LEGO acquires BrickLink

CCC

Aleydita said:

I have one hope
That TLG's inventory system will push buyers through to BL for items TLG no longer has in stock.

I have another hope, that under new official management there will be certain standards that all sellers should have to abide by, in terms of processing time, consumer rights*, hidden fees and price manipulations, etc. So not including pricing, types of and levels of stock, and so on. Stores should be independent but have a basic set of "decency values" that they must abide by to remain selling.

* might be difficult to be standardised worldwide but should at least be in accordance with local laws.

It would be interesting what a reasonable time to process orders is, given how slow LEGO can be with B+P orders.

datsunrobbie

The biggest strike against the buy-out that I see so far is that they plan to remove non-Lego items. Most of the parts I have purchased through Bricklink have been custom chrome-plated parts. 

I also hope that the buy-out does not adversely affect links between Bricklink and the upcoming Piqabrick system.

lkliment2

CCC said:

I have a very bad feeling about this. LEGO will now be able to link their customers with seller details on BL and identify who is reselling. They will also be able to undercut sellers, monitor which parts are selling well on BL and sell those themselves on BL.

Plus if LEGO owns BL then are they going to get a bad reputation if dodgy sellers start selling on BL.

Presumably it means (new) inventories will be correct and fast. But what if they start messing with old inventories, suggesting modern alternatives for parts instead of the correct ones for the date of the set.

The concern about them suggesting modern alternatives is actually one of the first things that struck me. I honestly can’t imagine they ever would, as it would defeat one of the biggest aspects of the platform, but I definitely have an underlying fear that they will go to a system like their own website where it does not list part molds no longer  in production. 

CCC

datsunrobbie said:

I also hope that the buy-out does not adversely affect links between Bricklink and the upcoming Piqabrick system.

Did they have any formal agreement?

VorpalRyu

From all the data I saw on the Piqabrick system, it seemed like they were piggybacking off of BL's data (the fact that they didn't cite any formal agreement, they wouldn't give any details of the "arrangement," etc), which is why I wouldn't even consider supporting, I won't hand over money for a system that with a couple of keystrokes could be an expensive piece of useless tech.

Oldfan

lkliment2 said:

CCC said:

I have a very bad feeling about this. LEGO will now be able to link their customers with seller details on BL and identify who is reselling. They will also be able to undercut sellers, monitor which parts are selling well on BL and sell those themselves on BL.

Plus if LEGO owns BL then are they going to get a bad reputation if dodgy sellers start selling on BL.

Presumably it means (new) inventories will be correct and fast. But what if they start messing with old inventories, suggesting modern alternatives for parts instead of the correct ones for the date of the set.

The concern about them suggesting modern alternatives is actually one of the first things that struck me. I honestly can’t imagine they ever would, as it would defeat one of the biggest aspects of the platform, but I definitely have an underlying fear that they will go to a system like their own website where it does not list part molds no longer  in production. 

This is my biggest worry about this sale.  I hardly ever buy anything from BL anymore, so I really don't care about that aspect.  But the BL parts catalog and inventory is the gold standard, the results of many years of hard work by those AFOL's who genuinely care about getting the inventories correct and maintaining them for others to use.  Everything I've experienced with TLG shows me that they either don't know or don't care about the accuracy of their inventories over time (since it doesn't help them sell new product); unless and until that information is moved from BL to a neutral owner, I'm afraid that the older inventory information is in danger of being lost forever.

I really wish I had the skills, time, and disposable income to make it happen myself, but I don't!

I know not everybody cares about this.  But I do, and I'm concerned.

CCC

VorpalRyu said:

From all the data I saw on the Piqabrick system, it seemed like they were piggybacking off of BL's data (the fact that they didn't cite any formal agreement, they wouldn't give any details of the "arrangement," etc), which is why I wouldn't even consider supporting, I won't hand over money for a system that with a couple of keystrokes could be an expensive piece of useless tech.

