Bionicle 2016 Sets Discussion

[Grima]

My ultimate point is that Nekchir should be allowed to say what he says since there's no proof that what he's saying is actually confidential information.

Oh, that's a grand leaks policy. Why not allow any images, too? After all, there's no proof they're actually leaked images; could just be fakes! Let's allow them all, just in case.

Usually, you go the other way, and say "better safe than sorry", but I guess "better sorry than safe" works too.

[One Very Agile Cat]

After all, there's no proof they're actually leaked images; could just be fakes!

Actually Nekchir himself described exactly how you can tell leaked images are faked, since they use a special watermark system. So, nope, your version doesn't work either. :p

Usually, you go the other way, and say "better safe than sorry", but I guess "better sorry than safe" works too.

Maybe it's my upbringing so-to-speak. I come from a site that blatantly advertises Copyright infringement and IP theft on it's front page every day, with an entire sub-forum supporting illegal product infringement, so I may be in a skewed perspective here. Edited August 22, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[Grima]

Actually Nekchir himself described exactly how you can tell leaked images are faked, since they use a special watermark system. So, nope, your version doesn't work either. :p

We only know that there's a special watermark system, not exactly what it is. Anyone could imitate the few details of it he gave and only those with a catalog could say whether or not it was the real deal.

My point is, "you can't prove it's not fake" is a ridiculous defense, because you also can't prove it is, and of the two possibilities, one of them is highly illegal and would in theory get Eurobricks in trouble, so why the hell would they risk it?

[Dr_Chronos]

Set discribtions barely classify as leaks. Especially vague ones. The phrase, "One picture is a thousand words" comes to mind. This goes beyond watermarks, even if he TRACED the sets from the catalog and posted them it would still be a leak. And unless I live in a cave, he hasn't done that. Let him talk.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Dr_Chronos

[One Very Agile Cat]

We only know that there's a special watermark system, not exactly what it is. Anyone could imitate the few details of it he gave and only those with a catalog could say whether or not it was the real deal.

But they wouldn't be real, or would they? ,':D

My point is, "you can't prove it's not fake" is a ridiculous defense, because you also can't prove it is, and of the two possibilities, one of them is highly illegal and would in theory get Eurobricks in trouble, so why the hell would they risk it?

Because what else is there to do on this site?

Either way, there's no proof. So why bother getting upset over it?

Set discribtions barely classify as leaks. Especially vague ones. The phrase, "One picture is a thousand words" comes to mind. This goes beyond watermarks, even if he TRACED the sets from the catalog and posted them it would still be a leak. And unless I live in a cave, he hasn't done that. Let him talk.

You don't live in a cave. All the poor guy's done is try to revitalize discussion with a little news he found. It's a cruel fact of society that once something's out there, it's out there. Edited August 22, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[Grima]

But they wouldn't be real, would they? ,':D

But you'd have no way of telling the fakes from the reals. Allowing them all on the off chance they're fake would still give wiggle room for real leaks to come in.

Either way, there's no proof. So why bother getting upset over it?

The staff gets "upset" over it because, in theory, it puts their relationship with LEGO at risk to allow leaked information.

[One Very Agile Cat]

But you'd have no way of telling the fakes from the reals.

Exactly!

Allowing them all on the off chance they're fake would still give wiggle room for real leaks to come in.

Real leaks are gonna come in regardless, though. What, honestly, makes what Nekchir is doing different from the "Water Bohrok" before it was debunked?

The staff gets "upset" over it because, in theory, it puts their relationship with LEGO at risk to allow leaked information.

But the staff aren't, like, posting the leaks on the front page or anything. They're not promoting it or actively trying to spread it, (like some sites and illegal activity) they're letting conversation go where it may. And that's all it is, conversation. Heresay. Nothing tangible is being distributed. Edited August 22, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[VBBN]

My ultimate point is that Nekchir should be allowed to say what he says since there's no proof that what he's saying is actually confidential information. And the only way to prove that is for someone else to actually commit the crime of posting the images, or wait until the final sets are revealed.

And where exactly did I say he wasn't allowed to describe the sets? All I said was that either way it's harmful- had I been barring discussion, you would have known.

[Grima]

But the staff aren't, like, posting the leaks on the front page or anything. They're not promoting it or actively trying to spread it, (like some sites and illegal activity) they're letting conversation go where it may. And that's all it is, conversation. Heresay. Nothing tangible is being distributed.

Except if these leaks are real, something tangible is being distributed: confidential information on upcoming LEGO sets. Doing nothing in the wake of illegal activity on a site you moderate is as good as endorsing it.

[Fulcrumfan91]

People, this isn't a political forum or any type of constitutional debate from any country, could we just get back to discussing bionicle 2016 and leaving the debate of whether it is bad to leak/why/why not debate behind us? Please?

[One Very Agile Cat]

And where exactly did I say he wasn't allowed to describe the sets? All I said was that either way it's harmful- had I been barring discussion, you would have known.

You didn't, but others did.

Except if these leaks are real, something tangible is being distributed: confidential information on upcoming LEGO sets.

That's not tangible, though. A photo is tangible, heresay and discussion is not.

People, this isn't a political forum or any type of constitutional debate from any country, could we just get back to discussing bionicle 2016 and leaving the debate of whether it is bad to leak/why/why not debate behind us? Please?

I mean, this really was my point. I just wanted to discuss the sets without everyone busting the balls of the nice guy given the tidbits.

