What's the official Digital Press/CGE stance on this? [Archive]

View Full Version : What's the official Digital Press/CGE stance on this?

Raccoon Lad

01-17-2003, 01:33 PM

Joe, since you're part owner of Commavid, what's your official stance on this? http://www.atariage.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19377&sid=a95eeb07cafedb8a65d993813f61df40

Tempest

01-17-2003, 01:37 PM

digitalpress

01-17-2003, 03:48 PM

Actually I think it's only John and Sean who own the rights to Commavid now. I suppose they could make a fuss about it, but that would be pretty mean unless they were planning on selling the same thing. Then again do we really want to start throwing around copyright laws in the Classic Gaming community? That could lead to some pretty nasty stuff.

Yes, I'm not part-owner, merely a beneficiary :)

I'm not sure this is such a big event, really. Didn't Ken Love at Activision order Atari Age to take down the Activision ROMS from their site because they had future plans to release them (Anthology)?

In what way would it be different for the CommaVid owners to do the same and/or stop any unauthorized profiteering of their product by others? Would this seem "meaner" or less mean?

Sniderman

01-17-2003, 04:10 PM

There is no difference - none - except for "perspective." Here's as I see it:

Activision - a viable company still in business with the weight of a successful game company behind them - asks AA to stop with the ROMs for they're releasing a new Activision product that encompasses those ROMs. Reaction from the community? "OK Activision. We can see that you're large and powerful and have plans to use these ROMs in an upcoming project. No harm."

John and Sean - two hobbyist guys much like ourselves who happened to have bought the Commavid rights some time ago - asks another hobbyist to stop making Commavid carts because, well, they techinically own it. Reaction from the community? "You killjoys! You just want the money for yourself. Why are you guys being so hardassed about this? Are you planning on releasing something like this? No? Then screw off."

I'm not saying that it'd pan out this way. But we see it with every proto that comes down the pike and I see this being no different. If John and Sean were a business (JohnSean Inc.) with plans to mass produce these, then the community would dummy up.

Wow. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

digitalpress

01-17-2003, 05:32 PM

The thing is, you don't know how much John and Sean invested in those rights. And they may want to someday reclaim the investment by releasing something just like this multi-cart thingy. So whether they're "big" or not, don't they still have a right to capitalize on an investment rather than see someone else beat them to it?

Another point: I get the "perspective", but what about the "scale"? Activision: BIG. Big money, big release, big audience. CommaVid: SMALL. Does being small give the owners any less of a right to see same-scale returns on their properties?

These are all hypothetical questions. I honestly don't know what the plan is!

Griking

01-17-2003, 09:40 PM

Phosphor Dot Fossils

01-17-2003, 09:58 PM

In my own little weird twisted view of the universe...I would show even more respect for whatever new Commavid goodies Sean and John bring into the world than I would for a large corporate entity like Activision. Not because I know them or anything - because outside of these forums, honestly, I really don't - but because I can definitely appreciate the legwork they'll have to do to keep that venture above water. And they don't have investors, or any kind of safety cushion. (Then again, they're only catering to a niche audience which gathers into a buying frenzy a couple or three times in the average year, so they can be leisurely with their R&D and marketing costs too.)

The point is, they're not a corporate entity. They're a couple of us, just game collectors, trying to bring something new to us. If they wanted the ROMs for this stuff gone because they had the intention of re-releasing it, as Actvision did, I wouldn't have a beef with that. And if such a request does come down the pike? I suggest we all sit tight and comply with it, because I for one find the idea of a company existing solely to turn out brand new games for classic consoles very appealing.

Not sure if I've said anything here or not. All I want to know is, will that cool Commavid artwork style still be on everything?

udisi

01-18-2003, 01:13 AM

From the looks of this, this is nothing new...the company released both magicard, and videolife seperatly before. Judging that Sean and John are I assume big atari people, and most likely frequent atari age, I then assume they know about this. If there were a problem I think we would have heard about it when this company released these games seperatly.... I could be wrong, but I have a feeling they know about this.

Captain Wrong

01-18-2003, 02:18 AM

I agree with Earl 100%. With this being such a specalized market we're talking here, anyone doing something like this is going to take a big chunk out of potential sales assuming John and Sean want to do something like this. I know if I was in a position to make carts, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing Commavid without those guys blessings. Maybe the maker of this cart has them. Who knows?

digitalpress

01-18-2003, 07:52 AM

The thing is, you don't know how much John and Sean invested in those rights. And they may want to someday reclaim the investment by releasing something just like this multi-cart thingy.

