Renting out LEGO Technic

[Theo van Vroenhoven]

Hi guys (and girls),

Did you know that there is a German website where you can rent LEGO Technic?

They even have some famous MOCs in theire catalog!

http://www.spielsteinservice.com/29-legosondermodelle

What do you think of this idea?

I personally find it quite expensive and don't like the 'rainbow models'...

Edited April 29, 2015 by Theo van Vroenhoven

[Blakbird]

Doesn't make much sense to me. I wonder if they have the designers' permission to commercialize all those models.

[aol000xw]

About the permission, I don't think they need it. But anyways the whole thing does not make sense to me either.

[Blakbird]

About the permission, I don't think they need it.

Legally, perhaps not, but morally yes. But to have even built the models the first place the site owners must be legimate buyers of the instructions.

[vliet]

The prices are very high, you can rent the 42025 for € 120,- for 3 months or you can buy it for about the same price. I don't understand why someone would do that.

[metulskie8]

In German is this "ABZOCKER"

That's way too expensive and too colorful.

Edited April 29, 2015 by metulskie8

[Covi]

I agree with Blakbird on this.

They're using another person his creation to make a profit.

That's quite different as perspective compared with somebody who makes/purchases the MOC for personal use.

Nevertheless I don't think this will be a success as prices are outrageous and the colours used in some MOCs dont really do any good for the models. ;-)

[papacharly]

Hahaha , that's definitely one of the most abnormal as well as funniest business ideas ever created by mankind!

Did you know that there is a German website .....

To re-establish the honor of Germany I have to note that even though the language is german this is an Austrian website.

regards

papacharly

P.S.: As I have lots of LDraw-files in stock, I think I will start a business for renting lego cad files a.s.a.p......

[Phoxtane]

How is that Pleygo service thing working out nowadays? Last I heard it was what pretty much everyone expected: Sets come back with all the good pieces missing, or not at all half the time. I bet you this will end up the same way, supposing it even catches on.

[Erik Leppen]

I wonder if they have the designers' permission to commercialize all those models.

They don't.

At least, they had my model on it too, without me knowing. I was kindly informed of this by an observant AFOL. While they won't make any profit with those outrageous prices, and made my model uglier in the process (yes, they made little changes: they added stickers, changed the wheels and replaced some elements by other colors), I felt disrespected that my name was not mentioned and my (free) instructions are not linked from their website. So I decided to kindly ask them to remove the model. They did.

So if you find your model there, I'd advise to ask for it to be removed. In the end, I hope they will notice their way of doing things doesn't work. I didn't want to engage in a discussion with them, as that would be perpetuating negative energy, which I don't want. I just hope that AFOLS will keep making great things and share them with the world - after all, that's what makes the world a more beautiful place to live in :)

[dr_spock]

I guess it may work for people who are only interested in a building a set and not keeping them. Pleygo is now Pley. They dropped the go in the name.

P.S.: As I have lots of LDraw-files in stock, I think I will start a business for renting lego cad files a.s.a.p......

You can make the LDraw files auto-self-destruct after the rental period.

[Saberwing40k]

While this sounds like a good idea, if any thought is given to it, it becomes terrible. Also, these guys are making the models, at least often times, uglier. I think everybody who has a creation offered for rent should ask them to remove it.

[D3K]

Wtf?

I wouldn't worry to much about them making a profit off of this

[aol000xw]

Disclaimer:I am not in the business of buying, selling or whatever, instructions or built MOCs, be mine or not, and I am not talking of anyone in particular.

Instructions piracy or plagiarism are directly a No, but this is about built models.

Legally, perhaps not, but morally yes. But to have even built the models the first place the site owners must be legimate buyers of the instructions.

I disagree on the first account, even if I find rude not mentioning the original designer, I don't think asking for permission even morally is necessary in this case.

On the second account and to simplify things l assume they own legitimate instructions.

And that's all, because this is like renting your car. They are not even selling. What if I decide to quit and sell my Lego, do I need to ask TLC permission to sell my built sets? What makes MOCs different?

There have been some outraged MOCers because someone was selling their built model; I disagree on that stance. Furthermore when the model is branded and someone gets outraged because someone else is simply selling a built copy of it, it baffles me because they want to claim rights when -I am guessing- they failed in first place to properly license their model, and some of those offended by the fact are selling the instructions, a commercial activity. So the irony is "criminalizing" someone for something that indeed is legal when the MOCer may be the one doing something wrong.

Don't get me wrong, licensing for such small scale operations would be ridiculous in my opinion but anything about built models beyond asking for attribution is too. I find asking them to remove a set is outreaching, Like Honda calling me and telling me I can't sell or rent my bike.

Just my 2 cents.

[Corvette3]

Wow Sheepo's defender looks crazy in those colors, i might have to build mine like that... i kid, also its called a Jeep on the site, i know a Land Rover fan who would go nuts if you said that

And is that the ultimate 42009? it doesn't look quite right.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Corvette3

[Kumbbl]

I guess it may work for people who are only interested in a building a set and not keeping them.

Well, this COULD be a business idea which COULD make sense but not with these ridiculous prizes. E.g. 8285 tow truck. They write its market prize is 700€ so its prize for 3 month rent is 170€. What a megablocks. In German this is called "abzocke" in english it is a rip off

In Germany you get a 8285 in used but very good condition for less than 100€ - and then it is your own model the whole life...

Edited April 30, 2015 by Kumbbl

[Kumbbl]

Well, please take a look at this: http://www.spielstei...mobil-bunt.html

AFAICS this is Designer Hans snow groomer - or should i say: this WAS or SHOULD BE the snow groomer - incredible color vomiting...