From the way it worked, based on shadows as well as the image of the part, I thought they had to take photos of all parts again to build their own catalogue. However, they would still need to link their catalogue to BL's if it was to be of use for BL sellers, which is where they need to have some agreement in place - they cannot simply take BL's naming scheme and use it for commercial purposes without permission. Of course, they might have had an agreement already.

To the more general point of LEGO owning BL, I hope they stand back a bit and let sellers carry on as they were, aside from better standards across all sellers. And as a buyer, I am a little uneasy about them being able to data mine my wants lists and so on.  Of course, that might be useful if it meant they would produce more parts that are sought after but I'd hope there was an opt in / opt out anyway.

mustang69

My biggest questions -

1 - Is LEGO going to see a part selling on BL for a higher price and bump up their price, which leads to my second question.
2 - Will LEGO see that there is high demand for an out of print part and start selling it again.

I would love, as I am sure others would, to see LEGO start producing certain parts again in colors/designs that arent available right now. That is to say the color is available and the design is still in use but the color/design combo is not. For instance the sand green bricks with the groove in green grocer, or the black roof tiles used in the haunted house.

As someone who doesnt sell on BL and only buys, I dont see this as a problem but I can understand how the sellers wouldnt be happy about it, if it were to happen.

madforLEGO

^- I have been thinking about this a bit more and I can see this being an issue, as I see with those two points is LEGO directly manipulating the secondary market with their decisions. True, this occurs naturally, but with this it just makes it easier (and more directly) for them to do so. Especially since they could see all orders from each specific buyer as well as what each seller is selling. Plus with all the reseller hate out there, including from LEGO, I shudder to think what BL really will become.

On the other hand, BL has been around forever, and with their price guide freely available to anyone who looks, LEGO could have already been using that data to determine what to redo, but yet has not (at least to the best of anyone's knowledge). Also with the planning LEGO must do to actually create a set for sale, it may not be too impulsive with trying to recreate parts or sets. In regards to OOP parts that are desirable, well the Cypress tree is a well known part that is sought after (and I would be surprised if LEGO does not still get inquiries about redoing the part) since it was discontinued, but LEGO has never redone it. I doubt having BL will change their minds.  Finally, after BnP went online and showed their prices, many in the secondary market started using those prices many times as well so while I am concerned about price fixing, I think there would be those that would put up parts cheaply still (and LEGO can only take a price so low-and companies typically do not lower prices unless they either are on sale or on clearance to move out inventory)

The biggest impact will be those selling 3rd party or Chinese made sets (if that is even occurring on BL-I have not checked recently) or parts like customs and Brick arms. Also, I presume sales tax will now have to be collected on every purchase as well. I am curious though if LEGO does also start to watch some sellers in Europe as many seem to have large quantities of in demand brand new parts for less than what LEGO sells them for. I also wonder if this would stop parts seemingly leaving the back door of a factory, from employees selling parts/sets on the site, or stopping anyone in Lugs that may be abusing the part buying system in order to sell on BL.

CCC

They could also data mine wants lists at BL, which has not been possible in the past (you cannot tell quantities wanted).

That might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing. It depends what they do with it. If it meant they made those parts available in cheap sets, that might be good. If it meant they took any high demand parts and made them available in expensive sets only, that would be bad. If they increased the prices of 1x2 bricks in certain colours as they are more in demand than others, that would be bad.

Lordmoral

CCC said:

They could also data mine wants lists at BL, which has not been possible in the past (you cannot tell quantities wanted).

That might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing. It depends what they do with it. If it meant they made those parts available in cheap sets, that might be good. If it meant they took any high demand parts and made them available in expensive sets only, that would be bad. If they increased the prices of 1x2 bricks in certain colours as they are more in demand than others, that would be bad.

Or a Tie Bomber set which has been since 2003 and my troops are sad we can't muster the $$$$ to get one currently.

SumoLego

I would find it hard to believe that LEGO would dedicate any resources to particular piece price manipulation.

BrickLink must have some profitability to justify the acquisition.  Owning the largest player in the secondary market permits easier access to limit things like prototypes, demos, controversial sets, etc. that they don't want sold on the secondary market.

