Staff views on knock-off discussion and promotion

[Sven F]

I would be interested to know how LEGO ambassadors or forum staff who have a close relationship with both The LEGO company and this forum view the long going trend of discussing, sharing links, pictures, prices and other promotional information about knock-off kwazi-brands under the tired pretence of "we are raising awareness"  

I don't understand why any fan community would work against its own interests.
It's like beating your wife every night and saying how much you love her.  Either you like LEGO and support the company or you are a parasite who exploits the end product and moves on to whatever is cheaper or more convenient regardless of how this influences your topic of interest, which if i'm not mistaken is supposedly LEGO. 
If this is a LEGO fan community forum, why do we support activity which goes against the interests of the company that manufactures the product we all love?

Thank you.

[CM4Sci]

I'd comment this on the announcement, but hooray! No more bootleg talk!

I'm honestly not a fan of it, so it's good to see they're being banished. If you don't buy real LEGO, why are you on this forum? 

[Peppermint_M]

This was the result of staff discussion and input from myself (A dabbler in brick comparison ). If anyone has any questions, this thread would probably suffice. 

[dr_spock]

Would it be possible for EB staff to provide and maintain a list of no-discuss companies so that anyone can look up and know which ones not to discuss?   LEPIN is one.  What are the other ones?

 

[Peppermint_M]

7 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

Would it be possible for EB staff to provide and maintain a list of no-discuss companies so that anyone can look up and know which ones not to discuss?   LEPIN is one.  What are the other ones?

 

That would be rather difficult as there are hundreds of names out there that change regularly. The best rule of thumb: 

Is it an exact copy of a LEGO set, past or present? Is it a copy of an existing or past LEGO minifigure design? If yes, then it is indeed a bootleg and we do not want it here on EB.

[Iria]

I'm curious where the line is drawn with respect to companies that could be considered both clones and competitors.

For example Enlighten previous was into cloning LEGO sets, but the company seems to be shifting to creating their own original designed sets. Would discussing a non-pirated design set be allowed? Or would it still be considered bad, as it would still be in affect supporting a company that has stolen set designs and possibly still sells bootleg sets?

 

[Peppermint_M]

The competitor product would be permissible. Set designs and themes that are original are not rip-offs, though it would not be a good idea to point to ways to access their previous bootlegged product. 

[L@go]

5 hours ago, dr_spock said:

Would it be possible for EB staff to provide and maintain a list of no-discuss companies so that anyone can look up and know which ones not to discuss?   LEPIN is one.  What are the other ones?

Isn't it simply a matter of whether it's a set that is a rip-off of a LEGO design or not? If it's a copy, it's not OK. If it's by a clone company, but a new design, it's OK. That's how I understand the rules.

And for the record, I wholeheartedly support the decision. Although I can see the moderators facing some tough decisions in the bootleg minifigure thread...

Edit: I see a few replies were posted before mine. I didn't intend to repeat what had already been said!

[CM4Sci]

29 minutes ago, Iria said:

I'm curious where the line is drawn with respect to companies that could be considered both clones and competitors.

For example Enlighten previous was into cloning LEGO sets, but the company seems to be shifting to creating their own original designed sets. Would discussing a non-pirated design set be allowed? Or would it still be considered bad, as it would still be in affect supporting a company that has stolen set designs and possibly still sells bootleg sets?

 

I'd say everything on that giant PDF Brickset posted recently of knockoff brands can not be allowed. It's a good 50+ I think

[L@go]

4 minutes ago, CM4Sci said:

I'd say everything on that giant PDF Brickset posted recently of knockoff brands can not be allowed. It's a good 50+ I think

Those are pretty much exclusively clone sets though, not rip-offs of LEGO designs...

[Sven F]

I am happy that Eurobricks will continue to support a healthy fan base for everything LEGO.  

I realize that this decision was probably already in the making when I asked. Still, couldn't have gotten a better response. 

[Umbra-Manis]

Great decision staff! 

