Coleco strong-arming homebrew publishers and fan sites

[Albert Penello]

What's infuriating about this guy is he's not actually creating anything. Any follower of this industry knows it celebrates the creator - from the little homebrew guy, to the small indie team, and even to the huge AAA houses - it's all about the creators.

 

While people don't love Nintendo's hard rules, we at least understand. They are creators who are actively using this IP so we respect their wishes, even if we don't love it.

 

This guy is the worst kind of bottom-feeder. Just like patent-trolls who buy up patents then sue companies who actually ship products, he paid money for IP and now expects and ROI on that investment. He has made nothing - he didn't even create the logo.

Yet he expects the community to bow to him as if he is the creator and steward of a brand for which he has contributed nothing.

These people pretend to protect brands but actually stifle innovation - just like patent trolls.

Here's a piece of advice Chris - go make something. Go make a game. Go make a piece of HW. Stop trying to monetize other peoples' time just because you own a legal mark that was created 30 years ago. And for SURE don't try and claim you or your company are "releasing" something just because you forced them to pay you a fee for their work.

Or, give me a fair price. I'll buy it from you and give it back to Rob, Eduardo and the rest of the community.

[Keatah]

It's the new way of business. And it is accepted practice. Otherwise they'd get shut down one way or another. Simple as that!

[ColecoGamer]

I'm taking a sledgehammer to my Coleco the same day my Prometheus console arrives...

[DuggerVideoGames]

I'm taking a sledgehammer to my Coleco the same day my Prometheus console arrives...

Or you can just give it to me instead of unnecessarily smashing the thing. The people and company who made that are not the same as today's idiots.

[ColecoGamer]

Or you can just give it to me instead of unnecessarily smashing the thing. The people and company who made that are not the same as today's idiots.

True. The real people behind the Coleco never would have pulled such a nasty stunt.

 

Edited for spelling.

Edited June 7, 2017 by ColecoGamer

[Keatah]

They would if there was enough money involved.

[+eebuckeye]

What's infuriating about this guy is he's not actually creating anything. Any follower of this industry knows it celebrates the creator - from the little homebrew guy, to the small indie team, and even to the huge AAA houses - it's all about the creators.

 

While people don't love Nintendo's hard rules, we at least understand. They are creators who are actively using this IP so we respect their wishes, even if we don't love it.

 

This guy is the worst kind of bottom-feeder. Just like patent-trolls who buy up patents then sue companies who actually ship products, he paid money for IP and now expects and ROI on that investment. He has made nothing - he didn't even create the logo.

Yet he expects the community to bow to him as if he is the creator and steward of a brand for which he has contributed nothing.

 

These people pretend to protect brands but actually stifle innovation - just like patent trolls.

Here's a piece of advice Chris - go make something. Go make a game. Go make a piece of HW. Stop trying to monetize other peoples' time just because you own a legal mark that was created 30 years ago. And for SURE don't try and claim you or your company are "releasing" something just because you forced them to pay you a fee for their work.

 

Or, give me a fair price. I'll buy it from you and give it back to Rob, Eduardo and the rest of the community.

 

To be fair I believe Coleco is publishing a new licensed Rainbow Brite game which is not out yet. Kind of an odd choice but that is just my opinion.

[Albert Penello]

 

To be fair I believe Coleco is publishing a new licensed Rainbow Brite game which is not out yet. Kind of an odd choice but that is just my opinion.

 

Are they? On what system? Who is the developer? (genuinely curious)

[+eebuckeye]

I don't think they have announced the supported systems yet but one of Atari Age's best programmers is working on it. My understanding is that he had no idea of anything behind the problems with Coleco and the homebrew scene before taking the job.

[ColecoGamer]

A Rainbow Brite game you say? Maybe they were hoping someone from the homebrew community would develop the game for the Colecovision? All evidence seems to point to them reviving the Coleco in some way. Gaining control of the community was probably the first of many steps planned.

[bikeguychicago]

Chris,

 

I'm trying to be as impartial as I can be here. I am neither a Colecovision developer nor do I own one at this moment (much as I miss it) and only play games through emulators these days. One day I may get back into collecting. But that is neither here nor there.

