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

[Super-Genius!]

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

I would like to respond to the above post. 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

[Cupcakus]

While I probably shouldn't even get involved... here is my take given the information presented... And as a consumer...

 

Implied copyright only applies to the author of the original work, be it an individual or a company. Copyrights can't be transfered unless you apply with the copyright office... So I don't see how they could have purchased the copyrights to commavid games... Unless they appropriated the commavid company, in which case all intellectual property of that company is now theirs. They need to present written evidence they own the copyrights, or they are just talk...

 

Given that information, you can create your commavid repros and not be in trouble legally at all.

 

However, if they DO own the copyrights, and prove it to you, I see no reason why they have to buy your excess stock... you will be forced to cease and desist, and eat what you didn't sell. This happened to me a few years back with a web game I made... the real copyright owner showed up out of the blue and I was forced to cease and lose some money in the process.

 

When dealing in "hazy" copyright circumstances, this is a chance we all take.

[Super-Genius!]

You are absolutely correct in what you are saying!! I had it researched

and was informed NO copyright was filed. I told John to send me a

copy of the copyright and I would stop. Of course he informed me no

copyright was ever filed!! Of course, I knew that! Being reasonable,

I told him if he bought my remaining inventory, I would still stop!!!

We made a deal, I stopped making them, I backed out of going to

the CGE and stopped advertising....

 

I never got a PENNY or a call from those two!!

[mos6507]

These guys sure have become a lightning-rod for controversy of late, haven't they?

 

Maybe they are just trying too hard to keep the attention of the classic community that they have to disrupt the scene like this.

[Scott Stilphen]

They asked you not to make the carts, so out of courtesy the right thing to do would be to respect their wish. Sounds to me you tried to force their hand by either a) buying out your stock or b) forcing them to respond with legal action. At the least, you could have set up some kind of royalty settlement with them, but I'm guessing you didn't even try that approach. So basically what you're doing right now is no different than what Hozer Games was doing (and the majority of the community opinion was against them for it).

[Super-Genius!]

Scott, you have no idea what you are talking about. They contacted ME

and offered to buy my inventory and I agreed. I backed out of the

CGE and lost $600 on two plane tickets. I stopped making them!! I

stopped advertising....

 

Then, I don't hear another word from them. NOTHING!! They ignore

my calls and emails. They got what they wanted, so forget about me.

They did not hold up their end of the deal.

 

And furthermore, I asked for a copy of their contract with Commavid.

I have not seen one, they did not send me one. Have you seen one??

Has anyone seen one?? Where is this Contract??? I know!! Probably

buried in the Mines of Minos!!

 

Sean is selling multicarts that have 100's of valid copyrights. I know,

that is fine because no one asked him to stop. How about the Atari logos

he puts on the boxes and carts??? I know, that is fine too, because no

one said anything. Well you know what, there is one word I can find to

describe that : HYPOCRITES

 

Show me a copyright and I will stop right now!!

[rolenta]

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.

[Scott Stilphen]

I don't know the whole story here, and I'm not claiming to- I'm simply responding to your comments, and those of John & Sean that you posted.

 

They contacted ME and offered to buy my inventory and I agreed.

 

You stated the opposite in your first post ("I agreed to stop making the games IMMEDIATELY if they would buy my remaining inventory". Doesn't sound like an offer they made, but rather a demand you made.

 

 

I backed out of the CGE and lost $600 on two plane tickets.

 

Didn't they make the CommaVid annoucement after the last CGE show?

 

And furthermore, I asked for a copy of their contract with Commavid. I have not seen one, they did not send me one.  Have you seen one?? Has anyone seen one??  Where is this Contract???

 

What good would that do? You stated the only document that would change anything for you (legally) would be one stating they have copyright ownership, and they stated they now have one being processed. So the question is, once that application goes through, would you then continue to sell carts?

[Super-Genius!]

A copyright is in place from the moment of creation to the lifespan of the creator + 50 years.

 

Herman, where are you getting your facts??? Probably from Sean and

John. Take a look at this:

 

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc

 

That is from the copyright office!! And I will repeat myself one more time.

I took the time and expense to have a law firm research this and they

told me that I was NOT infringing on ANYTHING. Sorry, I believe them

not you.

 

The point that angers me the most is they PROFIT from material that has

valid copyrights!! And then they have the nerve to point their finger at me!!

[Scott Stilphen]

Sean's reply on DP's board:

 

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.  

 

NO, we are not making the games you listed (Elevator Action, Save the Whales, Crack'ed and Pick-Up) 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.  

