aol000xw

This The hole is round but the axle isn't so you can fit the sharp metal of the pin between the 2 ¿ridges? of the axle -just 3 mm or so- and if it is sharp enough it can get slightly plunged into the axle and allow you to lever against the outer rim of the hole and move the axle perhaps 1 mm or so. Repeat until you can remove it by hand. Easier to do than to explain.

Love the clean lines. How does the RC unit work? Is power proportional? Gear boxes in Lego most of the time are useless but here the dual function makes it a lovely addition.

Instructions, images and video are protected by copyright law, however the model is out of the scope and falls under patent law, which does not protect unless the necessary patents are granted. Note however that I am not aware of any lawsuit regarding this, and that I am very specifically talking of Technic models. I know TLG won some lawsuits but as far as i know not on IP law, which is very relevant. Patents have relatively a short lifespan so TLG has tried -and failed many times- to make of the standard 2x4 brick a trademark, something that would give them vastly superior powers fighting copycats. The irony is Lego did not invent the brick, Lego itself in its origins was a copycat. Think of this the following way: As soon as something has a function like the ability of bricks to stack together, it is a functional item and must have a patent to be protected, otherwise anyone can use it.

While I understand why you disagree, the distinction between the model and the instructions is not a matter of opinion. I did not mean you shouldn't care, I made a distinction between caring for personal or economic reasons. It does not work like that in IP law.There is a reason for things to work like that. Innovation, investment, research and development, competition, stagnation... There is an equilibrium somewhat precarious, if patent law worked like copyright does nowadays, there would be only one car manufacturer for example, the industry would have taken a setback of two centuries.

Sorry maybe is the language barrier but I am failing at following part of your reasoning. Those seem contradictory. Anyways I am voicing my opinions too, not overreacting. The law is what define what can be done and what not, so the law is relevant to the matter. Our view of life guide us on what should be done and what not, but those can't preclude the law. Reputation and discrimination are two sides of the same coin, and are not different of "if he is my friend is ok". A simple relation of trust or distrust that has nothing to do with facts. I am trying to establish facts, like the difference between instructions and models and how those relate to the law. In that regard my view of life is of no relevance, however I can tell you tolerance and not imposing my beliefs are key. I was not criticizing Blackbird or the German guy who made the videos, If you or me like or dislike it, or trust/distrust how or why they do it is of no relevance to the fact. under the law there is no reason for them not to do that, and for the renting guy to run his business. In the end Erik your last response proves exactly what I tried to address in my last post, there is nothing contradictory between what you said and what I am saying. Your opinions come from the subjective, and you are entitled to them, however had the guy chose not to remove your model, that even if wrong under your point of view is not wrong under the law. I think that his business is absurd, his recolors ugly and his attitude rude, however before any crusade is called , someone should check the law right?

Let me add this as an example: No one complained about the reverse engineering and instructions created on the Akiyuki Lego Ball Factory. I don't know if with his permission, it was not stated, but at least on the Eurobricks thread no one that I can recall asked if Akiyuki was ok with that. Why? Just because there was attribution? What If he did not want to see instructions or he is outraged by the pink render? What if he feels it is not right? Do you feel it is right? Feelings are a slippery slope.

First I can't accept your statement as it is based in a flawed premise: that models/instructions/videos are the same. For instructions and videos I agree. I also believe in attribution and is hard to justify not to say who the original designer was. So I agree on that account too. So again I am talking about the models ONLY. The models per se, replicating, modding, selling, renting or setting it on fire are a very different matter.. Feelings are subjective, and I hope I don't need to explain why laws aren't based on feelings. The thing Is it doesn't matter how you do feel. Learn the law, learn the rules, learn what can you expect and what not, learn the consequences, take a decision and live with it. Getting outraged every time someone does something they are entitled to do just because you don't like it is childish. A Creative Commons License or any other License are not applicable to the models. And in the end the question is: Why do you care so much? You are in Lego as a hobby or as a professional? If you are in the hobby the time invested is just part of the hobby you don't put a price on the time, you just enjoy it. If it is and economic issue then you are running a business, just use the law and pay the fees. If it is not economically reasonable don't run the business. It is how every single business out there works and they are doing fine in this regard. If it is not economic it is a personal interpretation of how do you think people should behave, over The Internet, furthermore you pretend to restrict something that the law allows no less. Just because you feel it is right. Do you want examples of how wrong is that?

