269 replies to this topic

[Inky]

"I want to complain about all this sex on television. I keep falling off!"

-- That joke was Britian's entry for the Zinc Stoat of Budapest award.






-- It came in last.

[Fretwobbler]

Inky said:

"I want to complain about all this sex on television.  I keep falling off!"

-- That joke was Britian's entry for the Zinc Stoat of Budapest award.






-- It came in last.

Sheesh, it only came last cause your not on our wavelength. Your too square to receive what we are transmitting.

[MegaManFan]

pitfallaimee said:

Let's say, I took a copy of Edward Hopper's Nighthawks and modified it in some way that was amusing or interesting to a new group of people, and posted it here for everyone to enjoy. I do not have the legal right to the original work, but the modifications exist only because I invested time and effort into making them. Now say, someone takes that image and sells prints of it without getting permission from me. I may not have a legal right to make that person stop, but perhaps we can agree that it would not be moral for a person to profit from someone else's work without that person's permission.

This is actually a very big issue in the fansub community for anime. Dedicated people who understand both Japanese and English work hard to take the time to accurately (or as close as possible to accuracy) translate the cartoons into English subtitles. Sometimes I'm amazed by the lengths they will go to in the process. In one episode of Jungle Wa Istumo Hale Nochi Guu, the mother of the main character was drunk and started slurring her words, so the reason what she said was funny didn't make any sense literally (she said the guy had really big hair, but change one consonant and she was saying he had a really big .. you know) but the subtitler ADDED an explanation with an * explaining the joke. I was stunned and very pleased at that level of attention to detail. Now if I was that subtitler, how would I feel that after all that hard work, which was given to the fansub community to share for free with all, was being sold on VCD's on eBay for profit? Whether it's even legal to resell the original copyrighted work isn't the issue at that point, it's an insult to the subtitler that someone who had nothing to do with that hard work would sell something that's supposed to be free for profit!

To that end a lot of fansubs are being coded now with messages during the commercial breaks that say, "If you paid for this you got SCAMMED! Report the seller and get your money back."

[Godzilla]

it's not really applicable. two wrongs dont make a right. it's the whole standing on a broken table thing. And building a cart is a little less automated than making a vcd of someone else's stuff.

i do think it doesnt speak well for randy that he just bailed.

[MegaManFan]

Godzilla said:

it's not really applicable. two wrongs dont make a right. it's the whole standing on a broken table thing. And building a cart is a little less automated than making a vcd of someone else's stuff.

i do think it doesnt speak well for randy that he just bailed.

Actually it's only illegal to freely distribute LICENSED anime as fansubs (i.e. anything showing on TV in the states right now, such as Inuyasha, Sailor Moon, Dragonball Z) and any good fansub distributor will YOINK something if it's suddenly licensed for overseas broadcast or sale -- just like the MST3K websites stop selling any episodes that Rhino releases on VHS or DVD. So the principle to me is wholly apt - taking somebody's hard work and selling it for profit WITHOUT their permission and AGAINST the spirit it was originally released in.

[JerryG]

[quote=Cupcakus]

JerryG wrote:
[quote]Quote:
and just in an unrealted note, I've ordered hudreds upon hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise from hozer, and recieved it all within a timely fashion, and my thrust dc+ which i paid for about half a year ago (from TJ) I still have yet to see. Action speaks louder than words imho.[/quote]

To which JerryG Replied:
[quote]I second the motion because you just hit a sore spot. I also have ordered hundres of dollars of items from Randy several times and always gotten prompt quality service. On the other hand, over six months ago I ordered and paid for Thrust Plus. To date I've gotten nothing! Not even the coutrsey of a reply to my requests as to what is up with the delay or an answer to my question as to whether I'll ever get #23!

Thomas, perhaps you could pause for a moment or two to tell me if I and the rest of us in my position are totally screwed or if there is any intent to ever ship what was paid for. Please forgive me if I sound a little ticked at the moment but quite frankly Randy has never shafted me out of a cart, let alone a $60 cart!

IMHO, if a game or Hack is released to the community that means anyone should be free to make it and use or sell it, not just those the author isn't fueding with at any given time. We can argue about it all we want but Randy is not selling the game, he is selling a service. It costs the same $11 bucks for any 2 or 4k cart regardless of title or rarity unless he is paying a royalty to someone. Since the hacks were released for "free" there is no extra charge.

I don't think this was a set of issues that should have been brought to the community as a whole, it would have been better settled between the parties involved or at least laid to rest in peace privately.

JerryG[/quote]

To which Cupcakus blathered:
You better read the whole story before you shoot your mouth off... the whole "service" bullshit was killed a long time ago... It didn't work for Napster, and it's not going to work with Randy. If Thomas never made those hacks, then Randy could not be profiting from them period...