And maybe they fold it into P&B and Ideas.  It seems like consolidating multiple AFOL platforms into one comprehensive site would make some sense.

(But it also makes sense to have a functioning [email protected] website.)

Baby_Yoda

I think they'd at least advertise Bricklink on [email protected] in some way. For instance, if a part is out of stock on PaB/B&P and someone tries to purchase it, they might be given a link to buy it from Bricklink. On the other hand, maybe Lego doesn't want buyers to know there's other options.

Lordmoral

Baby_Yoda said:

I think they'd at least advertise Bricklink on [email protected] in some way. For instance, if a part is out of stock on PaB/B&P and someone tries to purchase it, they might be given a link to buy it from Bricklink. On the other hand, maybe Lego doesn't want buyers to know there's other options.

I'll err in the side that LEGO will be doing minimal changes here and there until they destroy the page as their own site has piss poor sales compared to Amazon (but that may be to not compete with that store).

Astrobricks

I can understand why TLG would clamp down on selling of knock-off bricks/sets, and the “militaria” to some extent, but other than patently fraudulent behavior or “inside” resellers who should know better, I don’t see why TLG would mess with the typical sellers of real LEGO, whether OOP or not. It would just push people to other sites and forever diminish the value of what they bought. And it would be really insane to screw with the database of parts in any way that reduces its completeness. Again, that is a major factor in drawing people to the site.

Paperballpark

Regarding Lego suggesting 'modern' alternatives to older bricks, there's already a little area on a part's page which says 'this part is similar to the following parts', and that's been there for some time.

Lordmoral

Modeltrainman said:

So is is this "Disney is accquiring Lucasfilm, Pixar, and Marvel", but for LEGO to LEGO fans, or something? Maybe I'm missing something. I mean, I needed a lot of 87087, in Orange, which LEGO doesn't make any more..But it doesn't seem terrible...

It can go either way I guess, we will stay tunned.

Lordmoral

benbacardi said:

Perhaps this thread should be moved under the article's thread?

I didn't think we were (or should be) able to create threads under Brickset.com articles, only comment on the automatically created ones…

@Huw @CapnRex101 @drdavewatford

I saw this and was surprised that the team didn't do it themselves that I took to reposting linking to their own site, I also saw that people would pay more attention if posted here.

benbacardi

Lordmoral said:

I also saw that people would pay more attention if posted here.

You've posted it in the same place on the forum as the article forum post, though, which was my question. Not that it matters :) 

TheFew

I hope they don't hear about this in Hong Kong. Imagine the riots!

Lordmoral

TheFew said:

I hope they don't hear about this in Hong Kong. Imagine the riots!

How is it going around there? I am from Puerto Rico (USA) and there have been some anti USA manches (like removing the US Navy base from here as well the frontline US hurricane response and the ones who asked for better economic and tax programs).

Lordmoral

benbacardi said:

Lordmoral said:

I also saw that people would pay more attention if posted here.

You've posted it in the same place on the forum as the article forum post, though, which was my question. Not that it matters :) 

I saw this issue as a big urgency and of what I can identify other people have posted under the Brickset category.

Blockwork_Orange

I'm not sure if this will be a good or bad thing for Bricklink.  As some have commented, there may be better accountability for both sellers and buyers which is a plus.  However I'm not a fan of the limits mentioned on what can be sold whether it is other brands or if it is the subject material for MOCs.  It seems rather contrary to the indication that the LEGO group will be using the data to get a sense of what customers are interested in. 

It reminds me of the Henry Ford quote regarding the Model T "You can have it any color you want, as long as it's black".   

The LEGO quote will be something like " We are really interested in knowing and delivering what you want, as long as it is only our product and meets our parameters". 

It will pretty much make any data they collect tainted by their own bias. 

Lordmoral

Blockwork_Orange said:

I'm not sure if this will be a good or bad thing for Bricklink.  As some have commented, there may be better accountability for both sellers and buyers which is a plus.  However I'm not a fan of the limits mentioned on what can be sold whether it is other brands or if it is the subject material for MOCs.  It seems rather contrary to the indication that the LEGO group will be using the data to get a sense of what customers are interested in. 