Wrong. He is not taking the bricks from someone else's house. Those are his bricks and he can do whatever he wants with them without telling anyone. Here we don't talk about physical property, this is about intellectual property. I'll try to explain what I know even If that might be different from country to country. Customization if I am publicizing it as an official model that plays a role but it falls under false advertising. However if when claiming it is an official mode a trademark is used(name, logos...) then see next. Branding For damaging a brand there needs to be such a brand... supported by a trademark. If Sheepo for example registers his own trademark under the right Nice classes (a classification which states in what kind of business the trademark applies) in this case Nice class 28.260 (Building block toys), he can prevent any use of his brand by anyone in that class. Doing so without permission is a trademark infringement. That is how the brand is protected. A contract might allow the use of the trademark by a third party. Then the use of the trademark with a crap customization will be allowed and while not representing a trademark infringement, with the right clauses it might be breach of contract. Instructions Lego Instructions are considered creative works, Lego Instructions are protected by Copyright laws Hard to fight, but the law is on your side. Models It could be worth a lawsuit the classification of Lego Technic models as creative works but until then... Lego Technic models aren't creative works, (in the same way that an engine isn't a creative work) Lego Technic models are industrial designs composed of functional and ornamental characteristics (chassis and body for example) Lego Technic functional designs might be patentable if novel, (but unless you invent a new kind of mechanism, hence novel, won't be granted) Lego Technic ornamental designs are patentable. (but if previous art exists, something close to what you did, won't be granted) So unless you filled a design patent and it was granted you have no rights over your model. Forget getting a patent on a Lego Mustang by the way, Indeed you probably are infringing on a bunch of rights. I understand people who don't make instructions, those that make and keep for themselves, those that share and those that sell. Any of those options is valid and has pretty foreseeable consequences, some good, some not. Your choice.... Trying to keep under strict control what you share is not possible, and any protection comes at a cost. Just because due to hard work you claim a right does not mean you really have that right. And remember all Technic MOCs are for the most part based, inspired or copied from other people works, from how to make certain hub or bracing to all kind of chassis and body designs. Sharing makes the AFOL community richer, alive and interesting, helps others learn and improve and that reverts back to the community. If plagiarism or modifications concern you, don't share.

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. 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.

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

Looks massive, how much does the boom weight?

Thanks for sharing this

It works, I can tell because it uses JB Weld and its magic properties can't be dismissed. Only duct tape could improve his design.

I look for advice for my Lego storage needs. Currently I store most of my technic in 10 of those Stanley "small" boxes like the one pictured and 5 of the bigger ones -I like the removable "trays" a lot-. Back when I got the boxes I only had so much room in a closet for my collection, and it felt pretty convenient this kind of storage. Now my parts collection has overgrown by a lot my storage and I expect it to grow quite a bit over the next few months and since I have now the room for those wall cabinets many of you use, next week I'll be getting 5 steel frame cabinets. All measure 552x306x150 (HxWxD mm) but there are several drawer size options and I wonder how to decide drawer size/distribution. 60 drawers (41x55x153), 48 drawers (41x67x153), 24 drawers (64x91x154), 40 mixed drawer variant (36 41x67x153 + 3 64x91x154 + 1 64x279x155) I'll still keep my Stanley boxes in the closet for less frequently used parts/colors, so 1x24 and 1x40(mixed) are for sure, the 24 one looks useful for those bulky panels and power functions parts and the 40 one can hold the long parts at the bottom (32 axles). But I don't know if the 60 one will be more useful than the 48 one, or what is my best choice for the remaining three cabinets, So what is your advice?

Does anyone have an approximate idea of how much weight can a small turntable sustain before dislodging? And in the same line what about those big ball joints?

Great videos, thank you

And finally found this https://plus.google.com/photos/112094973674033330754/albums/5192075703083746577?banner=pwa from http://www.techbricks.nl/My-pneumatic-LEGO-projects/pneumaticlegolawsphysicsii.html Isn't that lever working In favor of the cylinder?

Did not remember this one, nice to have. The one I am talking about (if it was a video ) was not about springs, there was some Lego structure used if I remember correctly. At last, found something from TechnicBRICKs Just missing pneumatics now, I remember it was in the range of 5Kg perhaps at 35 psi?

I remember someone tested pneumatics or LA's or both by making them work against a kitchen scale, but my Google skills failed me. Can anyone help? I wan't to know how many Kg can I expect to lift with the different LA's and pneumatic cylinders before clutches engage or hoses come out .

IMHO your book isn't meant to be enjoyed on an screen, go physical only.

Wow, picture with a coke can or something please, for scale reference. Love the steering WHEEL XD

This thread gives me Lego nightmares

This? 44135.lxf

Nice Christmas tree

That crane is insane