62Bricks

Correct - "sustainable" is not the same thing as "biodegradable." It just means LEGO is looking for a plant-based plastic that will work as well as ABS, which uses petro-chemicals. And "biodegradable" is not necessarily a good thing for the environment. When organic matter decomposes it creates methane, which is a far more harmful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. You have to look at the whole life cycle of the product to measure whether it's an environmental plus or minus. Likewise, while wheat is renewable where oil is not, you have to consider that it takes an awful lot of oil to grow wheat (or other crops). Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are made with petro-chemicals. The machinery used to plant, cultivate and harvest wheat runs on petro-chemicals. LEGO has business reasons for not wanting to have to rely on oil for its plastic; the price is volatile and much of it comes from parts of the world that are politically unstable or potentially so. "Sustainability" sounds nice to the moms and dads who are paying for the sets, but I suspect that if one compared the real environmental cost of using a "sustainable" plastic vs. the current method there would be little or no actual advantage - and it might even be worse for the environment when looked at from start to finish considering all the inputs and the byproducts.

I think I probably threw several away before I realized they were LEGO parts. They can be used to connect parts stud-to-stud.

Is one of these? http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=424#T=C&C=11

The "daylight" bulbs are usually fluorescent, and in my opinion are easier on the eyes than LED lamps. I've found them very helpful when sorting old light gray from light bluish gray pieces. I do worry about possible yellowing/fading of pieces from exposure to the fluorescent light so I usually only use it for quick table-top photographs and when sorting.

While the actual LEGO factories may not be much more polluting than other similar production facilities, the ABS plastic they purchase from other suppliers is made using petroleum and natural gas and some other unpleasant things like benzene and ammonia. LEGO is conscious of the product's reliance on the oil and gas industry and is actively looking for new materials made from other sources. I think it's interesting that environmental groups would criticize LEGO for having ties to Shell, but give them a pass for being major consumers of petroleum products themselves. I think it speaks to the amount of goodwill LEGO has developed with the public. I still like the paper instructions on the rare occasion I build a set. I did just complete a new Technic set and discovered that LEGO still hasn't found a good way to distinguish black from dark gray pieces - Near the end of the build I thought I was missing a couple dark gray parts, but seemed to have a couple extra of the same part in black - then I realized I had used the two gray ones earlier where I had mistaken the color in the instructions! In my experience, the online scans from LEGO are even worse in this respect. I know they try to keep the instructions free of words, but a symbol or a comparison image to help distinguish black and dark gray would be good.

Maybe a different perspective: Let go. It's making you feel guilty that you've amassed this collection with the intention of enjoying it and building with it, but that you don't have time or enough space. Getting rid of the collection will get rid of that source of guilt and that bad feeling. I did something similar when I moved from one state to another and had to condense my belongings into the space of one 14-foot moving van. Except for some personal irreplaceable things and a couple things that were big purchases for me (a bicycle and a guitar) I gave away most of my stuff. Felt good, and over the next several years I was able to distinguish the things I really needed to replace (A garlic press! Should never have given that away!) from the things I never really needed to own (That old typewriter was cool looking, but weighed a ton.) In my case, I threw myself a sort of reverse housewarming party - I invited friends over to the house I was about to move out of, set out all the stuff I wasn't going to take with me, and invited them to take it home. One poor schmuck - I mean good friend - even carried off that old typewriter. LEGO is absolutely replaceable. The sheer amount of it on this planet is staggering. Get rid of it now, and come back in ten or twenty years or whenever (if ever) you find yourself moving around less. You might find you have a more appreciative view of what it was you bought because you truly enjoyed it and what you bought because you were telling yourself you'd have time to enjoy it one day.

Here is an interesting development - Alibaba, the Chinese online marketplace company, has started to sue manufacturers of fake goods after the US put pressure on them: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-04/alibaba-sues-two-sellers-of-fake-swarovski-watches-in-crackdown Lots of LEPIN is sold on alibaba. Whether or not they consider it "fake" I couldn't say.

I think this is pretty common. The letter code probably just indicates where everything was put into the package.

Of course - this makes perfect sense. Regarding the M code, I have a polybag that lists parts made in Denmark and Hungary which is code 46M1

I just found this: http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/7014/what-does-the-4-digit-number-embossed-on-my-lego-set-represent In brief: The first two numbers are the week of the year. The letter is the country. The last number is the last number of the year of production. The letter codes are: H = Nyíregyháza, Hungary R = Ciénega de Flores, Mexico S = Kladno, Czech Republic Q = Purkersdorf, Austria B = Shenzhen, China (Not Confirmed) M = Billund, Denmark (Not Confirmed) O = Billund, Denmark (Not Confirmed)

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that the LDraw parts library can be used under a Creative Commons Attribution license (including commercial use). More details here: http://www.ldraw.org/article/227.html LDD does not use LDraw parts files, but there are several other LEGO CAD programs that do.

If you're curious, the factory codes are located either on the tape that seals the box, or if it is a small box that is glued shut the code is stamped into the box, usually near the barcode.

My son got the 2016 VW Bug for Christmas and built it right away. He got to a step and said he was missing 1 LBG 1x6 plate. We looked through everything and didn't find it. I figured he had probably made a mistake and got one from my own parts, but at the end there were no pieces left over that could have been substituted for a 1x6, so I think it really was missing.

