Is that an Atari cartridge in your pocket or . . .

[Cebus Capucinis]

Marty, you so smart. You say what me want to but with big words, make more sense than lowly little monkey! Seriously though, that's a point I never even considered and I'm glad you brought it up!

 

That's not what I meant in saying it was a huge markup. It's just more than I'm willing to pay for something. I'm voting with the wallet I already own on this one by not purchasing the product. If others see it as a value, fair enough, I just personally don't.

[thebiggw]

I started putting my wallet in my front pocket years ago when I started having back problems. Sitting with on a wallet is a quality way to throw your back out of alignment. It was weird at first, but didn't take long to get used to. Makes it much harder to get pick-pocketed too!

I generally put my wallet in my back pocket, but if I'm in an area where I feel the odds are better of being pick-pocketed, I'll put the wallet in my front pocket. If I'm on a long drive, the wallet in my back pocket does get uncomfortable and I take it out. Never thought about the back alignment issue before, that's pretty interesting.

 

..Al

 

I had a neighbor who fell 2 stories and actually lived to tell about it.....anyway long story short he absolutely cannot have anything in his back pockets while sitting because his back is so screwed up from the fall. He told me he once forgot about his wallet being in his back pocket and hopped in his truck to go somewhere and when he went to get out of the truck he simply fell out onto the ground because his back was out of line and he was not able to stand up on his own. It is interesting but nonetheless true story.

[Albert]

Al, it's profiteering and it's patently a violation of trademarks and protected artwork, including unlicensed use of the Atari name in a new product, etc.. It's hardly an allowed resale of a cart, or a one-off piece of "art" like you see get sold on ebay from time to time. These are the Atari name and artwork being re appropriated for a new commercial product. The guy has a full manufacturing shop set up and boxes upon boxes of carts. And he had been warned by some of us not to try it, and to change the name to "video game wallets", etc.

You're going to piss on this guy's parade because he might sell a few hundred of these carts? Really? This is seriously the last thing I expected to see in this thread. I don't know how accurate his website is in this matter, but according to the site he's sold a whopping 39 of these wallets:

 

http://www.etsy.com/shop_sold.php?user_id=7424962

 

You don't really think that shop he took pictures of is setup solely for the purpose of building these carts, right? You know how ridiculous that sounds?

 

..Al

[Retro Rogue]

Marty, you so smart. You say what me want to but with big words, make more sense than lowly little monkey!

 

Ummm.....ok.

 

That's not what I meant in saying it was a huge markup. It's just more than I'm willing to pay for something. I'm voting with the wallet I already own on this one by not purchasing the product. If others see it as a value, fair enough, I just personally don't.

 

 

Yah, I wasn't commenting in relation to what you stated. This is how things are actually being seen, including by certain powers that be. I had this conversation direct with their PR rep before (who was going around marketing the wallets) as well.

[Cebus Capucinis]

To be fair, lawsuits HAVE been started over less than 100 carts @ $35.00 each. The principle is not whether he makes millions but the fact that it is copyright infringement in the first place. Two cents or two million dollars, at the end of the day it's still infringement. Now, whether it's worth someone's time to pursue it is a different question, but the almighty ethical code of the law is still broken in this instance. Licensed artwork is licensed artwork no matter how you slice it.

 

I'm not pissing on his parade at all, I'm just not buying his stuff. Pissing on his parade would be e-mailing Atari's lawyers directly and tattling.

[+Random Terrain]

Speaking of wallets and back pockets, I never understood why so many people think your wallet should go there. Never made any sense to me.

[Cebus Capucinis]

Speaking of wallets and back pockets, I never understood why so many people think your wallet should go there. Never made any sense to me.

 

Well, you see, hats went out of style, so mankind couldn't hide money on top of their heads anymore, so we had to come up with an alternate solution. Since most of our heads are firmly jammed near our buttocks, this seemed like the most logical solution.

[thebiggw]

I considered buying one until I looked closer at the pictures on his site. He simply pokes a hole in the label to take the cart apart. If he was spending time to actually peel the label carefully and not "rip" it they would look much better. (and actually might be worth the asking price in my opinion.)

