Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Am I totally wrong here?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 1:37:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

I've just posted my feelings about the Foley/MAME fiasco on my site:

http://www.retroblast.com/

I've been in touch with Mr. Foley, and have yet to get satisfactory
answers to his threats against EMDKay Marquees, nor his "claims" against
MAME, the MAME logo, and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator"

Am I missing some subtle shades of reality here?

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com

More about : totally wrong

Anonymous
February 26, 2005 1:38:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Mr. Foley submitted an application
for copywrite of the MAME logo and the MAME name. Proof of prior
commercial use of that exact logo and information about MAME has been
submitted to the government. Mr. Foley would have had to sign a
statement in his application that there was no prior use. By signing
that statement Mr. Foley could face fines or jail time, not to mention a
nice lawsuit from the MAME creators and creator of the logo that Mr.
Foley claims belongs to him.
If you read all the forum threads about this, you will get an idea of
what is going on. That is where I found my information.

Ernest

Kevin Steele wrote:
> I've just posted my feelings about the Foley/MAME fiasco on my site:
>
> http://www.retroblast.com/
>
> I've been in touch with Mr. Foley, and have yet to get satisfactory
> answers to his threats against EMDKay Marquees, nor his "claims" against
> MAME, the MAME logo, and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator"
>
> Am I missing some subtle shades of reality here?
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 6:49:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:37:59 -0500, Kevin Steele
<net-replyDEL@DELadelphia.net> wrote:

>I've just posted my feelings about the Foley/MAME fiasco on my site:
>
>http://www.retroblast.com/
>
>I've been in touch with Mr. Foley, and have yet to get satisfactory
>answers to his threats against EMDKay Marquees, nor his "claims" against
>MAME, the MAME logo, and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator"
>
>Am I missing some subtle shades of reality here?

Kevin,

You've got it right & Mr Foley has it ALL wrong.
The only reason to trademark something like MAME,
which is a free community project, is to cash in & lock
anyone else out. MAME is open source.
Can something like this even be trademarked?

What can be done to help block Foley's application?

Rick
Related resources
February 26, 2005 7:00:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Kevin Steele wrote in alt.games.mame:
> I've just posted my feelings about the Foley/MAME fiasco on my site:

> http://www.retroblast.com/

> I've been in touch with Mr. Foley, and have yet to get satisfactory
> answers to his threats against EMDKay Marquees, nor his "claims" against
> MAME, the MAME logo, and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator"

I am sure he sees you as just another member of the community and
probably does not see the need to respond OR his lawyers have told him
not to.

In any event, Aaron is handling it and I am sure if he needs help, all
he needs to do is ask.

> Am I missing some subtle shades of reality here?

I am not sure what you are asking.

I don't agree with this though:

"Mr. Foley has the right to go against those who have illegally used ROMs
for which his company has legally obtained a license agreement to use
with his cabinet."

He is licensed to use the roms, he is not the copyright holder and has
as much a "right" to go against them as I do and I have no right. Of
course this has never stopped myself and others from having EBay
auctions canceled either.

--
David
For a light heart lives long.
-- Shakespeare, "Love's Labour's Lost"
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 7:00:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

SINNER thought about it a bit, then said...
> * Kevin Steele wrote in alt.games.mame:
> > I've just posted my feelings about the Foley/MAME fiasco on my site:
>
> > http://www.retroblast.com/
>
> > I've been in touch with Mr. Foley, and have yet to get satisfactory
> > answers to his threats against EMDKay Marquees, nor his "claims" against
> > MAME, the MAME logo, and "Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator"
>
> I am sure he sees you as just another member of the community and
> probably does not see the need to respond OR his lawyers have told him
> not to.
>
> In any event, Aaron is handling it and I am sure if he needs help, all
> he needs to do is ask.

From my conversations with Mr. Foley, it appears that Aaron has made the
necessary arrangements for Nicola to get proper trademark protection,
and that David Foley will be withdrawing their application. Until I see
the official withdrawal of his application, however, I reserve the right
to be suspcious.

> > Am I missing some subtle shades of reality here?
>
> I am not sure what you are asking.
>
> I don't agree with this though:
>
> "Mr. Foley has the right to go against those who have illegally used ROMs
> for which his company has legally obtained a license agreement to use
> with his cabinet."
>
> He is licensed to use the roms, he is not the copyright holder and has
> as much a "right" to go against them as I do and I have no right. Of
> course this has never stopped myself and others from having EBay
> auctions canceled either.