 

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

[rolenta]

Herman' date=' where are you getting your facts??? Probably from Sean and

John. [/quote']

 

I've been writing for 30 years, much longer than I know Sean & John.

 

But you're right, I was wrong in my facts. Apparently now a copyright is valid for 70 years, not 50 as I said (when the Copyright Law of 1978 was enacted, the term was for 50 years. Apparently it was changed since then).

 

The site that you pointed me to also said that a copyright is only transferable on an exclusive basis if the copyright holder grants it to the new copyright holder in writing. How do you know that this didn't happen? If it didn't, then you are free to distribute your carts. If it did, then that copyright will be in place for 95 years!

[Scott Stilphen]

The point that angers me the most is they PROFIT from material that has valid copyrights!!  And then they have the nerve to point their finger at me!!

Now you don't know what you're talking about. Len's point (which you missed) is that these games have copyrights, even if the company that produced them are no longer active. Have your 200 copyright lawyers do another search when John & Sean's app goes through

[Super-Genius!]

You stated the opposite in your first post ("I agreed to stop making the games IMMEDIATELY if they would buy my remaining inventory". Doesn't sound like an offer they made, but rather a demand you made.

 

 

They did make me the offer. I did not demand ANYTHING, I just wanted

to break even.

 

Didn't they make the CommaVid annoucement after the last CGE show?

 

Which year are you talking about 2002 or 2001??

 

What good would that do? You stated the only document that would change anything for you (legally) would be one stating they have copyright ownership, and they stated they now have one being processed. So the question is, once that application goes through, would you then continue to sell carts?

 

Despite what they tell you, they can not file for a copyright. Again, I have

THOUSANDS of copyrights. I have a large law firm representing me and

I know copyright law inside out.

 

Just for EVERYONE's information, the MagiCard binary is PUBLIC DOMAIN!

Anything written BEFORE 1989 had to conform to STRICT notification which

Computer Magic did not DO!! What do I mean??? Their original release

of MagiCard did NOT have proper notice, which makes it PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Am I sure?? I am POSITIVE!! It was released on a bare circuit board with

NO case. How do I know?? I bought one!! I have one!!

 

Here is the link: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#pub

 

But, being the reasonable person I am, I will not make another MagiCard

or Video Life game IF Sean Kelly stops selling his Multicarts which is in

violation of hundreds of VALID copyrights. Just go to his website. He is

PROFITING from hundreds of valid copyrights!!

 

I WILL REPEAT myself one more time. Sean, stop "STEALING" other

people's work, and I will STOP the Multicart.

 

BTW, these posts are REALLY good for sales!!

[Scott Stilphen]

Which year are you talking about 2002 or 2001??

 

Well, since it's the year 2003 now, that would mean the last CGE was in 2002. Do you know who the president of the U.S. is?

 

 

Despite what they tell you, they can not file for a copyright.  Again, I have THOUSANDS of copyrights.  I have a large law firm representing me and I know copyright law inside out.

 

Thousands, huh? John and Sean already mentioned they submitted (past tense) an application, and Len just proved you don't know squat about copyrights. Instead of digging yourself a deeper hole, just admit you're wrong.

 

Just for EVERYONE's information, the MagiCard binary is PUBLIC DOMAIN! Anything written BEFORE 1989 had to conform to STRICT notification which Computer Magic did not DO!!  What do I mean???  Their original release of MagiCard did NOT have proper notice, which makes it PUBLIC DOMAIN. Am I sure??  I am POSITIVE!!  It was released on a bare circuit board with NO case.  How do I know??  I bought one!!  I have one!!

 

So any game w/o a case is public domain? Game companies don't have any rights to their properties unless they were actually sold in a case? If you had bothered to read the info on that page you listed, you would have learned that:

 

(1) "Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright", which is exactly what they did.

 

(2) Not only can they file for a copyright (skip down to section "Who May File for Copyright?"), it tells you exactly how to! Plus it states "registration is not a requirement for protection" (under "Copyright Registration").

 

(3)

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.

 

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally published without notice. For further information about copyright amendments in the URAA, request Circular 38b.

 

The Copyright Office does not take a position on whether copies of works first published with notice before March 1, 1989, which are distributed on or after March 1, 1989, must bear the copyright notice.

 

Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504©(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.

 

The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office.

 

In short, an actual copyright notice on the item (ex. your Magicard board) is not required for copyright ownership. There's no doubt as to when that product was made, and who the original copyright owners were (and the fact that you ordered a copy direct from the company excludes you from using 'innocent infringement' as an excuse) so it is most certainly NOT public domain.