Do you feel this way because you happen to know John and Sean or do you or do you have the same respect for all other copyright owers as well? For instance how do you feel about emulation in general? Doesn't emulation steal potential profits from existing game companies like Nintendo, Sega, Activision, etc...

It's not a subjective view at all. If anyone has plans to use the properties - or even *potentially* plans to, then I'll comply. I've always been in support of game developers AND the hobby, surely you wouldn't question that... I was once asked by the Intellivision folks at one time to take down the ROMS I have online (just before Intellivision Lives came out) - but they ultimately reversed their decision. I had no problem with it either way. What I do makes no money so I have nothing to gain or lose.

CX2K

01-18-2003, 10:35 PM

Hi,

Let me try to explain our position regarding the CommaVid rights...

Sean and I purchased the CommaVid rights with the intention of re-releasing Magicard and Video Life to the gaming public. Our plans were/are to release them in authentic style boxes with manuals, although they would be in regular style cart cases (not the elongated CommaVid cart style).

We also plan to open up CommaVid.com with as much information and history about the company and it's games as possible. We did not buy the rights so that we could shut down sites conatining those roms. Our intent is to have the roms remain available for all to enjoy. We did toy with the idea of asking sites to remove just Magicard and Video Life since we are planning on selling them at some point but we figured there wouldn't be any point to it since anyone who wants a nice boxed version would buy it regardless if the rom was available or not.

In regards to the reproductions being sold by Sunmark, we contacted the person responsible for them and asked him to stop. He claimed that he had done a copyright search and that his attorney couldn't find any copyright on file for these games and therefore he claimed he has a right to do what he wants with them.

I contacted the copyright office and was informed that this is not true. Any published work has an implied copyright dating back to the date it was published. In order to pursue any legal action, we first have to file a copyright application with the copyright office (which we are currently doing for all the games), then once the application is accepted for review, we can pursue legal action. The problem we have is that obviously, Sean and I are just 2 fellow collectors who don't have a legal team or the money to retain a copyright lawyer. It would be nice to be Activision size in the legal dept. :)

The owner of Sunmark is obviously aware that we don't have the means to defend ourselves and has chosen to disregard our copyright. His latest 'multi-cart' is an even bigger way of saying "Fuck You!" to us. Unfortunately, it's not likely we'll be able to do anything about it. If anyone can refer us to a cheap copyright lawyer, please contact us. :)

In the meantime, we would ask that you not encourage this violation of our rights by purchasing these products. Please wait for our boxed versions.

As soon as we get the CGE2k3 announcement out of the way, we'll try to get going on the commavid site.

Hope this helps to clear things up. And please enjoy the games!

John & Sean

Raedon

01-18-2003, 10:40 PM

Sean still trying to sell multi-carts for $120+?

markdil

01-18-2003, 11:56 PM

I would like to respond to the above posts. I was contacted by John asking
me to stop making my first release of the Magicard and Video Life. I was
more than reasonable, in fact I agreed to stop making the games IMMEDIATELY
if they would buy my remaining inventory. They said "NO PROBLEM"!! John
informed me he would send me a check RIGHT after the CGE. The CGE came and
went and no check. I called and emailed and did not get the courtesy of a
single solitary response. What's with that?? I know, the check is in the
mail!!

I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black!! How many
Multicarts have they sold?? If that isn't a blatant perpetration of
copyright infringement, NOTHING IS!!

If you guys want to honor the deal you reneged on, you know how to contact
me!!

Mark DiLuciano

Wavelflack

01-19-2003, 12:22 AM

Hmm..why should they buy the carts you manufactured when they own the copyright?

Nintendo: "Please stop pirating our games!"
Hong Kong: "Okay! You buy out our inventory of pirate copies of your games, and then we'll stop selling them!"
Nintendo: "That sounds great!"

markdil

01-19-2003, 12:32 AM

Wavelflack

01-19-2003, 12:49 AM

markdil

01-19-2003, 01:04 AM

Then what did they purchase?