 

You seem to spend a great deal of time dancing around the meat of the issues here, getting bogged down in the personal attacks (which I will address a bit later) without actually addressing the biggest issues here. To whit:

 

- You made TOS violation claims against images of games on the FB fan page. This was just wrong. Period. End of story. Holding your retractions for ransom pending agreement to any terms whatsoever is dumb. You were in the wrong here, and regardless of anything else, you should retract them wholesale and without reservation or qualification. Full stop. This issue is separate and unrelated to anything else. Colecovision Fan has no stake in anything posted there, and you have no say in what gets posted there. If you mistakenly thought otherwise, that's on you, but the absolute moment you were shown to be incorrect in your assumptions or the information you were given, you should have retracted your claims in their entirety.

 

- You want to control what software gets released for the ColecoVision. You can't. Full stop. That is not within your purview whatsoever. Stop trying. If you have a problem with unlicensed ports, take that up with the developers or report them to the IP holders whose copyrights and/or trademarks they violated. But unless they are violating Coleco's IP (and to the best of my knowledge Coleco Holdings do not have the rights to any of the original Coleco IP) or trademarks (where you likely do, in fact, have some say) then you have no standing to take any legal action yourself.

 

- You want to control what software gets publicized by forums, blogs, and fan sites. You can't. Full stop. See above. If you want editorial control, start your own site.

 

- You want to control what people say about you and Coleco/Coleco Holdings/RWB and where. You can't. Full stop. Unless it legally qualifies as slander or libel (and there is a very specific definition for each here), then you have no right to ask anyone to retract or take down anything said about you or Coleco/Coleco Holdings/RWB. You can ask, but nobody has to comply, and in the asking is the risk of damage to your brand's reputation. Clearly we're past that now, however.

 

- You want to control who uses the Coleco and ColecoVision logos. That, at least, is within your right, presuming your trademarks are legit, but only within the scope of protecting your trademark's specific third-party usage (its font and style) as it pertains to the potential for causing confusion in the marketplace and who gets to license its official use and under what terms. These are your only bargaining chips, and you seem to feel they give you more power to do more things than they do. Protect your trademark in ways the law says you should using common sense (go after the actual people directly responsible for infringement, not those giving them airtime). Give licenses to those you wish and dictate the terms of its use. Try to do anything outside of these and you're just stepping on your own dick -- and by what's happened up to this point, your dick has seen more foot traffic than Times Square. (Note: This is a quasi-humorous metaphor that's probably only funny to me, not a personal attack. For some reason I feel the need to spell out that I don't literally think your genitals are a busy trestle bridge.)

 

- You associate with someone who is known to the very community you hope to eventually market things to, to be a complete scammer. This is bad for your image. And don't try and deflect by accusing others of being guilty of associating with those who are similarly "bad" -- this is nothing to do with them. This is about you and the brand you represent. Like it or not, a brand is only as good as the people behind it, even those who are not on the payroll. This reflects on your brand. Keep that in mind.

 

- You make all of this personal. Don't. You're representing a brand. For God's sake, man, act like an adult professional. Ignore the personal attacks. Address issues about the brand in a professional, level-headed manner. Everything else is just noise that is irrelevant to the brand.

 

- You play the victim. Nobody has victimized you except maybe use the Coleco and ColecoVision logos where they were not licensed to do so. That is, and should always be, the beginning, middle, and end of your issue here, and they should be taken up with the parties directly involved. Full stop. Any damage done to the Coleco brand as it exists today was instigated by you. It all started with you. You are not the victim.

 

I think you owe CVF some retractions and at least a few people an apology.

 

Everyone else,

 

Ad hominems, physical threats (however hyperbolic or indirect), parody, and such are cathartic -- I get it. It's fun. It's entertaining. Bit it's not helping. Given Chris' behaviour, we should be holding ourselves to higher standards than that, at least while the issue is ongoing. Let's be the bigger people here. I know we've tried to be, and Chris hasn't exactly done anything to raise the level if discourse here in an effort to help make a bad situation better. But I think -- and I know this is going to be a terribly unpopular opinion -- that some few here owe Chris an apology, at least for accusing him of illegally selling bootlegs where he's explained that what he was doing was legit. Yes, Chris has been in the wrong here on numerous fronts, and he needs to address that if he wants to have any hope in hell of salvaging any shreds of his brand's reputation, but not everyone here has been in the right, either.

