Why not release Garfield?

[Brad2600]

I was looking at one of the Garfield cartoons in happy dude's avatar and I was wondering why the Garfield game hasn't been released(or has it?).

 

I was just wondering if it would ever come out or not.

 

It just looks too sweet.

[Tempest]

Garfield was released as a rom image at one of the CGE's (99?), but the owner of the Garfield copyright (Paws Inc.) which gave permission for the release stipulated that it could not be sold for profit.

 

On a side note I was talking to Steve Woita (the programmer) and he confirmed that he owns the only prototype that was ever made, so you can all stop looking...

 

http://www.atariprotos.com/2600/software/g...ld/garfield.htm

 

Tempest

[Brad2600]

I am aware that the ROM image was released.

 

It's too bad they won't allow it to be sold for profit.

 

It certainly looks really sweet for a 2600 game.

[Lost Monkey]

Geez Matt.. can't a guy just "wonder" in a public forum without you providing answers? Geez!

 

[+-^CrossBow^-]

Well..what about just making a repro of the game...and making Zero profit...just charging what it actually costs to make the game?

 

I really don't see the difference between this..and a rom being distributed to the masses....

 

[Lost Monkey]

Well..what about just making a repro of the game...and making Zero profit...just charging what it actually costs to make the game?

 

I really don't see the difference between this..and a rom being distributed to the masses....

 

 

Or try what video production places do for music in wedding videos - have the buyer supply the rom to the cartridge maker who in turn charges for the service of applying the rom to the eeprom...

 

The thing is, I am certain that no-one producing cartridges from these old roms wants to give any copyright holders reason to vigorously protect thei property. We (as classic gamer hobbyists etc) are in a better situation if the wishes of the few companies who specifically request that there properties are not sold are respected.

[NE146]

I don't know why it's desirable to own a 'garfield cart'. When you know it was just going to be made by your local joe schmo with a photoshopped label on it. What's so great or collectible about that?

 

I guess of course if you have that desire to have a cartridge of the game rather than be content playing it via emulation or via cuttlecart. I dunno, but that just aint me

[liquid_sky]

huh? i have a garfield avatar?

[cx2k]

Just to clarify this...

 

Jim Davis and Paws, Inc. did give permission for you to make a cartridge for your own use. You just can't make them for, or sell them to, other people.

 

There's a text file about this included with the Rom here:

 

http://www.cgexpo.com/roms.html

 

Enjoy,

John

[san-d-2000]

I don't know why it's desirable to own a 'garfield cart'. When you know it was just going to be made by your local joe schmo with a photoshopped label on it. What's so great or collectible about that?

 

This is so true, doesn´t this apply on all reproductions

 

-Sandy

[Brad2600]

A slight mix-up there, liquid. Sorry there.

 

Sounds good that you can make your own cartridge with this ROM.

[MegaManFan]

Just to clarify this...

 

Jim Davis and Paws, Inc. did give permission for you to make a cartridge for your own use. You just can't make them for, or sell them to, other people.

 

This seems a little unclear though. If I don't have a tool to burn EPROM, and I pay somebody only the cost of the chip, the electricity, and the cart to put it in, is he illegally "selling" one to me or am I just "making" one for my own use?

[StanJr]

That give me a GREAT idea for a booth at the Philly classic! The "Make Your Own Garfield Cart" Booth. You pay me $5 and I let you use my eprom burner to make your own Garfield cart. You burn the eprom, you slap it in an old combat cart you supply (or I will for $2), and then you apply a label and take your new cart home, ENTIRELY made by you and perfectly within legal parameters.

 

Who wants to buy this idea off of me, or sell me an eprom burner?

[Godzilla]

LOL stan, thats awesome! Id be all about that :-) if i had an eprom burner to give you...

[Tempest]

That give me a GREAT idea for a booth at the Philly classic! The "Make Your Own Garfield Cart" Booth. You pay me $5 and I let you use my eprom burner to make your own Garfield cart.

 

I think that still violates the agreement. You'd be making money off this (albeit only a buck or two) which is a no-no.

 

Tempest

[Godzilla]

no, see thats how its smart, because its different. its just like those guys who sell absinthe legally on ebay (im selling you this home decor bottle, it just happens to have absinthe in it, but im not SELLING you the absinthe, you are getting that for free.)

[+-^CrossBow^-]

hmmm...

 

Tempest I still disagree...because:

 

1. Whether I buy the combat cart for 2 bucks...or Stan buys it for the same price...what is the difference? As long as the price for the cart equals the price of what it would cost me....they are the same...

 

2. Use of the Eprom burner for a small nominal fee is the same. Whether I use my own burner or someone elses...there are resources being used. Heck, in this regard, you can make the use of the burner free.

 

3. Labels: Again, whether I use my own Ink and Paper or someone elses, there is a price being used to do this. Why does it matter who is actually doing it?

 

All of this can be argued in that the price of a combat cart to me might be a bucks..or 2 bucks to the guy who provides it. Who am I to say that he didn't actually spend 2 bucks for that combat cart?

 

Label prices would vary depending on the quality of the paper and inks used, and the method of printing involved. Again, the price of ink on my printer most likely will not be the same for the ink on your printer.

 

You would have to prove that a person paid less for the materials than they were charging for them in order to technically violate these rules.

 

I am not saying that I would actually do anything like this, but technically all of this would be pretty difficult to prove in a court of law. Especially when one aquires most of the stuff in thrifts or flea markets where cash is the medium used to obtain..and receipts do not exist...

 

[Xot]

Perhaps someone should contact Paws and discuss the terms under which a unlimited release would be allowed. It may be a simple one-time payment or a dollar-a-cart royalty. You never know; if there's enough interest maybe it could pan out.

[MegaManFan]

I am not saying that I would actually do anything like this, but technically all of this would be pretty difficult to prove in a court of law.  Especially when one aquires most of the stuff in thrifts or flea markets where cash is the medium used to obtain..and receipts do not exist...

 

 

And I'm not even arguing technicalities (which Crossbow does very convincingly IMHO). I'm just arguing how are people supposed to uphold the spirit of the not-to-profit agreement if they don't own their own EPROM burner - what in the view of PAWS and/or Jim Davis constitutes "at cost" for the purposes of acquiring a copy of the game?

[sku_u]

I highly doubt PAWS would come after anyone doing a cart or two as a favor to someone else. It would cost them more time and money to file a claim.

 

A more likely scenario is that they would revoke the right to view this ROM (as stipulated in their short read me that comes in the Garfield folder).

 

As far as their user agreement, it's pretty clear that more than one copy cannot be made for any reason:

 

Permission is NOT granted for any individual to manufacture cartridge versions of

the ROM code for another end user under any circumstances.

 

I guess that the bottom line is that this game is meant for enjoyment through emulation unless someone happens to want to make one copy for themself using their own resources, not someone else's.

[MegaManFan]

Permission is NOT granted for any individual to manufacture cartridge versions of

the ROM code for another end user under any circumstances.

 

I guess that the bottom line is that this game is meant for enjoyment through emulation unless someone happens to want to make one copy for themself using their own resources, not someone else's.

 

Aww nuts. Anybody wanna loan me their EPROM burner for a week then? I promise to send it back as soon as I make a working Garfield.

[+Mitch]

Why not just mail the EPROM to someone with a burner and they can mail it back to you after it is burned?

 

Mitch

[cx2k]

Exactly! It is highly unlikely that they'll be pursuing legal remedies against someone making a cart. Their intent was that the ROM be used for emulation purposes and if someone happens to have the capability to make a cart for themselves, then that amounts to a bonus for that person.

 

Are there ways around this (ie burning an eprom for someone else?) Of course! But do we really want to show everyone out there that this is how we respond when someone gives us permission to use their roms with an emulator?

 

I think upholding the restrictions of the Garfield Rom will help when dealing with other companies that might be reluctant to release data.

 

My 2 cents.

 

John

 

 

I highly doubt PAWS would come after anyone doing a cart or two as a favor to someone else.  It would cost them more time and money to file a claim.

 

A more likely scenario is that they would revoke the right to view this ROM (as stipulated in their short read me that comes in the Garfield folder).

 

As far as their user agreement, it's pretty clear that more than one copy cannot be made for any reason:

 

Permission is NOT granted for any individual to manufacture cartridge versions of

the ROM code for another end user under any circumstances.

 

I guess that the bottom line is that this game is meant for enjoyment through emulation unless someone happens to want to make one copy for themself using their own resources, not someone else's.

[sku_u]

 

I think upholding the restrictions of the Garfield Rom will help when dealing with other companies that might be reluctant to release data.

 

My 2 cents.

 

John

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

[MegaManFan]

I think upholding the restrictions of the Garfield Rom will help when dealing with other companies that might be reluctant to release data.

 

Oh I agree entirely. I just find it bizarre and inconvenient.