Beyond that point, if you indeed believe that no copyright or mark exists (or at least not in their hands), then why would you agree to cease manufacturing and selling of your repros?

Hmm...

I am not sure what they purchased!! But, six months before they
bought ANYTHING, I was making these games. I spent $500 to
have it researched because I did not want to infringe on ANYONE!
With that being said, I started production. I agreed to stop because
I am reasonable. John offered to buy the inventory if I stopped!
I agreed!! And how in the name of GOD can they throw copyright
law at ME, when the infringe on HUNDREDS of VALID copyrights??
Look at this:

http://home.xnet.com/~skelly/multis.htm

Did they write these programs?? Do they have the right to copy
them? Do you think Atari didn't file copyrights on them?? How
about Activision??? This is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"!!
I am livid that they can make a deal with me, I complied and they
didn't!

jjessop

01-19-2003, 01:32 AM

Hmm..why should they buy the carts you manufactured when they own the copyright?

I think you are missing something here!! NO COPYRIGHTS WERE
FILED!! They can't own something that does not EXIST!!

Not to mention, you can't buy an IMPLIED copyright!!

Your absolutely wrong on this. Copywrites do exist even if not applied for. I'm sure if you look in any of the Commavid manuals and maybe some game screens, you will find a copywrite notice but that's not even required.

As for Sean's multi-carts, I would love to defend it........but I can't. If YOU owned the copywrites you could get them stopped. In this particular case your on the wrong side of the legal argument.

jerry

markdil

01-19-2003, 01:48 AM

Your absolutely wrong on this. Copywrites do exist even if not applied for. I'm sure if you look in any of the Commavid manuals and maybe some game screens, you will find a copywrite notice but that's not even required.

As for Sean's multi-carts, I would love to defend it........but I can't. If YOU owned the copywrites you could get them stopped. In this particular case your on the wrong side of the legal argument.

jerry

First, copyright is spelled C-O-P-Y-R-I-G-H-T
Second, I had a copyright, trademark and patent law firm with over
200 lawyers tell me that it was not infringing on ANYTHING!! Sorry,
I believe them, not you.

THIRD, I want to know why they reneged on their DEAL???? John,
why didn't you return my calls?? Why didn't you respond to email??
If you changed your mind, why didn't you tell me??? I know you
are reading this, WHY DON'T you answer the QUESTION??????

markdil

01-19-2003, 02:08 AM

You know what's funny, I have since received six
anonymous emails from different people letting me
know some of the other shenanigans you guys partake
in! Here are a few:

Is it true you sell Coleco Multicarts "under the table"
and were told by Telegames not to sell them???
Is that true JOHN??

How about this, are you making these games without the
rights: Elevator Action, Save the Whales, Crack'ed and
Pick-Up?? Are you??

Did you guys get upset over some ROM's being released
that you didn't have the rights to?? I thought you were
so into helping the gaming community!! Why would you
get upset??

Can you answer a few of those questions for me??
Thank you so much...

jjessop

01-19-2003, 03:41 AM

Spelling was never my strong point :)

jerry

Sean Kelly3

01-19-2003, 07:53 AM

I had no real desire to participate in this thread, but I can see I have no choice.

First of all, John has nothing to do with any multi-carts. Let's get that straight right out of the box.

The multi-carts do not contain any games that there is any chance will be released on cartridge. For example, Cubicolor was being sold by Rob Fulop...I never included it on the multi-cart. I don't have any homebrew titles on it. If it's something that someone might make some money from, I don't put it on there. If you or someone else were to obtain the Spectravision, for example, library, I would remove all those titles.

I don't make any claim to ownership of any of the titles on the Atari multi-carts. If any copyright holder feels they are doing them any harm whatsoever, all they have to do is say the word.

Now I'm not sure which of the moron crew emailed you about the other items you mentioned, but...

NO, I do not sell Coleco multi-carts "under the table". I have made MAYBE a dozen of them over the past three years and most of them were given-away to friends and a couple were traded. Telegames is well-aware of this.

NO, we are not making the games you listed without permission. I have a pretty good idea which moron told you this. Had that person been at CGE, he would have known that the author of Pick Up was there the whole time. How would it be possible to sell the guy's game right in front of him without having some sort of agreement with him? We had the author's permission to make Pick Up and the others and they were paid for their work.