EDIT: This site's autocorrect is the most immature thing ever. That "A" in AFOL really is a technicality more often than not, it seems. Eurobricks is the "friendly site" for sure.

Edited August 22, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[Sir Walter Maugham]

I could have sworn that the first leaks of Bionicle's reboot were stamped "Classified." Those pictures were posted around this site no questions asked.

Has something changed or am I remembering something wrong?

[One Very Agile Cat]

I could have sworn that the first leaks of Bionicle's reboot were stamped "Classified." Those pictures were posted around this site no questions asked.

Has something changed or am I remembering something wrong?

Nope, you're totally right.

[GK733]

There's also the thing that this isn't solely about Bionicle. People are even more careful about this because it features Lego's next "BIg Bang" Nexo-Knights. That is what got the moderators on the run and blocking his PM.

Edited August 22, 2015 by GK733

[Grima]

That's not tangible, though. A photo is tangible, heresay and discussion is not.

So a leaked image is wrong, but a thorough description of that exact same image is not? On the shaky grounds that "you can't prove it's legitimate"?

If someone in the military tells you something from classified documents, it's still every bit as wrong, even if you can't "prove" it's from the actual documents.

[One Very Agile Cat]

Who's mentioned the Nexo-Knights, though?

So a leaked image is wrong, but a thorough description of that exact same image is not?

Actually yes.

Again, it's like saying in-depth movie summaries are wrong. It's not the same thing. Talking about the image is still not the image. It's discussion. This shouldn't have to be explained how words and pictures aren't the same thing.

Edited August 22, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[Tarvaxx]

Posting leaked content on a site affiliated with LEGO could harm the site, LEGO, and the person. It's best to find an obscure forum or a trusty scapegoat to distribute the pictures so the sites reputation isn't hurt. That's how leak outbreaks are found most of the time. BIONICLE fans have a knack for looking in obscure places to find information anyway.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Tarvaxx

[Mesonak]

BIONICLE fans have a knack for looking in obscure places to find information anyway.

Truer words have never been spoken

[Grima]

Again, it's like saying in-depth movie summaries are wrong.

No, it's not, because the contents of a movie aren't classified. It's more like leaking the plot of an unreleased movie from a leaked script, which would be just as wrong as posting the entire script.

I realize I'm being a bit of a hypocrite, because I'm just as excited for information as everyone else. But your arguments as to why it's not in the wrong are completely ridiculous.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Grima

[VBBN]

You didn't, but others did.

If you are referring to Hinckley's post, that was because he wanted to remove the confidential stamp to share the pictures.

I could have sworn that the first leaks of Bionicle's reboot were stamped "Classified." Those pictures were posted around this site no questions asked.

Has something changed or am I remembering something wrong?

The links were removed. Either way we comply with Lego's wishes, if there is something that they ask to be removed then we remove it.

[One Very Agile Cat]

No, it's not, because the contents of a movie aren't classified.

They are copyright-protected, however, and classified to only those who pay to see them. When you pay to see a movie, you're given limited access to view it. Just like anyone with official access to these images. To share or distribute that movie is copyright infringement which is illegal. Just like distributing the images. To discuss a movie and describe it in detail is not, nor should it be with these images.

It's more like leaking the plot of an unreleased movie from a leaked script, which would be just as wrong as posting the entire script.

Which happens all the time. There's multiple sites dedicated to it that have operated for years.

And people do post exerpts, and even entire scripts, online as well. But a script is not a movie. Just like a description is not an image.

But your arguments as to why it's not in the wrong are completely ridiculous.

They're not, though, and I've given solid reasoning to every single one of your retorts explaining why they aren't.

A picture and words are not the same thing. The pictures are classified, words about them are not. Simple as that.

The links were removed. Either way we comply with Lego's wishes, if there is something that they ask to be removed then we remove it.

As you should, and as I would expect if the actual images were to be posted. Sincere question from a recent member: Has Lego ever asked that something not be discussed before? Edited August 22, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[Nekchir]

VBBN lives a tough life as a MOD.

[Grima]

Which happens all the time. There's multiple sites dedicated to it that have operated for years.

Which doesn't make it not wrong. People murder all the time. Doesn't mean murder isn't illegal.

They are copyright-protected, however, and classified to only those who pay to see them. When you pay to see a movie, you're given limited access to view it. Just like anyone with official access to these images. To share or distribute that movie is copyright infringement which is illegal. Just like distributing the images. To discuss a movie and describe it in detail is not, nor should it be with these images.

Is this your "solid reasoning?" Because it's fundamentally flawed. Copyright protected =/= classified. You can discuss the contents of a book. You cannot discuss the contents of classified documents. Similarly, you can discuss the contents of a LEGO catalog, but you cannot discuss the classified contents of a retailer's LEGO catalog.

[Dr_Chronos]

Why hello Nekchir.

*Insert causal way it ask if a Q@A is ok here

[One Very Agile Cat]

Which doesn't make it not wrong. People murder all the time. Doesn't mean murder isn't illegal.

But murder is a crime that people go to jail for. People don't go to jailf or talking about murder. They make TV shows about it.

Like I said, Comicbookmovie and the like have been around for years. If a studio wants them to take something down, they do. But nothing's been posted here, only described.

but you cannot discuss the classified contents of a retailer's LEGO catalog.

We've been doing it for days now. The simple fact that discussion has continued shows that, so far, neither Lego nor EB actually have a problem with it, otherwise we simply would not be discussing it. Plain and simple. Edited August 22, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat