aFrInati0n

@General Magma on any indivial opinion yes, but in the scope I understood for the staff making any decisions of the poll's outcome, I just wanted to point out that I would believe that being the least preferred ption we may identify already as a rought feeling in different to the other three options with more votes. *scnr to hide the ST-pun...

@Wolfpack Please don't think of the worst case - I would believe we would treat it in the best ways to respect the votings of the community to let us guide towards the best decision we understood working for the majority of people... I just want to tell, I personally would believe us suddenly saying "oh why not #4" may not ever get true.. At least I have strong hopes for that not happening..

What you buy is always only your decision :D But I have no clear answer in mind... for servos or parts with "wear" my stanc would be "replacements could be considered ok from third parties if the original product is not available from the original brand" - as this would still allow us to encourage creativity over parts-policing.

@JesseNight For me it is less about giving more "high talk" to them with more factual explanations, those are transparently on the table already - it is possibly more about the other side who would be good to understand of them only using basic talk which will render any dialog not happening. There is only one solution for scenarios of "basic vs high talk" known for possibly working out: One side needs to allow oneself to get to the level of the other. My deliberate choice is 'I do not want to be seen as a person using words which would be claiming something about the LEGO fans by using similar negatively connocated words, as I understand "basic talk can not be helped with more basic talk"'. So the only thing I am asking for is: "Could the other side think about allowing themself to give me the same respect I am already giving to them by not calling them something"? *1: I am referencing "Basic Talk" and "High Talk" to the concepts of a German management coach and prize winning book autor, I have read two books of, Peter Modler -- just the quick AI summary / translation, (as I believe he has no big english reputation) of the concept which is mainly understood in management-/corporate-communitcation regards *2: The terms from Mr. Modler being not the best - as those could also be understood to be blamy themself easily and then itself be understood as "basic talk". I am just using the terms of him, not really being happy with the used terms itself, if that helps please.

Sorry but I am not any of an CEO of those companies - therefore I could just speculate, but never "know it for sure" - can you?

Yikes, just found another edgecase we not yet discussed: How about a franchise suddenly being licenced "not-by-LEGO-any-longer" - would esp. the purist accept it as "we may consider that franchise then eligable for discussions of the other brand? https://www.brickfanatics.com/mattel-dc-licence-for-2026-means-for-lego The - to me - relevant paragraph: I just want to hand an example of "in the future there may be cases for franchises allowing a non-exclusive license to a second brand than LEGO" - or - "the franchise exclusively going to change the license to another company than LEGO".

I wasn't having that piece information till now - thanks for that! I would agree on that one. We just need to find the most convenient way to sort that multi-dimensional filtering into the best order, I would believe.

@Sven J I had to learn in the past, not all people are using the site in similar ways (I wans't aware the "Unread content" Streams being so popular to many people"). Also people may just start visiting the site with their favorite sub forums links, they are interested in. So I would agree, it being a good idea to think about such announcements. The statement is not false, but in the understanding of the receiving side it may allow some people to get offended as this may be considered blaiming them for not recognizing. Esp. if a user realizes he was not able to participate, the emotional stakes may be high already in that very moment. Since 2011 the term "clonebrands" may not really be fitting any longer, as you could understand the expired patent basically as "the system of interlocking bricks got public domain". Since the patent expired,other companies had believes of them legally participating in that by-then-opened-up-market from the regulations / laws allowing them to produce the same parts as long there is no 3D Design-Registration which would need to be considered applicable for singular parts.

I think the basis may be considered of any organization filing such CaD-letter / Notice to request removal, all is fine. As long as all requests are followed by distinct and fast responses & us not allowing us being the sharing platform somehow, nobody has to fear big things, I would believe. I would believe having enough experts within any sub forum, the community or even Mods/staff may be considered to have the skills and steady knowledge of knowing "this set is new and unreleased" - so I would consider us needing to moderate findings, based on an own stance of expertise.. but not sure of how much proactivity may be needed.. I would believe "if we assuring this constantly, it would create possibly less risk".

Sven, that could get a quiz on its own, ahahhahahah

I would count this addressing me mainly, as I am the most vocal here in the topic by posts. So first of all: I am very sorry if my personal stance /opinion got understood in other ways than I wished for! That's my bad then & I would be good for me to reflect a bit on that, which I will for sure do! Additionally I am personally open for a direct mention if my parts did not feel very appreciated - as I understand it being the legitimate social signal to be sent in such moments for the person somehow wrong understanding that there is a wish to do better. -- As stated in the other recent posting of mine, I am for myself making differences in thinking by the models of Kahneman. From that model I can understand people working with only their own opinion, but not even allowing to have the discussion on a level outside the own emotional state - the question I would like to ask: Do you see chances for such exchange (dialog on SYSTEM2) happening to allow "the other side" a (to them) logical explanation to get offered? My wish for those topics is just to have dialog on some commonly factual, logical base with people (of having another opinion I can totally respect as theirs!) to finally get over the barrier of emotionality to be able to discuss solutions which may help any communication-participant to allow to tell "oh yeah, that would help me to have less fears coming from my opinion". I would believe under the premise of the system patent being expired by "regulations in place within the markets where they are active, for them having all legal possibilitites to defend their IP". This is "for me as a singular entity" a good reason to argue "why should we in some bricks community bother ourselfes with such domains, as the companies are doing it naturally on their own." The individual opinion is respected all the time & for me my answers are not to convince them of anything, but instead to ask / challenge if they have a explanation for their position I could understand from my logical perspective. But can the wish for having a discussion "not only from arguments coming from emotionality" be understood as the one of a sane grown up person? I have the believe we are stuck at "SYSTEM1 answers vs SYSTEM2 questions" - and I would like to conciously not gear down here, as I would understand this as "I would need to get only emotional to have that SYS1-only discussion".. Instead I am asking if somebody of people having that strong opinion can think of him having some explanations for a SYS2-only dialog. Again, I am sorry if I may have created other impressions seems I may just have too pointy ears..