It reminds me of the Henry Ford quote regarding the Model T "You can have it any color you want, as long as it's black".   

The LEGO quote will be something like " We are really interested in knowing and delivering what you want, as long as it is only our product and meets our parameters". 

It will pretty much make any data they collect tainted by their own bias. 

Which is why I want to make my purchases pronto.

bandit778

First of the changes.

Just recieved this e-mail. Looks like Rebrickable will be getting more traffic after this.

Dear Designer,

We love the creativity that the Studio Gallery fosters amongst all of our designers. There have been over 17,000 creations uploaded by all of you! Many of these designs are incredible original creations; however, we have noticed a number of submissions  in the Studio Gallery that are Intellectual Property (IP) related subjects.

In order to allow you to continue to show off all of your creations in the Studio Gallery, we will be setting designs that are IP infringing to Display Only. This means that all of your images and description will be visible, but the Studio file cannot be downloaded, and the parts list will not be available.

If any of your designs in the Studio Gallery are related to IP subjects, we ask that you please go ahead and switch them to Display Only.

How to switch your design to Display Only

Navigate to My Studio and click the name of your design. Uncheck the “Allow downloads” checkbox, and then click Save at the bottom of the page.

Thank you for understanding, and we hope to continue to see your wonderful designs in the Studio Gallery!

- The BrickLink Team

vizzitor

So I wonder if they'll remove the minifig parts, printed pieces and stickers that include IP they no longer have the license for.

Fireheart

I wonder if they will stop all the Hungarian and Czech Republic sellers selling the LEGO Christmas gifs #4002019:

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=4002019-1#T=S&O={"iconly":0}


May be the last year of this... 

mustang69

vizzitor said:

So I wonder if they'll remove the minifig parts, printed pieces and stickers that include IP they no longer have the license for.

I would think it would only stop them from making new versions and selling those. A third party selling used ones shouldn't be a problem.

Lordmoral

bandit778 said:

First of the changes.

Just recieved this e-mail. Looks like Rebrickable will be getting more traffic after this.

Dear Designer,

We love the creativity that the Studio Gallery fosters amongst all of our designers. There have been over 17,000 creations uploaded by all of you! Many of these designs are incredible original creations; however, we have noticed a number of submissions  in the Studio Gallery that are Intellectual Property (IP) related subjects.

In order to allow you to continue to show off all of your creations in the Studio Gallery, we will be setting designs that are IP infringing to Display Only. This means that all of your images and description will be visible, but the Studio file cannot be downloaded, and the parts list will not be available.

If any of your designs in the Studio Gallery are related to IP subjects, we ask that you please go ahead and switch them to Display Only.

How to switch your design to Display Only

Navigate to My Studio and click the name of your design. Uncheck the “Allow downloads” checkbox, and then click Save at the bottom of the page.

Thank you for understanding, and we hope to continue to see your wonderful designs in the Studio Gallery!

- The BrickLink Team

I never used the Studio part myself but I enjoyed at seeing the inmense diversity of things LEGO has never or will never make themselves, @Huw @Brickset this right here are changes to Bricklink.

CCC

I actually think this is the right thing to do.

Imagine if it was not changed. LEGO would be allowing the sale of and profit from the sale of construction kits for which they do not have an agreement with the IP holder. If LEGO profit from such sales, then why should other companies not do the same. And why should LEGO be able to take legal action against other companies, when they both allow and profit from the infringement of copyright/IP on a site that they own. If LEGO can profit from the sale of a Star Trek design, for example, then why should Lepin not profit from the sale of a Star Wars one?

And if they have the agreement with the IP holder, then there is still the possibility that it does not fit with the agreement that they have with that IP holder.

klinton

CCC said:

I actually think this is the right thing to do...