[dr_spock]

1 hour ago, Peppermint_M said:

That would be rather difficult as there are hundreds of names out there that change regularly. The best rule of thumb: 

Is it an exact copy of a LEGO set, past or present? Is it a copy of an existing or past LEGO minifigure design? If yes, then it is indeed a bootleg and we do not want it here on EB.

Fair enough.  Discussion of their products is not allowed.  Would discussion of lawsuits against them by LEGO be a permitted topic?

 

[H3ssian]

Bit of a head in the sand type deal, but fantastic to have good clarification with this grey area, I'm sure it was a hard job for the mods to decide 

[BrickJagger]

The term "Bootleg" is present in both the permissible and non-permissible categories on the Site Guidelines. Not a big issue, but could someone remove it from the former?

 

I think the mods made the right call regarding copycats. It's best not to give them any more shine then they already have.

[drazplaz]

Ridiculous, snobbish decision.

[L@go]

1 hour ago, drazplaz said:

Ridiculous, snobbish decision.

How is this snobbish? It is Eurobricks, after all, which has the tagline "Uniting LEGO fans around the world" - not "Uniting fans of LEGO-related building bricks around the world".

[Phil B]

6 minutes ago, L@go said:

How is this snobbish? It is Eurobricks, after all, which has the tagline "Uniting LEGO fans around the world" - not "Uniting fans of LEGO-related building bricks around the world".

I would not honor a first post of such rudeness with a response. Pure trolling. Waste of keystrokes.

[BrickJagger]

1 hour ago, drazplaz said:

Ridiculous, snobbish decision.

Welcome to the boards!

[L@go]

7 minutes ago, Phil B said:

I would not honor a first post of such rudeness with a response. Pure trolling. Waste of keystrokes.

That was my initial reaction, too, but it's not drazplaz' first post. Remember, posts in Community do not count towards post count anymore. This user has been a member for more than two years.

[Phil B]

1 minute ago, L@go said:

That was my initial reaction, too, but it's not drazplaz' first post. Remember, posts in Community do not count towards post count anymore. This user has been a member for more than two years.

That is good to know, and shows my noobness :) Not surprisingly though, all drazplaz's posts outside this topic have been in the Bootleg Minifig topic.

[rodiziorobs]

8 hours ago, Sven F said:

I don't understand why any fan community would work against its own interests.

I don't see how offering a place for healthy civil discussion goes against the interests of any community.

The discussions in question were in the Community section of this forum, where people talk about pretty much anything, from cars to music to traffic circles--infinitely less relevant to what unites the EB community than a discussion about knockoff brands.

It saddens me that this kind of topical discussion is no longer allowed, and I'll admit I don't fully understand why; the main thread was civil and respectful to all members as far as I saw, and many--myself included--had made thoughtful posts contributing to the discussion (although I was in favor of removing the links to online shops).

8 hours ago, Sven F said:

It's like beating your wife every night and saying how much you love her.  Either you like LEGO and support the company or you are a parasite who exploits the end product and moves on to whatever is cheaper or more convenient

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but don't see how your comparison to spousal abuse is at all appropriate or even relevant to the matter at hand. It sounds like the same attitude would just as soon dismiss the Minifig Customization Workshop forum altogether, ban any mention of 3rd party producers like Brickarms, and censor kitbashers or anyone else who isn't an absolute Lego purist, and even ban third-party sales of bricks. We all share a love of the hobby in its many forms (MOCing, collecting, etc.), so we naturally unite around the brand that does it best. However, just because someone chooses to inform their hobby with non-Lego sources does not make them an abusive parasite.

Edited October 14, 2016 by rodiziorobs
Edited for clarity and brevity

[Jern92]

3 hours ago, L@go said:

How is this snobbish? It is Eurobricks, after all, which has the tagline "Uniting LEGO fans around the world" - not "Uniting fans of LEGO-related building bricks around the world".

One can be a fan of LEGO and still occasionally buy Lepin. The two are not mutually exclusive.