Some parts I can partially understand: by McGregor Daniel Kahneman I consider such opinions as "valid within the realm of the person considering the claim as true, based on only own emotions" coming from SYSTEM1 only. I can totally accept such person is using that construct for oneself as "enough reasoning" already - but in difference if that illogical claim is used in a case of communication happening, it is at least not respecting the rules of good communications as it does not allow to form a common ground with people from another spectrum ever. I really would like to get a SYSTEM2 explanation which may help me understand it as an argument - but again I believe nobody of having that SYSTEM1 believe dares to challenge this, as they have no SYSTEM2 explanation outside their personal emotional basis to offer... I believe the restriction for such people to not ever be able / wanting to move away from their limitations of only being able to stay in SYSTEM1, may only allow further emotional dissonance in them. Possibly those people can not ever answer on that level. I would interpret the inner grudge can be seen within the used voabulary, if I may remind the "clonebrands" term - from the explanations I heard, I would believe those are very well explanations which could be translated "unfortunatel another SYSTEM1 opinion only". Again, I totally respect their opinion as-is - but I would wish they could be convinced to at least try once to get over that inner obstacle in thinking I would attest for such given SYSTEM1 answers. That wish comes from my understanding that we can only have good dialog from people being able to communicate on SYSTEM2 - otherwise it is just an exchange of different opinion. * for the concecpt from Daniel Dahneman, where SYSTEM1 and SYSTEM2 are explained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

That can just be their assumption, if no other clue can be delivered.. From those mentioned "numerous occations" I believe that happened before my time then - removing the content was enough then for TLG, I would believe?

The thing I can still not understand and nobody yet brought a explanation which would help me to consider their equation getting true to me: How can any person come to the conclusion that logically: A) "Alt brands did violate applicable law / did not respect the patent" is equal to the claim B) "Brands are still violating applicable law, so I consider them clonebrands". I see no way of that equation ever getting true in itself - at that very point I can't even take the position serious, as I find it may only be grounded in feelings but not in any reality I see we share together. But I would really get enlightet how that can work together in other heads, as I find the claim is based on very (sorry for the term) childish & emotional believes only, but less grounded in the shared truth I can observe as well.. An example, law changes over time: If a brand broke a law in 2010 (e.g., a patent was active), but that patent expired by 2026, Claim A is true, but Claim B is false. They cannot be equivalent if one can be true while the other is false. I am happy for somebody explaining me how the claim may be understood valid from a sane logical perspective, as I am not getting it.

"So say we all" - to use a phrase from some frakkin SciFi franchise I like.. :)

Thanks for further explaination - and also I am not a native english speaker.. so count me in for doing stupid mistakes always please..

What category please? So would that be the same as for the sets then?

I would not even bother about asking myself this - on a personal level I can understand it from my childhood of waiting for unboxing gifts. But I would reckon the social aspects of "being the first" may be another motivation. Even if I am a fan of a thing and get a leak "earlier than the company planned for their release" I would believe I would only starving for a longer time period until it gets finally released, wouldn't I?! So I stopped in trying to understand further... But originally I wanted to say thanks for the very in reality grounded example, supporting my perspective.. :D

For me that instantly gets true for sets - but I am not sure where the MOCs would be placed then.. Can only to agree to such iterative and small-scoped change process.

As long as all is going fine there us no risk. But when there would be a case the risk is on the site owner - therefore I would believe the owner may sponsor the stance here as he has the only stakes.

I would consider all being fine as long as we would act accordingly to remove any coming claim immediately. It may be up to interpretation of any service provider to know what to be considered a potential leak. At least in Germany we have this one saying "Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht" ("Ignorance of the law is no excuse.") - which I consider applying for making it hard for us to start an argument with "but it wasn't clear to us" - while understanding us as a community of experts in the fields... And the whole other perspective: I would less like to give people a platform only to allow them with bad intentions to create harm for organisations only for them getting attention, as I would believe such behavior may have no effects to any community.. But this can only be my personal believe please.

Sorry Sven - so you are speaking of parts which are exclusive to other brands - and them being part of some MOCs which are at Eurobricks already?! (and would possible be considered only tolerated with closing at least two eyes, right?!)

Could you help me out understanding it better then? @JesseNight Oh super interesting, for me I am considering "one same part being available from two different brands" only in regards of function/form! color is a whole other domain to me! So "the same part offered in a color from a third party brand which is not offered by LEGO" would be considered "another part" then?

I would look on the matter from another perspective: Imagine you have registered a domain on your name and you have a well known online forum running for over 20 years on it - how happy would you be for any Cease-and-Desist Letter or a formal Notice and Action Demand claiming anthing (may even be total BS) - thing is, by law you must react accordingly. As long as you are not lucky to work in that profession it may be wise to consult an expert in the field. Quick (AI-assisted) research digged up two applicable acts/directives: EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and the EU Trade Secrets Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/943). Furtheron: *underlining within the spoilerbox is the parts which I consider applicable to us / or brands having claims towards us as a provider.