 

But, being the reasonable person I am, I will not make another MagiCard or Video Life game IF Sean Kelly stops selling his Multicarts which is in violation of hundreds of VALID copyrights.  

 

Yeah, how reasonable of you

[Super-Genius!]

Scott, what is wrong with you??? Why don't you go back to your Digital

Press World where you belong.

 

Well, since it's the year 2003 now, that would mean the last CGE was in 2002. Do you know who the president of the U.S. is?

 

It was a valid question I asked. I started making the Magicard six months

before they announced anything. I thought you may mean 2001. And

yes, I know the president. Do you know your IQ? Or possibly your foot

size? You seem to be putting it in your mouth with your posts.

 

Thousands, huh? John and Sean already mentioned they submitted (past tense) an application, and Len just proved you don't know squat about copyrights. Instead of digging yourself a deeper hole, just admit you're wrong.

 

Submitting an application doesn't mean a thing. I have submitted hundreds

that were denied for one reason or another.

 

So any game w/o a case is public domain? Game companies don't have any rights to their properties unless they were actually sold in a case?

 

Has all of this gone over your head?? It was on a BARE circuit board.

There was no NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT!! Game companies put the

copyright notice on the case, which is valid notification. Atari put it on

the ROM chips, which is valid. Computer Magic sold a BARE board, with

a standard EPROM with NO NOTICE. Is that clear or do you need a more

detailed answer??

 

In short, an actual copyright notice on the item (ex. your Magicard board) is not required for copyright ownership.

 

Obviously, you have trouble understanding what you are reading, so I will

explain. The above is true if the works were DONE AFTER 1989. The

MagiCard was done in the very early 80's. So, they had to conform to

STRICT notification. Do you understand that??

 

Like I said, have Sean STOP violating copyright law and I will stop making

the Multicart...that is very simple to understand, isn't it??

[Snider-man]

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?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Do you really think it makes sense discussing this way? We all share the same hobby and we should not need to use laws and lawyers against each other. This will destroy the fun.

 

The day we will have to establish a "Law forum" here at AtariAge is the day I will leave this hobby.

[liquid_sky]

i think its wrong and all, but im sick of arguing

[Thomas Jentzsch]

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:

ATARI AGE MEMBERS: <<<<Not a friggin' peep.>>>>

I hope my last reply came just in time.

 

I have a general bad feeling and mixed emotions about the whole thing, that's why I replied so late.

 

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?

I'm not sure how to feel about that.

 

While it was 100% sure that I was the "moral" owner of the copyright of my own hacks/conversions, this situation is IMHO a bit different. I don't know how and why John and Sean got the copyright for those carts and I don't know about any evidence wether it is true or not. And I have no idea about the law.

 

But IMO that is not the center point of this discussion. If they offered Mark the deal he described, then they have the moral (and probably legal, I don't care) obligation to accomplish it. If they don't do that, Mark has every right to go public, though I don't think mixing this case with Sean's Multicart is a good idea at all.

 

And I don't like the idea of getting copyrights of other peoples interlectual property for profit at all. While I understand that it must have cost them a lot of money to get those items, profiting (or is there any other reason I missed?) from copyright is IMO not a good idea for refinancing the collectors hobby. With everybody doing so, we would soon have ruined the community and the whole hobby.

 

Just my 0.02 EUR.

[sly]

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. I don't think Mark ever planned on opening a website Commavid.com or something super serious that would ruin John and Sean's plans. As a matter of fact, he sold these games before any Commavid purchase occured.

 

In my opinion,

I don't know copyrights can be enforced from a company that has been dead for 18 years. I am sure some transaction took place between someone that had alot of Commavid stuff, but I doubt that makes anyone the copyright owners especially if there is no significant formal record with copyright proof transfer or renewal.

 

If a purchase was made from a legit existing company selling assets that's one thing. But just buying some stuff that a private person that was an owner or ex-employee I don't think gives automatic copyright protection for John and Sean in this case. An implied copyright may have existed with Commavid but it's truly dead for some 18 years.

 

Also, I believe that if you think that copyrights should be enforced with Commavid situation then I think there are valid elements with MultiCarts or Rereleased Prototypes being copyright infringement as well. In summary demanding any copyright enforcement could be opening up a huge "can of worms" for all prototype rereleases, or multicarts. If more key people from existing companies knew about it, prototypes, and multicarts may turn into a very serious violation.

[Cupcakus]

This issue is a lot more hazy then the Hozer issue... as neither party is the original creator of the work, or even had a hand in the work at all.

 

There is no easy way out of this... It stinks to bring in lawyers and all other sorts of crap over such a silly circumstance...