[Albert]

To be fair, lawsuits HAVE been started over less than 100 carts @ $35.00 each. The principle is not whether he makes millions but the fact that it is copyright infringement in the first place. Two cents or two million dollars, at the end of the day it's still infringement.

Please, point me to those lawsuits. He is not recreating any of the artwork on the carts, he's simply hacking the carts and reselling them. There's nothing wrong with that, it's done ALL THE TIME in just about any industry imaginable. No copyrights are being broken there. The only possible issue I could see is a trademark issue by calling them them "Atari wallets", but that's easy enough to get around if Atari was bothered enough to send him a cease & desist letter.

 

Atari has more things to worry about than sending their lawyers after someone for selling $35+ wallets made from old Atari 2600 cartridges.

 

..Al

[Retro Rogue]

You're going to piss on this guy's parade because he might sell a few hundred of these carts? Really? This is seriously the last thing I expected to see in this thread.

 

Al, really? There's nobody "pissing on a parade", this was hardly a little homebrew operation. And the PR rep that contact me and was promoting additional products they're coming out with to go with this hardly promoted that way either.

 

 

I don't know how accurate his website is in this matter, but according to the site he's sold a whopping 39 of these wallets:

 

http://www.etsy.com/shop_sold.php?user_id=7424962

 

Honestly Al, you're being naive enough to think that's the only place they're being sold?

 

 

You don't really think that shop he took pictures of is setup solely for the purpose of building these carts, right? You know how ridiculous that sounds?

 

Sure, these look like a one off setup. And I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you as well.

 

[Albert]

I considered buying one until I looked closer at the pictures on his site. He simply pokes a hole in the label to take the cart apart. If he was spending time to actually peel the label carefully and not "rip" it they would look much better. (and actually might be worth the asking price in my opinion.)

Yes, I think he takes an Xacto blade and carefuly makes two cuts to reveal the screw. When he's done he carefully folds the label back over the screw. It's not actually very noticeable, depending on the condition of the label. Not sure why he opted for this route as opposed to removing the label and reapplying it. I personally have not tried to reattach labels after removing them, so I'm not sure how well this would work in practice.

 

..Al

[Cebus Capucinis]

Are you seriously asking me to pull up a lawsuit for less than $3500? I'm not talking specific to Atari here, but it wouldn't be that difficult to Lexis-Nexis any small claims copyright infringement/patent lawsuit. What Marty (and apparently by proxy me) is/are talking about is unlicensed use of the artwork on the front of the carts. The point I'm making here, which honestly I wasn't even going to get into and hadn't even considered it until Marty brought it up, is that it's still evading licensure by using likely copyrighted artwork from the front of the cartridges. It doesn't matter whether Atari will sue or not. More power to them if they do, if you ask me -- the dollar amount in question here has absolutely no ramification on whether it is clearly defined as infringement or not, which I'd eat my hat on YouTube if it wasn't.

[Albert]

Are you seriously asking me to pull up a lawsuit for less than $3500? I'm not talking specific to Atari here, but it wouldn't be that difficult to Lexis-Nexis any small claims copyright infringement/patent lawsuit. What Marty (and apparently by proxy me) is/are talking about is unlicensed use of the artwork on the front of the carts.

Of course there are plenty of lawsuits for less than $3500. I'm talking about lawsuits specific to our hobby, or as you said, "over less than 100 carts @ $35.00 each". I'm not saying it's never happened in our hobby, but I sure am not aware of any. Since the maker of these carts is not reproducing the artwork on these labels, I can't see how that aspect of this "operation" is breaking any copyright laws.

 

..Al

[Retro Rogue]

There's nothing wrong with that, it's done ALL THE TIME in just about any industry imaginable. No copyrights are being broken there. The only possible issue I could see is a trademark issue by calling them them "Atari wallets", but that's easy enough to get around if Atari was bothered enough to send him a cease & desist letter.

 

Excuse me, but that is *not* what's being done here. He's specifically promoting his pricing and product value based on said protected artwork and titles. He has different pricing per text vs. artwork, and is promoting the value of the wallet itself based on this. I.E. the value of his wallet is being based off of Atari's artwork, not the fact that it's just some cartridge. If he were "stripping it like everyone else" and simply "hacking the carts" for a homebrew project like you do, it wouldn't be an issue. Why you consider this "a part of our hobby" is beyond me.