I can see how it could easily be interpreted that a freely available binary image may seem like it's OK to sell. But ethically you have to give the developer credit. If the author wishes you to stop selling his game.. for ANY reason... you have a moral obligation to respect his wishes.... for you owe that respect to him... because without him you would not even have that game to sell in the first place. So you owe the $20, $30 or whatever amount of money you made from said software to the time and effort the author put forth in that game... and as such that developer deserves your respect.

Am I wrong?
[/quote][/quote]

Yes, as a matter of fact you are wrong!

You are illogically arguing the wrong arguement. The question is not whether Randy should have stopped selling the carts when asked, the question is should he have been asked to stop selling them!

Thomas released whatever rights that he had to the hacked games, if any, to the public to use as they wished. The public, including Randy, started using them. Randy was selling copies with Thomas' implied or implicit permission and all was well in the world. Thomas got angry at Randy. Maybe it was Thomas' fault, maybe it was Randy's fault, maybe it was both their fault, whatever the reason he got mad. Thomas decided to ask Randy to stop making the carts.

Wrong! The cat was already out of the bag. The use of Thomas' contribution to the games had already been given away and was already in use. It was no longer within Thomas' right to ask folks to stop using his contribution, particulary not his right to single out one given user and try to deny him the use of the games.

So, you see you are wrong because:

1. You are not addressing the proper issue and question.
2. You assumed I had not read the whole thread, which I have.
3. Napster notwithstanding, Randy does nothing more that provide a service. That service may or may not be legal or within copyright limits but it is a service none-the-less.
4. You know what assume does!

JerryG

[Scott Stilphen]

It amazes me how anyone can read this whole thread and still not get it...

[Albert]

JerryG said:

Wrong! The cat was already out of the bag. The use of Thomas' contribution to the games had already been given away and was already in use. It was no longer within Thomas' right to ask folks to stop using his contribution, particulary not his right to single out one given user and try to deny him the use of the games.

This is flat out wrong. If you release something to the public, that does not mean you relinquish your rights to whatever that is. When you have a copyright on something (which you get automatically when you create said work), even if you allow the public to use it for free, you still have control over who may reproduce and distribute that work.

And that isn't even the issue in this case, as the original works being modified in this case (existing 2600 games) were already copyrighted by another entity, and technically *NO ONE* should be selling copies of them except the copyright owner. Certainly Randy did not have permission to reproduce all the games he was selling. Thomas did not have any false pretenses that he "owned" the copyrights to these games.

The real issue here is whether Randy should have respected Thomas' request to stop selling the games. If Randy wants to be an active member of the community and wants people to respect him, then he has to live by the same social guidelines as everyone else. Sure, he can sell those hacks and conversions and the only people who can legally go after him are companies like Infogrames and Activision. But if he's not going to respect Thomas (after all, these conversions would not exist if Thomas did not take the time to create them), then why should people respect Randy? Why would you want to work with someone who's willing to thumb his nose at the very people who have taken the time to learn how to program the 2600 (not an easy task) and are freely making these works available to play? And as one of Randy's potential customers, would I want to buy something from him knowing that the person who created this work asked him not to sell it?

And the entire "Randy was providing a service" argument is getting old. Except in the case of original homebrew games, Randy was selling copies of software that he did not own the rights to produce. It's as simple as that. You can call it a service all you want, but that defense isn't going to hold up in court. If I burn copies of DVD movies and sell them to people and call it a service, that makes it okay? If I burn copies of Microsoft Office and call it a service, that's okay too? Even if Randy made *no profit* (which is not the case), that still doesn't make it right. The only reason Randy could get away with what he was doing is that the companies who own the copyrights are either out of business or (fortunately) turn a blind eye to this aspect of the classic gaming scene.

..Al

[ccc---]

Albert said:

And the entire "Randy was providing a service" argument is getting old.  Except in the case of original homebrew games, Randy was selling copies of software that he did not own the rights to produce.  It's as simple as that.  You can call it a service all you want, but that defense isn't going to hold up in court.  If I burn copies of DVD movies and sell them to people and call it a service, that makes it okay?  If I burn copies of Microsoft Office and call it a service, that's okay too?  Even if Randy made *no profit* (which is not the case), that still doesn't make it right.  The only reason Randy could get away with what he was doing is that the companies who own the copyrights are either out of business or (fortunately) turn a blind eye to this aspect of the classic gaming scene.