ROMs being released? Which ROMs were those?

Frankly Mark, I'm amazed that any idiot can email you out of the blue and you take whatever they tell you as the truth without personal knowledge of the circumstances yourself.

As for our deal, you want to know what happened? Simply put, we didn't have the money. We thought after CGE that we would be able to afford to spend money on something that we would never recover, but we didn't. So we figured we'd just wait until you sold the rest of your stock and got your investment back which was supposedly all you wanted to do according to our conversations. We figured, being the reasonable person you claim to be, once you sold out of the 15-20 carts you claimed to have left, you'd stop making them since you knew we had paid the programmers of those titles for the rights to their work.

As to why John didn't respond to your emails...he doesn't respond to anyone's emails - including mine.

In regards to the copyrights on CommaVid games not existing, let's assume for a minute that this big, 200-lawyer copyright law firm was unable to find any record of them. You mentioned that you paid this law firm $500 for their work. In my experience, that's only about two hours worth of attorney fees. Regardless, I don't think you dispute the fact that the three former owners of CommaVid wrote all the CommaVid games. I also don't think you dispute the fact that we paid these three gentlemen for the "rights" to their work (we do have written, signed proof of our purchase). So essentially, John and I wrote the CommaVid games. Did you file copyright paperwork for your Hollex cartridge? If not, would I be within my rights to go ahead and duplicate it's design and sell them myself? You see, I would NEVER do that. It's your device, you designed it (I assume), and you're trying to make a buck or two off it.

The whole copyright issue where classic games are concerned is fairly laxed and, for the good of all, it should stay that way. Nobody is making anything more than pocket change on any of this stuff including me with the multi-carts, you with the various devices that you sell, and others with the prototype reproductions that are floating around. All of us are guilty of some "copyright infringement" if we went by the letter of the law. The only thing that keeps the various people doing these projects civil is respect for the other person's efforts. If laws have to be substituted for respect in this regard, many of these types of projects will be nothing but memories.

Sean Kelly

ianoid

01-19-2003, 09:13 AM

Mark,

I understand why you would sell of the remainder of your inventory, but knowing that fellow collectors recently went through the trouble of PURCHASING the rights to the Commavid name and products, I think it's really underhanded of you to press this with a multicart.

It's easy to deflect the argument and say 'they sell multis' or whatever, but Sean has dealt with legal issues and desisted as requested. It's irrelevant. I think in your shoes they would have desisted as well.

I respect your ingenuity in building carts. Unfortunately I have no respect for what you've done in response and where you're taking this argument. Another 'Sorry, will stop' would have been more reasonable.

markdil

01-19-2003, 10:31 AM

Ian,

I would like to respond. First, they claim they own the rights to Commavid.
I had repeatedly asked them to send me a copy of the contract, and I have
received NOTHING!! I have seen nothing! Have you??

Second, I backed out of the CGE show, lost $600.00 dollars on two plane tickets,
(non-refundable) because I had respect for their rights and their word!! How
mad would you be if someone did that to you??

They did not have the common decent common courtesy to return my calls or email.
They IGNORED me after they made a deal!!! They got me to stop making them and
turned around and IGNORED me!!

And your comment "but Sean has dealt with legal issues and desisted as
requested." makes no sense. Let me paraphrase that, "Well, it is fine
to infringe on Copyrights if no on asks you to stop"!

Show me a Copyright for MagiCard and Video Life and I will stop making them
in one nanosecond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

markdil

01-19-2003, 11:49 AM

ROMs being released? Which ROMs were those?

Frankly Mark, I'm amazed that any idiot can email you out of the blue and you take whatever they tell you as the truth without personal knowledge of the circumstances yourself.

From: Sean Kelly
To:
Date: Sunday, September 23, 2001 10:22 PM
Subject: ColecoVision ROMs

Was it really neccessary to post Pac-Man and Dig Dug? I just offered
the cartridges two weeks ago and had hoped to sell a few before *I*
posted the ROMs.

Incidentally, whoever the idiot is that read them, he added a 640 byte
header. If you remove the first 640 bytes, the ROM will play fine on
all emulators.

Sean Kelly

rolenta

01-19-2003, 11:52 AM

I think you are missing something here!! NO COPYRIGHTS WERE
FILED!! They can't own something that does not EXIST!!