Which is all perfectly logical, but Lego's acquisition - as predicted - is now taking it's toll on the "fan community network" that Bricklink was supposed to be. As understandable as it may be, it's the first of many steps that their ownership will entail that are going to completely hobble the community. Dissemination of fan creations shouldn't ever have been hampered by Lego's meddling. Their very presence is the only reason why this step seems logical.  

datsunrobbie

Any infringed IP holder could have come after Bricklink and the creator of the infringing MOC before the Lego buyout, but they probably did not bother because Bricklink did not have deep pockets. They could be a more attractive target now, since Lego has a much bigger wallet than the old Bricklink, not to mention lots of IP-related contracts. There's not much point in suing somebody that won't have the funds to pay an infringement case (unless you're Disney or the RIAA).

CCC

Yes, not just this ^, but also LEGO would have a much harder time in court trying to stop other people copying their designs if LEGO is both allowing and profiting from IP infringement itself.

Imagine the embarrassment if LEGO were taken to court by Megconstrux as LEGO were allowing the sale of a Halo or Pokemon build on BL. Or if Megaconstrux used this as evidence as to why it is acceptable to copy LEGO designs, as LEGO does not respect copyright.

iwybs

klinton said:

CCC said:

I actually think this is the right thing to do...

Which is all perfectly logical, but Lego's acquisition - as predicted - is now taking it's toll on the "fan community network" that Bricklink was supposed to be. As understandable as it may be, it's the first of many steps that their ownership will entail that are going to completely hobble the community. Dissemination of fan creations shouldn't ever have been hampered by Lego's meddling. Their very presence is the only reason why this step seems logical.  

Quite right.  It's always been understood that selling MOC designs of IP content is legally a grey area, but it's small potatoes on the scale of copyright infringement.  Certainly sharing designs is the heart of a fan community, and that's what the Studio gallery facilitated.  If Bricklink were about to go under without the Lego acquisition, then it's good that Lego bought it.  But if it wasn't (and I doubt that it was), bringing it under the umbrella of the Lego group only exposes it to more legal risk with sharing fan designs, quite apart from all the conflicts of interest inherent in the primary manufacturer owning the largest secondary marketplace.  Lego was always going to have to make changes to mitigate that risk, and this is probably only the first of many.  I don't expect any such changes to be any better for the fan community than this one.

SumoLego

I suppose the criticism is warranted because it is a change to the status quo, but LEGO can't permit 'contraband' or non-licensed IP to exist on its platform.  

That said, those looking to continue such pursuits can go elsewhere or set up their own third-party LEGO marketplace to fill the gulf created by these changes to BrickLink.

CCC

SumoLego said:

I suppose the criticism is warranted because it is a change to the status quo, but LEGO can't permit 'contraband' or non-licensed IP to exist on its platform. 

I guess they can allow it to exist - as this is exactly what they do on IDEAS. Many ideas based on existing IP are uploaded. However, what they are stopping here is the sale and/or the download of instructions to build the IP infringing models via bricklink. Of course, on IDEAS all you can do is look at the designs, you cannot actually download the instructions to recreate them yourself.

Lordmoral

In other words: Lego will never make an UCS AT-AT but when a fan posts the instructions so other people can make it they no longer can or sonce LEGO has never made a Zeta Class Shuttle then bye bye fan options or even better, the long awaited official release of a Tie Bomber from the OT.

mustang69

I've never used the Studio Gallery on BrickLink but I wonder if the change TLG is making would stop people from contacting the designer directly to ask for a copy of the instructions or part list. This seems to be just a CYA thing for them.

paulmison

I just visited Bricklink and was asked to accept new terms, which included a specific designer's terms sub-section with more details on the new policies:

https://www.bricklink.com/v3/terms_of_service.page
https://www.bricklink.com/v3/terms_of_service_designer.page

As well as various parts regarding IP infringement, it also says that one person cannot upload another's design, even with permission. Since there are users who seem to specialise in taking YouTube build videos (good, but not my cup of tea) into Studio instructions (much more my style), that's going to be annoying.

CCC

Lordmoral said:

In other words: Lego will never make an UCS AT-AT but when a fan posts the instructions so other people can make it they no longer can or sonce LEGO has never made a Zeta Class Shuttle then bye bye fan options or even better, the long awaited official release of a Tie Bomber from the OT.