David Foley does appear to have the exclusive rights to use certain
arcade game character images, which I believe is his primary beef
against EMDKay. However, he has also been using his tenuous claim to
MAME as leverage in this situation, which is wrong on so many different
levels.

As I said to him:

"I really do want to see this hobby go completely "legit," and your
iROMs service sounds like a great idea, but going after companies such
as EMDkay Marquees seems a bit misguided (I'm being generous, here), and
your attempted trademarking of the MAME name and logo also seems
misguided (at best), and completely illegal (at worst).

Let me be clear: I want to legally be able to enjoy the games of my
childhood, and I'm willing to pay for the privledge. I want those
responsible to receive fair compensation. I also don't want to see
anyone unfairly profit off of the works of others, and that includes
MAME.

Just so we're crystal clear on this matter."

--
Kevin Steele
RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
www.retroblast.com
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:40:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

SINNER wrote:
I don't agree with this though:
>
> "Mr. Foley has the right to go against those who have illegally used ROMs
> for which his company has legally obtained a license agreement to use
> with his cabinet."
>
> He is licensed to use the roms, he is not the copyright holder and has
> as much a "right" to go against them as I do and I have no right. Of
> course this has never stopped myself and others from having EBay
> auctions canceled either.

I disagree with you on this SINNER. I don't have a copy of his license
agreement but I think it is possible the copyright holder may have
granted him an exclusive license for a particular area or period of time.

If he has been granted the right to sell the ROMs in his product and the
copyright holder has given him an exclusive license he is indeed within
his rights to go after those illegally using ROMs. And I would
encourage him to drive those scumbags selling ROMs right into the ground.

The gray area in my opinion is the end user. I have no requirement from
a personal standpoint to do business with Foley or his company. Can he
come after the end user to stop them using ROMs? I don't think so. Can
he come after a burner providing copies of ROMs for free to anyone who
asks? Probably. Will it be financially feasable? Probably not.

Despite what Foley and various copyright holders would like to believe
the end user has very few practical restrictions on personal use. Any
company can put into their license agreement, "By installing this
product you agree to give up your first three children, remanding them
into the 3rd plane of Hades immediately upon birth." But it won't be
enforceable no matter how big the letters are.

Think of the record companies. They would like you to believe that when
you buy a cd you have no right to copy that cd to cassette or your
computer's hard drive. They may even write that into your license
agreement. But enforcing it is a different matter. And if it does get
to court and the user says, "Your honor this was for my personal use, I
paid the record company for a copy of this and I have the right to use
it in any form I want to," I highly doubt the record company would win.

So even though I own the original Pac-Man board, I am not allowed to
play Pac-Man if the board no longer works? Bull-dinky. Sue me.
Technically that may be what the DMCA says but you will never see a
conviction of an end user who is using MAME to overcome the (sometimes
intentional) hardware limitations of the original board. Can you
imagine the laughter of a judge when Capcom goes to court saying, "We
designed our hardware to become useless when the battery wears out.
This user has circumvented our products planned life, thereby costing us
money"?
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 3:24:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

My own two cents here.

As a joystick maker, Devastator II and Centurion, I want to be able to sell
our products to the MAME and retrogaming community.

I for one would love to see something like iTunes for ROMS. The ROM issue is
at the heart of making this a fully "legit" hobby.

I also recognize that anyone trying to usurp the logos of MAME and such,
when those logos have been existance LONG before this gentleman probably
though about doing business, is way wrong. I encourage the legal fight Aaron
is doing.

Our biggest problem ought to be the legitimizing of 20-year old ROMS.

Not this chickenshit.

Jim
president
Treyonics
www.treyonics.com

"The Pinny Parlour" <thepinnyparlour@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:2UZTd.176589$K7.36580@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Well said. you got my support.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ian
> The Pinny Parlour
> http://www.thepinnyparlour.com
>
> Clone: http://www.geocites.com/thepinnyparlour
> IPM Invader (coffee break invaders) http://www.geocities.com/ipminvader
>
February 26, 2005 6:57:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* usenet wrote in alt.games.mame:

[...]

> I disagree with you on this SINNER. I don't have a copy of his license
> agreement but I think it is possible the copyright holder may have
> granted him an exclusive license for a particular area or period of time.