 

I love this community - the CV community and AA at large. I've been hanging around these forums for a long-ass time, though I haven't been around here for the past number of years for having dropped out of collecting. Still, I hate to see shit like this crop up when it really, really didn't need to get this bad. Yes, Chris started it, and frankly, Chris needs to be the one to finish it, hopefully without taking a weed whacker to the remaining shreds of Coleco's rep, but some here also need to big it up and offer an apology for false accusations and personal attacks as well. We're better than that. We've been here long before he was, and we'll be here long after he's gone. But if this is to go away without leaving too much lingering anger and frustration, those in the wrong need to own it and apologise for it and move on. Chris can go and do whatever it is Chris is supposed to be doing, and we can go back to enjoying the hell out of the wicked-awesome things being done for long-dead systems that we love keeping alive for our own pleasure.

This, exactly

[+frankodragon]

.

[Keatah]

A Rainbow Brite game you say? Maybe they were hoping someone from the homebrew community would develop the game for the Colecovision? All evidence seems to point to them reviving the Coleco in some way. Gaining control of the community was probably the first of many steps planned.

 

They'll get there eventually, they have resources the community does not.

[ColecoGamer]

They'll get there eventually, they have resources the community does not.

And that is the sad truth of it all. They ride the coat tails of others to generate a profit.

[Northcoastgamer]

Seems as though there might be a snag in the Rainbow Brite game development. They ask for opinions of the video, when you go to the link from the facebook page you get this:

 

 

 

"Rainbow Brite / S01 E04 / T..." This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Hallmark Cards, Incorporated.

[TheClassyGamer]

That seems odd to me. I wonder what kind of license deal they got for that, because Hallmark still owns all the rights to Rainbow Brite. They still sell the merchandise. Rainbow Brite as a character is copyright protected, so ... I don't know what is going on with them putting out a game. Seems Hallmark would have to be involved someway, so I am very curious about the license for the game.

 

I would like to imagine such a thing would be profitable, but I don't think the IP is really that big, otherwise Hallmark would be already cashing in on it as much as they could.

Edited June 7, 2017 by TheClassyGamer

[Northcoastgamer]

Heres the post with the opinion link at the bottom of the paragraph: https://www.facebook.com/RainbowBriteCo/posts/10154478960641767

[ColecoGamer]

That seems odd to me. I wonder what kind of license deal they got for that, because Hallmark still owns all the rights to Rainbow Brite. They still sell the merchandise. Rainbow Brite as a character is copyright protected, so ... I don't know what is going on with them putting out a game. Seems Hallmark would have to be involved someway.

Maybe Hallmark slapped them with a cease and desist for violating their copyright?

[ColecoGamer]

Seems as though there might be a snag in the Rainbow Brite game development. They ask for opinions of the video, when you go to the link from the facebook page you get this:

 

 

 

 

"Rainbow Brite / S01 E04 / T..." This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Hallmark Cards, Incorporated.

Oh, the hypocrisy! Hah!!

[Albert]

Maybe Hallmark slapped them with a cease and desist for violating their copyright?

 

I'm sure Coleco has a license with Hallmark for the game given it states "officially licensed" right in the announcement on Facebook. Probably just a mistake on Hallmark's part. I would not read much into it

 

..Al

[Flojomojo]

Heres the post with the opinion link at the bottom of the paragraph: https://www.facebook.com/RainbowBriteCo/posts/10154478960641767

"Colors if their own" sheesh

The rights are probably all over the place --maybe rainbowbrite.co has the print or other images rights, but Hallmark owns the cartoon? Can't say I care a whole lot either way, it's not my bag (who needs it when we have modern Pony stuff). I suppose Cloaca will need to go through the whole failure cycle before returning the old brand name to the earth where it belongs, along with Brim and Spuds McKenzie. Why don't they just make an Underalls or Handspring game, starring the Cingular splat thing? Synergy!

[ColecoGamer]

I'm sure Coleco has a license with Hallmark for the game given it states "officially licensed" right in the announcement on Facebook. Probably just a mistake on Hallmark's part. I would not read much into it

 

..Al

And here I was hoping they would get burned at their own game.

 

Edited: Pun intended.

Edited June 7, 2017 by ColecoGamer

[privateers69]

 

I'm sure Coleco has a license with Hallmark for the game given it states "officially licensed" right in the announcement on Facebook. Probably just a mistake on Hallmark's part. I would not read much into it

 

..Al

Or "Officially Licensed" is meaning for their Coleco system.

[Jinks]

So I watched the video on the coleco website. He says "thats what she said"

And later "I bet he made his girlfriend happy"

Not kid friendly things like I thought the coleco was going to stand for.

Ok going to take a cold shower I am so offened. Wash this filth off.

[Northcoastgamer]

The title screen shows Hallmark trademark. But it looks more like an NES game than a CV one.