for-profit company?
> > > And if they want it as private statement to retailers, and they wouldn't
> > > tolerate it on their own website, then why the <expletive> would they say
> > > "Sure go ahead, put it on another website" ??
> >
> > "Tolerate it" on their website? Like their website has ever NOT sucked.
> > Always out of date info, ROTTEN design, etc.
>
> I don't see that as anything other than irrelevant, and ignoring the question
> posed.
Sorry, I guess I should have stated it clearer - try this. "Maybe they haven't
been posted to lego.com because the site SUCKS and never posts info in a timely
manner.
> > Show me the contract, flier, document, WHATEVER, that specifically states the
> > pics are not to be released to ANYONE at all, and I may agree with you. But I
> > still may not, as historical notes in here and RTL speak of people walking
> > into shops and reading the dealer catalog OUT ON THE SHELF FOR ALL TO FRIGGING
> > SEE, and never did we hear that TLC marched some lawyers over there and put a
> > stop to it. If you can't show me those docs, then GIVE IT A REST.
>
> Firstly, any such documents aren't needed to convince me that TLC don't
> want/intend customers to see retailer catalogues. They contain sets not in
> publicly released catalogues - that's enough for me.
Not enough for me and others, not when TLC hasn't seemed to do anything to stop
retailers from displaying the catalogs out in the open for consumers to see.
> Secondly, what shops decide to do with them is none of our concern.. and saying
> that so and so did it, so it doesn't matter to TLC is tenous. It isn't about
> whether we could "get away" with displaying the catalogues - we most probably
> could - would doing so damage potential relations with TLC? Possibly.
>
> Is it worth the risk? IMO no.
It IS our concern, because it has been happening for many years, and TLCs lack of
action there speaks volumes. If they were THAT worried about the retailer catalog
being publicized, you'd think they'd have a rather strongly worded contract, with
heavy penalties, for displaying it. I haven't SEEN or heard of such a contract.
> > You act like these are the fricking uranium refinement procedure docs during
> > WW2! They are PICTURES!
>
> I know what they are, and I know that displaying them could hurt us.
I maintain that there is little-to-nothing of a relationship to hurt.
> > Quit popping a blood vessel over it, and quit raising my blood pressure with
> > your whining (or I may pop one)!
> >
> > There, see, enough argument over something that TLC doesn't seem to give a
> > S!!T about, and we're all pissed off at each other.
>
> I'm not annoyed at you, although I agree that this somehow has become more
> personal than warranted.
Granted, and I'll try to chill out - WAY too little sleep this week.
> If you're worried about popping a blood vessel, then I suggest that you stop
> SHOUTING.
Can't ;-) I don't want to post using html, which is the only other way for
emphasis besides asterisks.
> > Either accept the fact that you WILL NOT CONVINCE those of us who see nothing
> > wrong with the pics of anything whatsoever without WRITTEN proof, or go rant
> > in a corner, not here.
>
> Followups belatedly set to off-topic.debate
>
> Requiring written proof is unreasonable, as it probably isn't going to happen.
> Surely we are intelligent enough to come to our *own* conclusions? Or do we
> really need a law for everything?
Who said anything about a law? I'm simply asking TLC to tell us if they give a
damn or not. To date, evidence suggests they don't.
> > I'm tired of this BS. YOU are acting like you KNOW that TLC cares,
> > or is pissed. *I* am telling you people to give it a rest, and wait to hear
> > from TLC. If they really give a S!!T, they'll say something. To date they
> > haven't, so as far as I am concerned, the pics are not a problem.
>
> The fact that no-one tells you to stop doing something, isn't a reason to do
> it. It's called responsibility.
>
> > The preaching on this thread is worse than some of the religious tripe I've
> > seen on RTL!
>
> Perhaps, but as far as I know I haven't told you that you are wrong or
> shouldn't participate in the debate. Believe it or not, I am trying to
> understand your reasoning.. but beyond "It's okay, they haven't told us not to
> yet", I haven't seen much evidence of any!
The only evidence I see from your side is "bad boy!". That's it. I see no moral
problem whatsoever here, because TLC hasn't said "doing X would not be preferred",
and X in this case is simply posting pics from a catalog easily available to
consumers in the near and distant past.
> > > I ask you honestly - is there a possibility that you are using the fact that
> > > TLC will most probably not answer you to justify doing something that they
> > > probably wouldn't like and could hurt the community?
> >
> > NO. I'm actively (in here) ASKING them to clarify their Fair Use Policy. You
> > have a problem with that?
>
> Absolutely not - but we both know that the liklihood of a TLC lawyer replying
> to this thread is unlikely.
>
> I am more hopeful as to the success of Todds asking them directly to clarify
> their position however.
>
> > If they don't like it, all they have to do is ask us to stop. I, personally,
> > will then delete the pics from my hard drive. Until then, you can just bugger
> > off with your self-righteous attitude.
>
> This possibly goes against the TOS, but I'll let it pass.
>
> Self-righteous? Possibly. Wrong? Possibly.
>
> > Oh, yeah, great relationship there. At that point, I certainly would start
> > mixing the tints with the primer base, just to check to see if the company was
> > alive.
>
> :) They could be a bit more responsive I agree.
>
> > The ONLY relationship is the lack of shark lawyers. And the lawyers at TLC
> > crack down pretty damned quickly on the one thing they really hate - using
> > "lego" in a domain name. I KNOW they have the speed to react. They haven't.
> > So the evidence TO DATE, SO FAR, is on MY side.
>
> Interestingly http://www.duplo.org is still running, and with no front-page
> disclaimer. Although maybe they don't protect that trademark as vigorously.
>
> > Geez, I get zero sleep, and start mixing morality with legality - that's a
> > NASTY mix!
>
> Agreed.
>
> Richard
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