Well, IANAL but it would seem to me that even if he was granted an
exclusive license to use or sell, he is still not the copyright holder
and according to the rules posted on EBay, you cannot have an auction
canceled for an item unless you can prove you are the CR holder. I would
think that a license to distribute does not transfer any other legal
rights and would require the aid of the CR holder to prosecute the
individual, but again, IANAL so would be more than happy to concede on
this point.

> If he has been granted the right to sell the ROMs in his product and the
> copyright holder has given him an exclusive license he is indeed within
> his rights to go after those illegally using ROMs.

That would only be the ROMS he is licensed for then, SO, if I say owned
the multiple copies of the CAPCOM CD's distributed by Hanaho I should be
able to give this away with a CAB that I built without issue, just like
I can give away a book OR CD from my personal library without
repercussions. If somehow he was licensed the same ROMS that Hanaho
licensed would that then give him the right to go after me?

> And I would
> encourage him to drive those scumbags selling ROMs right into the ground.

Just keep in mind this means Tombstones burners as well. Are those guys
Scumbags?

[...]
--
David
Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse.
-- Thomas Szasz
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 7:25:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

SINNER wrote:
> * usenet wrote in alt.games.mame:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>I disagree with you on this SINNER. I don't have a copy of his license
>>agreement but I think it is possible the copyright holder may have
>>granted him an exclusive license for a particular area or period of time.
>
>
> Well, IANAL but it would seem to me that even if he was granted an
> exclusive license to use or sell, he is still not the copyright holder
> and according to the rules posted on EBay, you cannot have an auction
> canceled for an item unless you can prove you are the CR holder. I would
> think that a license to distribute does not transfer any other legal
> rights and would require the aid of the CR holder to prosecute the
> individual, but again, IANAL so would be more than happy to concede on
> this point.

I think the E-bay rules are misleading and enforcement is not
consistent. In my experience it is sometimes enough that you point out
to E-bay an item is infringing on a copyright. It varies, sometimes
they get cancelled when I complain, other times they don't.

>>If he has been granted the right to sell the ROMs in his product and the
>>copyright holder has given him an exclusive license he is indeed within
>>his rights to go after those illegally using ROMs.
>
>
> That would only be the ROMS he is licensed for then, SO, if I say owned
> the multiple copies of the CAPCOM CD's distributed by Hanaho I should be
> able to give this away with a CAB that I built without issue, just like
> I can give away a book OR CD from my personal library without
> repercussions. If somehow he was licensed the same ROMS that Hanaho
> licensed would that then give him the right to go after me?

I would say in your example you are not illegally using ROMs and
therefore he should not have the right to come after you. I am assuming
that you paid for multiple copies of the cd, not just bought one and
made copies yourself.

>>And I would
>>encourage him to drive those scumbags selling ROMs right into the ground.
>
>
> Just keep in mind this means Tombstones burners as well. Are those guys
> Scumbags?

Tombstones is selling ROMs now? That is news to me. No, I don't think
they are scumbags. But if they are selling ROMs they do not have a
license to sell then I see a potential legal liability.

Just to give an example, if Foley has an exclusive license to distribute
ROMs from Universal (Cosmic Avenger, Mr. Do, et. al.) then I am all for
him stopping the ILLEGAL distribution of Universal ROMs. If you own a
Mr. Do board then IMHO you already have a license and are free to play
Mr. Do in any set-up you choose. But owning the board does not give you
permission to sell copies of the ROM. Sell or give away the original
yes. Illegal copies no.
February 26, 2005 7:40:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* usenet wrote in alt.games.mame:
> SINNER wrote:
>> * usenet wrote in alt.games.mame:

[...]

> Tombstones is selling ROMs now? That is news to me. No, I don't think
> they are scumbags. But if they are selling ROMs they do not have a
> license to sell then I see a potential legal liability.

Of course not, but try to convince a Judge that you are only selling the
media and charging postage. The only exception is me sending a SASE and
the media in which case no money changes hands but no money changes
hands on P2P networks either yet the RIAA has no problems prosecuting.

--
David
For a man to truly understand rejection, he must first be ignored by a cat.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:06:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

SINNER wrote:
> * usenet wrote in alt.games.mame:
>>Tombstones is selling ROMs now? That is news to me. No, I don't think
>>they are scumbags. But if they are selling ROMs they do not have a
>>license to sell then I see a potential legal liability.
>
>
> Of course not, but try to convince a Judge that you are only selling the
> media and charging postage. The only exception is me sending a SASE and
> the media in which case no money changes hands but no money changes
> hands on P2P networks either yet the RIAA has no problems prosecuting.