 

If I take a cartridge and resell it, that's allowed. If I take it and do something with it as part of a one off piece of artwork (as you were actually referring to), that's allowed (such as how albums, autographs, and memorabilia get put in to shadow boxes and resold in collectors shops as an entire piece). These are all using the original product, in it's original intent, and not infringing on trademarks and copyrights. If I take it and re purpose it for a new commercial product, placing the value of said product based specifically on artwork and an name I don't own, that's illegal. Plain and simple.

 

Atari has more things to worry about than sending their lawyers after someone for selling $35+ wallets made from old Atari 2600 cartridges.

 

..Al

 

If that's what you want to think.

Edited January 2, 2010 by wgungfu

[thebiggw]

You don't really think that shop he took pictures of is setup solely for the purpose of building these carts, right? You know how ridiculous that sounds?

Sure, these look like a one off setup. And I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you as well.

 

http://www.flickr.co...57618652553586/

http://www.flickr.co...57618652553586/

http://www.flickr.co...57618652553586/

 

I also have a bridge for sale.....formerly located in London.

Edited January 2, 2010 by thebiggw

[+Random Terrain]

Sure, these look like a one off setup. And I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you as well.

 

Didn't know he had pictures up at flickr:

 

History of the wallet

 

 

Trivia: I was surprised when I found out that flickr.com had nothing to do with the sport of booger flicking.

[Albert]

Honestly Al, you're being naive enough to think that's the only place they're being sold?

 

Sure, these look like a one off setup. And I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you as well.

 

So they have some rigs they've setup to help cut the interior of the carts and the recycled plastic dust cover parts? That doesn't mean this equipment is being used exclusively for this purpose. If it is, I'm impressed. You don't have to be an ass by calling me naive, to say nothing of your smug attitude, which certainly is not appreciated.

 

..Al

[Cebus Capucinis]

Of course there are plenty of lawsuits for less than $3500. I'm talking about lawsuits specific to our hobby, or as you said, "over less than 100 carts @ $35.00 each". I'm not saying it's never happened in our hobby, but I sure am not aware of any. Since the maker of these carts is not reproducing the artwork on these labels, I can't see how that aspect of this "operation" is breaking any copyright laws.

..Al

 

You don't have to point to jurisprudence from the standpoint of Atari 2600 cartridges in this instance, because any attorney worth his salt is going to point to artistic license and copyright as the legal precedent. The fact that there have been no lawsuits specific to this "hobby" doesn't really have any bearing over the unlicensed usage of copyrighted artwork for profit, as there is precedent a-plenty in that realm to the best of my knowledge.

 

Now as far as reproduction is concerned that's where you're making a point that has a bit of grey area. That would require looking into the original licensure contracts held between Atari and the artists in question; second-sales and private sales are not included as part of a licensure deal and therefore are exempt from royalties, etc. in terms of manufacturing of a product. With artwork it gets a little more vague -- hence you see all those Van Gogh reprints being made at Cost Plus World Market and the like. That's more of a public-domain question rather than a licensure question, however, as the artists have passed away.

 

You'd need someone specializing in artistic license to give you a definitive answer in a courtroom on it, but I'd be on the side of the prosecution on this one.

 

The world of artwork is really, really confusing and when you combine the world of law, it gets even more confusing. You have a point in there, Al, and it's definitely one that would require research.

 

 

EDIT: On a secondary note, sheesh! I opened a can of worms here apparently. Both sides of this "argument" could potentially be correct but without seeing it in a courtoom I wouldn't know what to say. I was just sayin' that I wasn't gonna buy one.

[CPUWIZ]

All 3 of you, go to your rooms.

[Cebus Capucinis]

All 3 of you, go to your rooms.

 

I'm okay with that, my 2600 is in my bedroom.

 

EDIT: Dangit! Meant to type 2600. Ax has my 7800.

[Albert]

You'd need someone specializing in artistic license to give you a definitive answer in a courtroom on it, but I'd be on the side of the prosecution on this one.