Well, LEGO won't allow you to sell or distribute it through their site. But you can still do this through other sites not owned by LEGO, and the users buying the instructions can still buy the required parts at bricklink or brickowl or even from LEGO directly.

stlux

Just a gentle reminder that before Bricklink added the Studio Gallery (which is a relatively recent thing), there was already Rebrickable. And after these changes to the Studio Gallery, there's still Rebrickable.
(There's other resources too for MOC instructions, but Rebrickable is the one I use most.)

bandit778

I understand the reasons for this and this was one of the conflict of interest issues that concerned me.
My worry is how far will this go, does it mean I have to be careful in the future when I upload a parts list from rebrickable into a wants list, will I have to make sure it's named something inconspicuous so I'm not advertising I'm buying the parts for a large Star Wars ship?
I appreciate that's probably overkill but the AFOL community has lost a valuable resource to design, display, share and buy the bricks for their MOCs from a single place.

paulmison

CCC said:
 

I guess they can allow it to exist - as this is exactly what they do on IDEAS. Many ideas based on existing IP are uploaded.

Perhaps in the past, but I understand Ideas now has a licenced IP checker that will check whether Lego is able to produce the set, assuming it gets the required votes.

CCC

paulmison said:

CCC said:
 

I guess they can allow it to exist - as this is exactly what they do on IDEAS. Many ideas based on existing IP are uploaded.

Perhaps in the past, but I understand Ideas now has a licenced IP checker that will check whether Lego is able to produce the set, assuming it gets the required votes.

Yes, although they do not have agreements with all of those IPs (yet).

SumoLego

Lordmoral said:

...but when a fan posts the instructions...

The difference is whether someone is selling the instructions, or the instructions and parts.  As was noted above with Ideas, the monetary/profit component is what creates the problem.

Tkatt

Baby_Yoda said:

I think they'd at least advertise Bricklink on [email protected] in some way. For instance, if a part is out of stock on PaB/B&P and someone tries to purchase it, they might be given a link to buy it from Bricklink. On the other hand, maybe Lego doesn't want buyers to know there's other options.

They sort of already mention alternatives on the help page of B&P. I copied and pasted it below.

While our designers invent new pieces all the time to make our toys better and more fun, we try to keep as many of the older parts as possible in stock!

Sometimes – and this is especially true for older sets – we run out of a part and don’t have the exact replacement anymore. If you couldn’t find the right part through our Bricks & Pieces or Pick A Brick services, we might still have something similar in our current assortment. After all, creating a new, fantastic toy often involves re-using our tried and tested older molds!

Of course, there are also a bunch of fan websites and other retailers around that might still have the part you’re looking for. Keep in mind that these aren’t our sites so the LEGO Group isn’t responsible for their content, and the items they’re selling could be new or used.

If you’d like a different piece or want some help finding out what might work instead, please get in touch with us. 

Baby_Yoda

^ Oh, well that's nice to hear. Perhaps with the new acquisition they'll actually link Bricklink directly in that paragraph.

bandit778

SumoLego said:

Lordmoral said:

...but when a fan posts the instructions...

The difference is whether someone is selling the instructions, or the instructions and parts.  As was noted above with Ideas, the monetary/profit component is what creates the problem.

I understand the nature of the problem, but a good percentage of the designs on Bricklink aren't being sold, just shared for free with the community, yet are still subject to the 'display only' rule concerning the IP (mind included, which was only designed for a competition on this forum and only uploaded to the STUDIO gallery so a fellow member could download the file and instructions). 

lkliment2

Is anyone else receiving a “General Error” alert when trying to view set inventories on BL? It’s not the usual maintenance. I can only hope LEGO is not changing something again...

bandit778

It's not just invetories, I cannot look at individual parts on my wanted list either or any catalogue entry. 
Looks like they've managed to F##@ it up good and proper and they've only had it three weeks.
That's got to be a record in IT incompetence.