 

How much money is really stood to be made here? $1,500 maybe at the most? That sounds like a lot, but no copyright lawyer is going to waste time with it... The lawyer would cost more than what you are fighting over.

 

You might as well both keep doing what you're doing and hate each other, or work it out and partner up or something and benefit the community as a whole.

 

Because these battles are getting tiresome...

 

I know I wont be buying from either of you, until this is settled...

[sly]

I agree with Cupcakus. No one has the right to shut anyone down. No one is truly the owner of the material.

[Scott Stilphen]

Sniderman- the difference between those is one was a moral request (Thomas) and the other is a legal one.

 

 

Why don't you go back to your Digital Press World where you belong.

 

If Albert and Alex feel that way, then I'll stop posting here. But coming from you though, that means nothing, so I'll continue to express my opinions.

 

 

I started making the Magicard six months

before they announced anything.

 

Which is why your copyright search didn't show that they currently own the rights! It's not 2001 any more...

 

 

Submitting an application doesn't mean a thing.  I have submitted hundreds that were denied for one reason or another.

 

Since their application wasn't denied, and seeing there's no reason to expect it will be, it does mean something, especially to you.

 

 

Has all of this gone over your head??  It was on a BARE circuit board. There was no NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT!!  Game companies put the

copyright notice on the case, which is valid notification.  Atari put it on

the ROM chips, which is valid.  Computer Magic sold a BARE board, with

a standard EPROM with NO NOTICE.  Is that clear or do you need a more

detailed answer??

 

CommaVid sold Magicard as labeled carts with manuals. The label states "Program content © 1982 CommaVid"The manual states "Copyright 1981 by Computer Magic, Inc. So it sounds like all you have is a copy (and we all know copies are worthless).

 

Also, the last page of the manual states a patent was pending on the design. I'm guessing you simply duplicated the board design with your copies, right? Strike two...

 

 

Obviously, you have trouble understanding what you are reading, so I will explain.  The above is true if the works were DONE AFTER 1989.  The MagiCard was done in the very early 80's.  So, they had to conform to

STRICT notification.  Do you understand that??

 

Any reasonable person who , after reading that entire page, would understand why your arguement is pointless. That 1976 law comes into play if you're trying to establish any copyright ownership b/c the item doesn't have any notice on it. Read my last post (again), and read the info on that site (again). In this case, there's no question of ownership - there's no doubt as to if it was copyrighted then, and there's no doubt as to who owns that copyright now - case closed. But don't take my word, or Len's, or John's or Sean's....go spend another $500

 

 

Like I said, have Sean STOP violating copyright law and I will stop making the Multicart...that is very simple to understand, isn't it??

 

Sure, except you're asking the wrong guy

[angusjake]

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:  

ATARI AGE MEMBERS: <<<<Not a friggin' peep.>>>>

 

Thats a bit harsh. People are obviously not commenting about this because they are unsure. I don't think having everyone chiming in about their opinion will necessarily assist either way.

 

I am an attorney, and I agree with Thomas that in this grey area involvement of legal counsel is impractical and would be detrimental to the hobby. However, in evaluating the situation one can still be guided by legal basics as to which claim should prevail. Here is my quick analysis (and I won't even charge you $200 an hour):

(a) If they have the rights, Mark cannot produce it. They will have to produce proof of their rights if requested, otherwise it is a bare assertion.

(b) Mark should be paid if there was a (verbal or written) contract. A contact consists of an offer, acceptance, and a consideration (i.e. promise of payment).

© The multicart is a red-herring. Unless those with the rights object, Sean can produce it (as can anyone else). In addition, I would add that it is not in the interests of the gaming community for this product to be discontinued.

 

At the end of the day, it is detrimental to the hobby and likely not cost-effective for people to enforce legal rights in this area. We can be guided by the legalities, however, as there is no other basis upon which to act (i.e. there is no universal 'moral code' as to what is right). I suggest that people conduct themselves in a manner such that this community can thrive as much as possible.

 

ps. If anyone has a specific legal question, I am happy to run it by our office copyright attorney.

[sly]

Scott, I don't know why you want protect John and Sean's interests so much. The company Commavid is DEAD. All copyrights do is protect profits. Clearly they want to profit off of someone else's ideas otherwise they would not care. Obviously is more than just the love of the hobby.

 

Mark sold his products before any of this came to light with no intent to infringe on anybody and should not be required to shut down.

Mark, Sean and John all want to make profits. Let them earn it by producing the best product.

 

Sean and John bought some stuff off of someone that was part of a Dead Company. This is merely a private transaction and doesn't give them any automatic copyright protection- no public record of anything.