Not to mention, you can't buy an IMPLIED copyright!!

A copyright is in place from the moment of creation to the lifespan of the creator + 50 years. A copyright does not have to be filed with the copyright office but that's a good way for establishing proof when the copyright in case of litigation.

For the record, John and Sean own the assets of Commavid, and therefore they are the true copyright holders. Whether it is registered with the copyright office or not, we all know that the games have been around since around 1982. Nobody has the right to duplicate them (except John and Sean), until 2032 at the earliest.

rolenta

01-19-2003, 11:57 AM

I NO, we are not making the games you listed without permission. I have a pretty good idea which moron told you this. Had that person been at CGE, he would have known that the author of Pick Up was there the whole time. How would it be possible to sell the guy's game right in front of him without having some sort of agreement with him? We had the author's permission to make Pick Up and the others and they were paid for their work.

A little aside on this. When I did the instruction manuals for Save The Whales and PickUP, I included the 20th Century Fox logos on them. Sean had to remove them per 20th Century Fox themselves. He was never ordered to not sell the games, only to remove the logo from them.

Tempest

01-19-2003, 12:57 PM

Did 20th Century Fox ever have the rights to Pick Up? Didn't they reject the game?

Tempest

esylvia

01-19-2003, 01:38 PM

Sniderman

01-19-2003, 02:02 PM

What gets my goat is that we just went through this a couple of months ago with the whole Hozer Video/Hacked ROMs situation. There was so much community outrage that he was all but run out of business. I posted this message to AtariAge:

Wow. I'm saddened and disappointed by the rest of the AtariAge members with regards to this situation. Let's flash back a few months:

THOMAS: "Please stop selling my hacked games. Though there is a question as to whether I have any legal right to them, you should at least respect my input until this can be ironed out."
HOZER: "Screw you. Unless you can whip out a piece of paper saying otherwise, I'll do what I want."
ATARI AGE MEMBERS: "Rhubarb! Rhubarb! Rhubarb! Outrage! Outrage! Outrage! Boycott! Boycott! Boycott!"

And today:
JOHN/SEAN: "PLease stop selling these Commvid carts. Though there is a question as to copyright issues and such, you should at least respect our input until this can be ironed out."
MARK: "Screw you. Unless you can whip out a piece of paper saying otherwise, I'll do what I want."
ATARI AGE MEMBERS: <<<<Not a friggin' peep.>>>>

So, how's the rest of the board members feel about this? Or am I the only one fearing the rise of a sweltering case of hypocracy?

BUt I'm not just pointing fingers at AA members. There were several folks here at DP that posted similar "That's just wrong" messages. Well? How about it? Or is this somehow different in tone and scope?

Captain Wrong

01-19-2003, 04:25 PM

I truly don't see all the hassel. If John and Sean truly do this for the love of the Atari Collecting Community and not $$, then I see nothing wrong with both Sumark and the new Commavid making different products. Nothing wrong with a little competition. If Sean and John's product is better then the public will surely reward them by buying more.

This doesn't hold water. The number of people we're talking about who would buy these things in the first place is a small section of a small hobby. If these people already have a version of this cart, why would they buy another just because someone else has brought it out? Better, worse, whatever, most people don't have $50 or so to buy every reproduction cart that comes out and would probably spend their money on a title they didn't own than buying another version of one they did.

For the money? Do you really think those guys bought the rights to a small obscure company that made games a majority of the pople haven't played for a long dead console with the hopes of getting rich? I can't speak to their motives as I know neither of them, but I'd imagine it has something to do with personal interest and love of the hobby. I seriously doubt anyone is going to get rich making Atari multi-carts and from what I understand most who do lose money or break even at best.

And just because those guys didn't write the games doesn't mean their rights as owners of them should not be respected. Walt Disney has been dead for a long time, but ther rights to the characters he created are owned by Disney and respected though probably no one there now even knew the man.

I think this is sad because I think Sean and John tried to do things right by buying the rights and paying the original programmers for their work. Everybody pays lip service to how much respect they have for those who wrote the programs, but here's a couple of guys who put their money where their mouths are, literally. Because of that, they own the rights and as such should be given the respect that deserves.