But now something really important: Dear original designers of the models, i do not know why are you complaining and lamenting : Please read the section "Mehr Infos" (More infos): They write: "... Die Anleitungslizenzgebühr für das alte Original wird automatisch von uns bezahlt." (in english: The instructions license fee for the original model will be paid automatically by us". This means, for each renting transaction you (the designer) should get the fee for your instructions! - This remark is mentioned at each model with not-free instructions! I think you should control your incoming fees....

BTW: The whole description of this wonderful snow groomer is somehow strange and also partly wrong.

In general the owners of this shop write sometimes complete nonsense - please read the following description about the C-model of 8110 designed by MrTekneex http://www.spielstei...up-orange.html:

Translated from the section "Mehr Infos":

"This model is a free -designed alternative model for Mercedes Unimog U 400 to 8110 , but completely different in look. First, you build it and it moves forward and back , the lights shine . With self imagination and without guidance and own parts you can redesign it to a model with a roof . Then 2 engines can be added and then it is remotely controlled . However, here also you imagination is in demand, which means that you often have to decide how you want to build … . It is only suitable for experienced hobbyists . The manual is very good , but somewhere it ends ...."

I have bought the manual from MrTekneex and the bold marked text is simply wrong: The instructions are complete and there is no need for own imagination to make it RC - there is a additonal pdf which explains step by step how to make it RC... this text is not a good advertisment for this great C-model...

Edited April 30, 2015 by Kumbbl

[Lipko]

Some feel disrespected but I feel that I am still not on the map...

[technicbasics]

Hi everybody

A few words from my point of view:

I already had a brief discussion with the owner of the page.

Moral > No

When talking about rip off > in response only bad words

It's just an old man of recognition examines and just has a very specific view of what he does.

We've also had a very long and hard discussion on the side of a good friend (technicdialog.de), where he very much likes to use to free instructions and models and then as modified, very rare, hard to become and blah blah blah ........want to sell. He is there now simply ignored since any discussion is simply a waste of time.

I personally find it sad, make the profit from other spiritual property of others. Because I know how much work behind a good MOC infected with instructions, because I have already created some instructions to MOCS. The last was the Classic Car of metulskie8 (look here >> http://www.technicdi...e=37&modell=289). It was a co-production of metulskie8, turocha and me. What do you think, metulskie8 it has presented here before in another thread.

Found spelling error may be retained. >>>> translated with Google ;-)

regards

technicbasics

Edited April 30, 2015 by technicbasics

[Erik Leppen]

And that's all, because this is like renting your car.

Not really.

It's more like renting someone else's car without telling it's someone else's car.

The problem isn't so much the renting, for me, it's the not telling. It's the holding back of information (in a commercial context) that makes me find this problematic. [And personally I don't care if it's legal, or even moral. I care whether I like it or not. And I don't like this.]

If they want to have recognition for Han's snow groomer, they should say it's Han's snow groomer. That's not rocket science. They shouldn't act as if it's a rare hard-to-get unique model without adding any information about where they found this model, or how to build this model for yourself.

My conclusion is that their intent is not to share beautiful models with the world. If it were, then they would credit the builders of those models.

This websites looks a lot as if they intention is commercial/capitalistic. As I oppose to this intention, I asked them to remove my model from their shop.

What if I decide to quit and sell my Lego, do I need to ask TLC permission to sell my built sets? What makes MOCs different?

What makes MOCs different is that MOC designers are not paid for designing MOCs, and have not signed a contract that says that their IP now belongs to a toy company. (I assume here that set designers have signed such a contract.) If you sell a set to non-AFOLs without telling, people usually assume it's a set and they're then correct, and have recoginition for the IP, which indeed belongs to the Lego company (presumed the above is true). If you sell Han's snow groomer to non-AFOLs without telling, people usually don't know it's Han's snow groomer, so they won't have recognition for Han and the IP that still belongs to him.

Another difference is that the Lego company has a commercial interest as well as the renters/sellers. Many MOC designers don't - they just want to share knowledge, and money is often an unwanted visitor. This difference in intent means there will be friction if these people interact.

[mkeomotupp]

I wonder if they have the designers' permission to commercialize all those models.

[Corvette3]

If you think of Lego as an art medium, i:e painting, drawing, music playing, and the design as an IP then this is definitely wrong, the Mona Lisa was painted with simple paints after all, but is an IP none the less.

[Lucio Switch]

From a legal point of view, I don't think that we can really do something! All in all, from a certain point of view, selling instructions based on a system where you do not own the rights it may not be so different! Without arguing about what own the rights of what could mean.

From a moral point of view, well, I believe that he should cite the author of the MOC, and above all, write that his is a derived version, not the original. Maybe not everyone thinks like me, but my pick-up is...a bit ugly ... and I think it is also one of the most similar to the original version!

Anyway Internet gives us the opportunity to make ourselves known everywhere and also to earn some money in a "easy" way, but, on the other side, we have to accept that it's also easy to clash with these things.

[Theo van Vroenhoven]

From a moral point of view, well, I believe that he should cite the author of the MOC, and above all, write that his is a derived version, not the original. Maybe not everyone thinks like me, but my pick-up is...a bit ugly ... and I think it is also one of the most similar to the original version!

Just wait for the 'Rainbow'-version of your Tractor Truck! :laugh:

[LegoSjaak]

I wonder whether this guy also wants you to pay about 50 euro's for cleaning cost.... for each model you rent...