Subject:
|
Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:39:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
51 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> I'm not sure I agree with this. Recall that I as well pointed out that I
> don't feel this is an issue for a vote, so of course, I'm not going to
> agree...
>
> Bully to Huw for seeking consensus but my thoughts are that this is not
> a consensus issue, it's an issue where if you agree with one line of
> moral reasoning you should do one thing, but if you don't, you should
> stick to your guns and REFUSE to do that thing.
I totally agree. If Huw doesn't want to take down the scans, he certainly
doesn't have to. (I hope no one thought I was trying to bully him into
doing it.)
The issue, as far as LUGNET is concerned, from my point of view as a
sysadmin, is that the posting of the *news message* containing the list of
sets is potentially a violation of LEGO's publicity rights or other rights,
one of the Terms of Use for LUGNET is not to violate publicity rights of
others. That's my concern there. If TLC complains (not that they would)
and Huw posts another list (not that he would), I would probably have to
figure out how to handle that. Since the *scans* themselves do not appear
on lugnet.com, I have no business (professionally) telling Huw what to do
with the scans. But personally, as a fan, I can certainly offer my opinion
for Huw to consider.
From my point of view as a LEGO fan in a larger community of LEGO fans
(slightly different point of view), I don't personally think it sets a good
example to publish scans of catalogues that we weren't meant ever to see --
especially not prior to the release of the sets.
And from my point of view personally as a LEGO fan (very different point of
view), I *personally* do enjoy seeing such things -- but it still makes me
nervous.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) [snip] (...) I would like to add a bit to this point if I may... The point of such groups as this IS to provide a means of gaining EXACTLY this kind of information. The artificial restriction of information is the force that drives Fan and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) So how would you feel about releasing older dealer catalogues? Say, everything 1997 and older. Most of the sets contained in such catalogues would be discontinued, pricing information is, well, wildly out-of-date, etcetera. I'm talking about (...) (25 years ago, 7-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| I'm just going to pick on one thing in this long post. I don't have time to go into the deeper issues (and they are worthy of exploration, but I leave for Chicago at 4 AM tomorrow) so forgive me for jumping on this one minor point.. (...) I'm not (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
105 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
|
|
|
|