I wonder how large the "defined regions" are - there are some large metro areas in the US without LEGO stores. Would they allow certified stores to open in these US cities, I wonder?

I use Reloc Zippit bags in the 2x3 size for minifigs. Do a search for Reloc R23 Here's one site that has them - about $7.00 for 1000: https://www.zoro.com/reloc-zippit-reclosable-bag-2inw-x-3inl-ldpe-pk1000-r23/i/G9969741/

Wow, I'm really beating the odds. Now my goal is to be the absolute last one picked - Prize F on the last day...

I should maybe not quote people in my posts. It's a habit I have to avoid cross-talk, but it can seem confrontational.

First tip, consider a "used" replacement. Bricklink's definition of new vs. used is pretty strict - if it was ever attached, it is "used," basically (although it's a little different for minifigs). With a figure this recent, a used hairpiece is pretty likely to look pretty new. Second tip, many times the whole figure can be bought for less than the sum of its parts. For example, you could spend $3.50 for a new hairpiece, but for around $4.50 you could get a whole Rey minifig in like-new condition.

There is language in the BL terms that would cover when someone uploads something that might be covered by someone else's copyright - the copyright holder would be able to make a formal request that it be taken down. I don't know if LEGO would actually do that, since they are famously relaxed about letting fans share their intellectual property so long as they follow the "fair play" guidelines. You have it wrong. I used "some" specifically so as not to accuse you of holding that opinion. I was thinking of one specific post in the BL forums in particular, made by someone else. Take it easy and please don't assume that everything you disagree with is a personal attack on you.

"Too broad" is an opinion based on a point of view. It was not as broad as some other similar sites. It was broader than others. It is still more broad than some similar sites. And not as broad as others. If a person's point of view is that Bricklink is out to steal intellectual property, that affects where on the spectrum they think its terms ought to fall. Some apparently truly believe the intention was to trick people into uploading their MOCs so Bricklink could somehow take ownership of them and profit.

Or it's proof that Bricklink is attentive to the concerns of its users and made a change in its terms in response to those concerns. Depends on your point of view, I guess. If all a person wants to do is find new ways to complain about Bricklink, it doesn't matter what they do - it's all bad. In my opinion Bricklink was never out to steal anyone's MOCs. They responded to that concern by making the terms more clear that they're really not out to steal anyone's MOCs. I believe that concern stemmed from people who are unaware of this type of language on most other similar sites and who saw it only for the first time when it was brought to their attention with Stud.io. Then the fire was flamed by people who are upset about other things - that BL released Stud.io before auto-checkout, for example.

They probably did just copy the terms from another site. On the other hand, there is a "delete" link at the top of every one of your MOCpages, so you can remove your content from public view at least. But that might not actually remove your images from their server immediately. If someone saved a direct link to one of your images, for example, they might still be able to load it until it is actually deleted from the server (if it ever is). The sub-licensable part may come into play when the site shares your content on another site that has similar terms. For example, I upload a photo to MOCpages and then MOCpages puts the image in a Facebook or Twitter post. I'm giving MOCpages the right to sublicense the image to Facebook or Twitter. I think the aim of all the major LEGO fan sites is to share, not to steal. All of these sites also have language in the terms on what you can do if someone else uploads your content without your permission - takes your image from Flickr, for example, and uploads it to their own MOCpage. As the copyright holder, you can request that MOCpages take it down and they will.

Nobody is making excuses. I've given an explanation, which is pretty simple: you own the copyright to material you upload to these sites, so they need your permission to display it to other users of the site. This is why all major sites that accept user-generated content have similar language in their terms of service. They vary a little from site to site, but they serve the same basic purpose - you are making it explicit that you are uploading your content so the site can share it with other users, and you are giving them explicit permission to share it. I have seen this exact same discussion come up at other sites - someone digs into the terms of use and finds this boilerplate and draws the conclusion that the site is out to steal your ideas. But that's not why the language is there - it is there precisely because you still own your content, so the site requires your explicit permission to make "copies" of it, which is what they are doing every time they let someone load your image from their server.

Mocpages is "perpetual, irrevocable" and sublicensable ...you are granting MOCpages and its owners a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, unrestricted, non-exclusive, worldwide license...to sub-license (quoted above) Brothers Brick has language not quoted above that allows users to request that their content be removed, otherwise it is perpetual. Honestly - the BL terms are pretty standard. If anything, they are more favorable to the user than other sites because they give you an option of uploading content without making it public (and thereby granting them license). This is a common variation - Flickr, for example (which falls under Yahoo's terms) terminates the license when you delete the content. Other sites, like Brothers Brick, let you request that your uploaded content be removed.

From the terms of MOCpages.com By writing reviews, uploading files, inputting data, or engaging in any other form of communication through this service, you are granting MOCpages and its owners a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, unrestricted, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, copy, publish, sub-license, adapt, transmit, archive, restore, perform, or display your content on the Internet. From the terms at brothers-brick.com: By submitting Content to The Brothers Brick for inclusion on the Website, you grant The Brothers Brick a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your content. These are standard legal terms for any site that accepts user-generated content. People who are getting excited over the Stud.io terms have probably never read the terms of the thousands of other similar sites out there.