Before anyone accuses me of being anyone's lapdog, let me state, I have no connection to those guys, never met them, never talked to them, etc. I am just a classic gamer how has respect for what they did. And, like Snider, I find it really dissapointing that so many in the community seem to not care, espically after all the frakas over the hacked games and Hozer (a situation which is different, I understand, but still similar in some ways.)

Things like this will only prevent others from trying to turn up these old companies and I feel will eventually hurt the hobby. It's not about anyone getting rich or anything, but I feel if someone is trying to do something the right way, and it's something that can only enrich the hobby for everyone, their wishes should be respected. There's simply not a lot of money out there for this kind of stuff and I feel someone who has invested in buying rights like this should be allowed to persue a return on their investement however they see fit without "competetion" from anyone who thinks that because this is just a bunch of old games they can do whatever they want.

My 25 cents.

Thomas Jentzsch

01-19-2003, 05:03 PM

Two different arguements. Thomas has no legal right to his hacks anymore than AA does in selling them, whereas John & Sean do.
Just a little but IMO important correction:

I never had or claimed any legal rights for my hacks/conversions. The whole case was about moralty (I really thought I made myself clear enough :( ).

And even though AA is selling some of them now, IMO my "moral" rights haven't changed a bit.

The current issue is much more complicated, because it's a mixture between legal and moral rights. And the facts are not as obvious as there where in the Hozer case. Therefore it's much harder to decide who is right or wrong. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

And there is one thing I do not understand: If Sean and John knew that Mark was working on CommaVid stuff, why couldn't they just try to make an arrangement with him, before buying and claiming copyrights?

And how can they offer Mark a deal, causing him to loose money and then simply say, "Sorry we didn't have enough money"? IMO a deal is a deal, there are no excuses. Neither for Junie nor Jah Fish nor Sean and John.

Just my 0.02 EUR.

rolenta

01-19-2003, 05:50 PM

Neither for Junie nor Jah Fish nor Sean and John.

Please don't put Sean & John in the same category as Jah Fish. They never took my money and ran off with it.

esylvia

01-19-2003, 09:54 PM

Captain Wrong,

Thanks for trying to be objective but I think that Sean and John bought the some Commavid stuff which I am not sure it gives them any copyright protection of a defunct 20 year old company- probably not.

Secondly, before they went ahead with their purchase they were well informed of Mark's Sunmark products. I am merely stating that I don't agree Mark should not shut off his products without further proof that copyrights can even be purchased from a dead company and all that legal stuff. I have dealt with Mark in the past, and money was not the only factor for producing the products. All parties care enough about Atari/Gaming and I believe there should be room for everyone in the hobby.

If Sean and John dont think they can make a good Video Life and Magicard now then maybe they shouldn't, it's up to them. Let's face it I know the money is small potatoes for everybody but it's nice to make money for your efforts, however, if they want to John and Sean can still make their releases and website and I am sure they will do a good job with it and Mark will continue on selling his stuff.

By the way:

Disney, is not a dead company. Walt is dead but the company is allive and well listed on the New York Stock Exchange with all of their characters and copyrights being used around the world. I am sure Disney pays good money to keep this going but they are a real existing company still making profits of all of their characters.

CX2K

01-19-2003, 10:58 PM

Wow, you go to sleep, work, and dinner and look what happens.
Sheesh, so much to answer...

Sean and I did not just buy some stuff from a commavid programmer. We spent a lot of time and money meeting with the three (3) owners of commavid and purchasing the companies remaining assets. Assets that include binders of paperwork, source code, corporate seals, eproms, and some products. We purchased all that was left of Commavid from the three owners along with the rights to the CommaVid game catalog (something the 3 of them were certainly able to sell us since they also wrote the games.)

Unlike most companies from the old days, Commavid shut down operations and paid off it's creditors. It did not file bankruptcy and even paid off shareholders of their stock. The owners/founders of the company retained full rights/control over the remaining assets.

We did not purchase Commavid to throw any weight around as some have suggested. We merely saw an opportunity to preserve what we saw as an important piece of videogame history. Do we hope to someday recoup our costs? Of course we do, but even if we don't that would be o.k. Sure we got some product in the deal and it seems kind of cool to own the rights to those games, but we're certainly not going to get rich from doing it.

Mark, Sean has already addressed the multi-cart issue and I believe he corrected the misinformation you were given regarding the CGE releases. I have to take issue with your claims though since you are now outright lying about this!