I agree, I am not a lawyer so I am not going to pretend to give a definitive answer on this one. From my perspective, it looks like someone with a love for the hobby is making a pretty cool product from recycled Atari 2600 carts. I'm just disappointed that Marty jumped in with the whole copyright/trademark violation perspective, even if there is some merit in it. This project probably never would have happened if he had to hire a lawyer to make sure everything he did was in the clear, not to mention possible licensing costs involved.

 

..Al

[Cebus Capucinis]

That's true, and quite a lot of things around here probably wouldn't happen if we had to hire a legal firm every time we wanted to make a repro or a homebrew. That would really suck a lot, actually.

 

It really boils down to one of those "is it going to happen anyway" things. I'm only stating my perspective from a "should it happen" perspective. Should someone be potentially infringing copyright? No. Will it happen? Sure. My point is less that it should be stopped and more just from a conceptual level that we understand that it might be a "wrong" thing to do.

[Retro Rogue]

Since the maker of these carts is not reproducing the artwork on these labels, I can't see how that aspect of this "operation" is breaking any copyright laws.

 

That's the whole point, whether he was reproducing the artwork or not, it's still being appropriated and value placed on it for his own personal gain. It's no different then if I were to start chopping off Mercedes hood ornaments and started mass producing necklaces for them for the hip-hop crowd without licensing from Mercedes. I can certainly after market resale an ornament itself (such as for use on a car, or whatever other use the buyer wants it for), I can mod it such as painting it, and I can even use it as part of a larger piece of one off artwork that celebrates Mercedes (no different than a sports memorabilia shop can create fan shadow boxes with autographs and pictures and team logos without licensing them). But the second I take the value of a protected brand and it's trademarks, and try and re-appropriate it for my own commercial product, that's illegal. If he had even stated that they're just video game carts being made in to wallets and had a single price for all, that wouldn't be as much of an issue. But he's not - text are $35, picture are $55. And add to that the unlicensed video game characters his wife is putting on arm bands to sell along with these? Come on now, they know exactly what they're doing. There's a reason their site is registered via a private proxy. And his site clearly sates he's produced a couple of thousand.

[Retro Rogue]

You don't have to be an ass by calling me naive, to say nothing of your smug attitude, which certainly is not appreciated.

 

Come on now Al, you're the one that came off that way coming on here and accusing me of pissing on someone's parade and then implying I was the idiot by making a ridiculous assumption about his equipment. I'm not being anything towards you other than what you've come on here and applied towards me.

 

The man is selling on that shop, on ebay, other locations, and he has a PR person going out to generate sales. And he's doing this in the thousands. Via his own blog:

 

"In that time I realized the eBay resales need to be wound down until stock is reduced to the thousand or two of wallet-quality games set aside if the first thousand fail to satisfy demand."

 

This is not a little homebrew operation. There is no "little guy" being picked on.

Edited January 2, 2010 by wgungfu

[+Random Terrain]

But remember what happened in the movie The Jerk:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerk

Navin soon finds out that his glasses invention, now called the Opti-Grab, is selling big and he's entitled to half of the profits; his first check is for $250,000, though Navin initially believes the total to be just $250. He finds and marries Marie, and they hire a live-in butler and chambermaid, despite living in a small apartment. The next check is for $750,000, which he uses to buy an extravagant mansion. Navin doesn't stay rich for long, though, as director Carl Reiner (playing himself) files a class action lawsuit against Navin, claiming that the invention caused his crossed eyes and the death of a stunt driver. Nearly ten million other people have the same complaint and join the lawsuit. Navin is forced to refund $1.09 to every Opti-Grab customer (he is seen hand-writing each check), which bankrupts him. He is also forced to write a check to 'Iron Balls McGinty', a nemesis who had previously physically attacked Navin at his home, due to McGinty's involvement in the lawsuit.

 

People are going to sue this guy because a hard cartridge in your front or back pocket is going to cause some long-term damage. In the short term, if you fall with an Atari cartridge in your back pocket, you're going to be picking shards of plastic out of your ass for days. And if it breaks in your front pocket, your little friend or his bouncy buddies might get a new piercing.