I don't want to defend Randy nor do take party for Thomas, but from a neutral point of view - presuming that Randy would offer a "non-profit service": What would be the difference between Randy "providing a non-profit service" with those hacks and Thomas "providing a non-profit service" with those hacks? As far as I am informed none of the both own the legal rights of the original code. Thomas may pass those hacks to the community, but Randy may not?

Many classic gaming fans (especially in the US) are happy that Thomas did those TV format hacks for them. Randy did not do similar work for them. Couldn't it be that many gamers take party for Thomas for that reason and therefore apply two different standards?

What's the difference? Does Thomas' hack work make it legal for him to distribute the game? There may be a moral difference between Randy and Thomas distributing the games, but is there a legal difference?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

JerryG said:

JerryG wrote:

To which JerryG Replied:

To which Cupcakus blathered:

Characteristical!

Is that you Randy?

I really hoped this had come to an end...

[Thomas Jentzsch]

ccc--- said:

There may be a moral difference between Randy and Thomas distributing the games, but is there a legal difference?

Before others may reply a bit harsh here, let me repeat (again):

We are NOT discussing about any "legal differences" at all. IMO there aren't and for me they aren't important at all here.

So this is all about "moral differences". Got it?

And thanks for agreeing that there may be a moral difference.

[ccc---]

Thomas Jentzsch said:

ccc--- said:

There may be a moral difference between Randy and Thomas distributing the games, but is there a legal difference?

Before others may reply a bit harsh here, let me repeat (again):

We are NOT discussing about any "legal differences" at all. IMO there aren't and for me they aren't important at all here.

So this is all about "moral differences". Got it?

And thanks for agreeing that there may be a moral difference.

Agreed.

[Rob Mitchell]

I'm afraid that this issue will resurface if someone else starts manufacturing games. Should there be a condition statement on each download page? Maybe something like "Contact the programmer / hacker before manufacturing a cartridge containing this binary program."

Which TV judge should mediate future conflicts of this type? I vote for that testy Judge Judy.

Rob Mitchell, Atlanta, GA
(Thank god I own the Cuttle Cart.)

[Kaboomer]

I agree with the above quote. The cat is out of the bag now. In my opinion its a really grey area all around. On one hand....Thomas is perhaps the best programmer for the 2600 and I don't want him to be harmed..... On the other hand, Randy has been very kind and thoughtful in all my dealings with him so I find it hard to believe he would be anything but respectful and square with anyone!

As for Randy selling the games at Hozer....I think he does a great service at putting games in the hands of avid gamers. I think it's a disservice to the gaming community if Hozer goes out of business! At $11 a pop, I honestly don't see him doing this for profit....yeah someone pointed out he's making a few grand at doing this each year but for the service he does and all the work he goes through, I think it's a fair "NON-PROFIT" overall price. Also, someone pointed out it must take a lot of time....in my opinion, since the cat (or ROM) is out of the bag, Hozer or anyone else will be making these for people to play who don't have a cuttle.

I truly hope Thomas and Randy settle their differences and come to a reasonable arrangement. In my opinion, they are both honest and straight guys from all my experiences with both of them. I stand by both of them!


Brad

[ubersaurus]

just to clear it up, non-profit means you aren't pursuing a profit. It does not mean you do not make a profit, small or large. It's something alot of people get mixed up.

[gavv]

ubersaurus said:

just to clear it up, non-profit means you aren't pursuing a profit. It does not mean you do not make a profit, small or large. It's something alot of people get mixed up.

wouldn't that be not-for-profit?

gavv

[StanJr]

The only person who put Hozer out of business is Randy.

[Snider-man]

Ok - that's it. Just f-in drop it, people. I've not chimed in, because I'm not directly involved. Neither are most of you chiming in on this subject. The damage is done. The bridges are burned. The feelings are crushed. The trust violated. The lines are drawn. And minds have been made up by all. Thomas did what he felt needed to be done. As did Randy. As did "The Als" and Joe. At this point, however, all I'm seeing is - what appears to be - needless bitching from folks who are not directly embroiled in this whole confrontation. Let's move on from this point, shall we? Thank you.

"Had Enough" Snider-Man

[privateers69]

Snider-man said:

Ok -  that's it. Just f-in drop it, people. I've not chimed in, because I'm not directly involved. Neither are most of you chiming in on this subject. The damage is done. The bridges are burned. The feelings are crushed. The trust violated. The lines are drawn. And minds have been made up by all. Thomas did what he felt needed to be done. As did Randy. As did "The Als" and Joe. At this point, however, all I'm seeing is - what appears to be - needless bitching from folks who are not directly embroiled in this whole confrontation. Let's move on from this point, shall we? Thank you.

"Had Enough" Snider-Man

Aww Man,

Just when I was bringing another dead horse to beat. Since there's nothing left of the old one. (jk)