Everyone who knows me knows that I am the worst when it comes to responding to emails, but I *DO* know *WHO* emails me and I can assure you, you were not one of them. The same goes for calling.

1) You did not email myself or Sean after CGE.
2) You did not call myself or Sean after CGE.
3) At no time did you ever request a copy of our contract.
4) At no time did you ever mention non-refundable plane tickets (not that it matters now)

When Sean first contacted you and informed you that we were in negotiations to purchase the CommaVid rights, you basically told us to sue you if we thought we could. You had invested money in the product and were not going to lose money on the deal. We fully acknowledge that you had already started selling the carts and there was no way you could have known we were trying to buy the rights.

I later contacted you and we reached a tentative deal. If you remember, the deal allowed you to sell 10 more of each cart and we would purchase your remaining stock for $1500. The catch was that you were to immediately remove those carts from your web-site and not advertise them, and were to sell the 20 carts on the side (You even stated that this wouldn't be a problem as you would be taking them to Cinciclassic). Well, CGE came and went and you never fulfilled your end of the agreement. The carts were never removed from your site (in fact they're still up there now).

At that point there didn't seem to be any point to pushing the issue. We didn't really have the money, and you had kept selling and advertising the carts. Do me a favor though and don't lie about it. To say that you sent us all these emails and phone calls and kept asking for copies of the contract is insulting and downright ridiculous.

The other thing is that although you had no idea of our plans when you made your initial run of carts, you certainly knew full well of our plans when you designed your latest multi-cart. That was simply a slap in the face to us, like an attempt to rub our nose in the fact that we don't have the resources to do anything about it.

As for this nonsense about no copyright marks, I urge you to look here...
http://www.atariage.com/cart_page.html?SoftwareLabelID=281

and here...
http://www.atariage.com/manual_page.html?SystemID=2600&SoftwareLabelID=281&ItemTypeID=&currentPage=2&

Although I don't have a scan of the board handy, I seem to remember a copyright statement on there as well.

The bottom line is that I guess you can do what you want since we don't have the time nor the money to fight you. And keep in mind legal fighting is not why we bought these rights. We certainly could have asked people to remove the roms but that's not what we're all about, regardless of what people like Saunders might tell you (Did you think we missed your cheap shot on Atari Age, Glenn?). We want people to enjoy the games but it would be nice if we could attempt to recoup our costs as well.

John

esylvia

01-20-2003, 01:28 AM

John, Not a cheap shot intended like you thought. I know it sounded like you do it for the money only but...I didn't write it to mean that. After rereading I admit It was poorly worded.

What I meant to say is that you want to make money too like everyone (in a good way) and not do it just for the love of the hobby. Otherwise the conflict would have never occurred and that's why you care about the copyright issue- to make profits nothing wrong with that.

That whole thing came out a little too negative- more than I intended. My fault.

I don't have a problem anyone with making a profit. You all should be able to profit from this by selling the best product. Just Not by trying to shut someone down.

You'll notice that I said in the next paragraph I said you all want to make money rephrased a little better. Bad choice of words for the first paragraph poorly written.

CX2K

01-20-2003, 06:28 AM

No problem. My cheap shot comment was actually directed at Glenn Saunders over on Atari Age. I know what you're trying to say. No hard feelings.

John

John, Not a cheap shot intended like you thought. I know it sounded like you do it for the money only but...I didn't write it to mean that. After rereading I admit It was poorly worded.

slapdash

01-20-2003, 10:56 AM

I don't know copyrights can be enforced from a company that has been dead for 18 years. [...] An implied copyright may have existed with Commavid but it's truly dead for some 18 years.

I'm not getting into this whole deal, but I wanted to point something out...

The copyrights Commavid held on their games was not "implied", it was listed on every product they sold. They are real. And it does not matter that the company was dead for 18 years, copyrights don't work that way -- they live beyond companies. Sometimes that makes it hard to figure out who still owns the copyrights, but somebody does own them, and they can still be enforced.

esylvia

01-20-2003, 11:02 AM

Russ, Whatever the case it's out my hands- there are probably more details I and everyone doesn't know. I have decided to let the others work it out. I have said enough and don't want to add anymore fuel to the fire. I get passionate to about stuff about collecting. I am sure it will be worked out one way or another.