8 hours ago, CM4Sci said:

I'd comment this on the announcement, but hooray! No more bootleg talk!

I'm honestly not a fan of it, so it's good to see they're being banished. If you don't buy real LEGO, why are you on this forum? 

Some of us have one or two bootleg sets and about a hundred or so LEGO sets. What's your point?

2 hours ago, rodiziorobs said:

I don't see how offering a place for healthy civil discussion goes against the interests of any community.

The discussions in question were in the Community section of this forum, where people talk about pretty much anything, from cars to music to traffic circles--infinitely less relevant to what unites the EB community than a discussion about knockoff brands.

It saddens me that this kind of topical discussion is no longer allowed, and I'll admit I don't fully understand why; the main thread was civil and respectful to all members as far as I saw, and many--myself included--had made thoughtful posts contributing to the discussion (although I was in favor of removing the links to online shops).

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but don't see how your comparison to spousal abuse is at all appropriate or even relevant to the matter at hand. It sounds like the same attitude would just as soon dismiss the Minifig Customization Workshop forum altogether, ban any mention of 3rd party producers like Brickarms, and censor kitbashers or anyone else who isn't an absolute Lego purist, and even ban third-party sales of bricks. We all share a love of the hobby in its many forms (MOCing, collecting, etc.), so we naturally unite around the brand that does it best. However, just because someone chooses to inform their hobby with non-Lego sources does not make them an abusive parasite.

My sentiments exactly.

[Sven F]

4 hours ago, rodiziorobs said:

I don't see how offering a place for healthy civil discussion goes against the interests of any community.

The discussions in question were in the Community section of this forum, where people talk about pretty much anything, from cars to music to traffic circles--infinitely less relevant to what unites the EB community than a discussion about knockoff brands.

It saddens me that this kind of topical discussion is no longer allowed, and I'll admit I don't fully understand why; the main thread was civil and respectful to all members as far as I saw, and many--myself included--had made thoughtful posts contributing to the discussion (although I was in favor of removing the links to online shops).

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but don't see how your comparison to spousal abuse is at all appropriate or even relevant to the matter at hand. It sounds like the same attitude would just as soon dismiss the Minifig Customization Workshop forum altogether, ban any mention of 3rd party producers like Brickarms, and censor kitbashers or anyone else who isn't an absolute Lego purist, and even ban third-party sales of bricks. We all share a love of the hobby in its many forms (MOCing, collecting, etc.), so we naturally unite around the brand that does it best. However, just because someone chooses to inform their hobby with non-Lego sources does not make them an abusive parasite.

I didn't want to participate in the last discussion because there was severe lack of distinction between off brand and copy,  between raising awareness and advertising, Very low to no understanding about what costs and work goes into developing a product and I don't know if this is due to a lax education system in some countries or under age members with false profiles. There were of course good points on both sides, and a discussion on moral and legal issues about patents,  copyrights and trademarks would surely still be ok in the community forum. It's an interesting topic and I am sure more knowledgeable members would contribute if it wasn't a front for an underground marketplace.  

Edited October 14, 2016 by Sven F

[Adamskii]

Lego official website fair play statement

The link above is very interesting reading. Very. I would suggest everyone who had some interest in the the locked threads have a read at how Lego Legal works. The bits about Copyright are fascinating, especially the scanning and transmission of that material. Also I never noticed that this website didn't display any Lego Logo's, now I understand why ! Anyways some pertinent information there. 

IS the Train tracks (large radius etc) considered knock off? And also is talk about personal 3d printing of Lego parts off limits as well ? 

Adam

<edit> Here is a great summary of Lego's Legal copyright activities for the last 20 years, PDF has links to many cases. Interesting Lego does not win all the time, and allot of cases are settled out of court. The Chinese case is particularly intersting, as is Lego's interpretation of how the minifig is protected. I am amazed anything that looks even remotely like a minifig is not slayed by their Legal team. 

Lego protecting its trademark
 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Adamskii
insert link