Subject:
|
The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:46:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
782 times
|
| |
| |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article
<G3oFGo.JED@lugnet.com>...
> In lugnet.general, Jeff Elliott writes:
> > 2) I'd guess that if Lego's legal text is too restrictive, we could do
> > the following:
> >
> > - use your mosaic generator to generate a 44x44 image in 5 colours
> > - count the number of each plate
> > - generate an image containing the right number of plates, and order it.
> > - take apart Lego's set (since we're not prevented from decomposing it,
> > I believe)
> > - build a mosaic using your instructions.
>
> Ah yes! Jeff, that's brilliant! Using a different mosaic generator to do
> the real work prevents LEGO from owning the copyright to the instructions
> for your mosaic*. Instead, it leaves them owning the copyright on the
> instructions for bands of gray.
>
> Since the BoL UA doesn't say that the mosaic you assemble has to be the one
> that BoL creates for you, and it doesn't say that you can't use an alternate
> pixellator to create the real final image, this sounds like a genuine
> loophole worth exploiting*.
Todd, your last statement has an odd ring to it. Perhaps you can
elaborate.
You are a person who (rightly so) defends your own trademarks with great
vigor. And yet, you seem to be inviting others to 'exploit' a loophole in
the LEGO(TM) company's claim to intellectual property rights.
I seem to remember a couple of weeks ago someone making a joke about
posting to LUGNET(TM) under a false name. Your response was swift and
stern. And yet the ability to make such a posting is really a loophole
isn't it? I know why you don't want it exploited, but I can't figure out
why you don't honor the LEGO(TM) company with the same respect.
The legal text which you reposted (with permission I assume?) seemed formal
and stale. Probably drawn up by a bunch of lawyers, so we can forgive the
company itself. But it seems that everyone's first reaction to the legal
statement was to see how they could bend and bash it to fit their own
needs. Or to simply outright question the validity of certain parts of it.
The LEGO(TM) company *finally* seems to be listening to this group of
consumers, who for years have begged to be listened to. I think it's only
fair to meet the company half way and not attempt to exploit grey areas
that may arise along the way.
I think everyone who wants to do so should simply go ahead and order your
set with 5 shades of grey or whatever variation you need for your other
projects. But don't make a big deal of it. It's doubtful that the
LEGO(TM) company is going to be dropping by your home anytime soon to see
how you are putting its products to use. A little mutual respect between
the consumer and a company can go a long way; and perhaps get more of these
type of products release in the future.
Regards,
Allan
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
- 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
|
|
|
|