The scumbags I mentioned are those selling for a profit. But giving
them away isn't right either if they are not public domain. Doing that
makes one a pirate but not a scumbag.

If I buy a license from Universal to sell their ROMs then I will make
sure anyone giving those ROMs away pays me. You can't give away illegal
copies. The RIAA is pissed precisely because no money changes hands.
Money SHOULD be changing hands, from the consumer to the record
companies. That is why they sued and that is why the individuals sued
ponied up the cash.

So in my opinion if Foley has a license that truly gives him exclusive
rights to distribute certain ROMs he should be able to collect from
people distributing those ROMs, even if they are giving them away.
Although the typical course of action is a cease & desist letter.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 12:03:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> wrote in news:5ri6f2xnqc.ln2
@news.gates_of_hell.com:

> Just keep in mind this means Tombstones burners as well. Are those guys
> Scumbags?
>
>

If they are selling them, yes. And for those who happened to have also put
in complaints to ebay etc about other people selling them they are
hypocritical scumbags.
February 27, 2005 7:02:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:37:59 -0500, Kevin Steele wrote:

> Am I missing some subtle shades of reality here?

Nothing whatsoever Kev. Good post that and I'm with you on this, as I
suspect are most of the good folk in this group.

Mike
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 11:34:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

usenet's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
were:
> SINNER wrote:
> I don't agree with this though:
>> "Mr. Foley has the right to go against those who have illegally used ROMs
>> for which his company has legally obtained a license agreement to use
>> with his cabinet."
>> He is licensed to use the roms, he is not the copyright holder and has
>> as much a "right" to go against them as I do and I have no right. Of
>> course this has never stopped myself and others from having EBay
>> auctions canceled either.
> I disagree with you on this SINNER. I don't have a copy of his license
> agreement but I think it is possible the copyright holder may have
> granted him an exclusive license for a particular area or period of time.

Exclusivity or not, only copyright/trademark OWNER may sue, attack, etc
another entity over the copyrights/trademarks.

> If he has been granted the right to sell the ROMs in his product and the
> copyright holder has given him an exclusive license he is indeed within
> his rights to go after those illegally using ROMs. And I would
> encourage him to drive those scumbags selling ROMs right into the ground.

Problem is, many of who he's gone after are not selling ROMs, but rather
selling empty cabinets or marquees.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 11:39:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

usenet's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
were:
> SINNER wrote:
>> * usenet wrote in alt.games.mame:
>> [...]
>>>I disagree with you on this SINNER. I don't have a copy of his license
>>>agreement but I think it is possible the copyright holder may have
>>>granted him an exclusive license for a particular area or period of time.
>> Well, IANAL but it would seem to me that even if he was granted an
>> exclusive license to use or sell, he is still not the copyright holder
>> and according to the rules posted on EBay, you cannot have an auction
>> canceled for an item unless you can prove you are the CR holder. I would
>> think that a license to distribute does not transfer any other legal
>> rights and would require the aid of the CR holder to prosecute the
>> individual, but again, IANAL so would be more than happy to concede on
>> this point.
>
> I think the E-bay rules are misleading and enforcement is not
> consistent. In my experience it is sometimes enough that you point out
> to E-bay an item is infringing on a copyright. It varies, sometimes
> they get cancelled when I complain, other times they don't.
>
>>>If he has been granted the right to sell the ROMs in his product and the
>>>copyright holder has given him an exclusive license he is indeed within
>>>his rights to go after those illegally using ROMs.
>>
>>
>> That would only be the ROMS he is licensed for then, SO, if I say owned
>> the multiple copies of the CAPCOM CD's distributed by Hanaho I should be
>> able to give this away with a CAB that I built without issue, just like
>> I can give away a book OR CD from my personal library without
>> repercussions. If somehow he was licensed the same ROMS that Hanaho
>> licensed would that then give him the right to go after me?
> I would say in your example you are not illegally using ROMs and
> therefore he should not have the right to come after you. I am assuming
> that you paid for multiple copies of the cd, not just bought one and
> made copies yourself.

But this isn't just an example. One cabinet seller even had an license
agreement from Starroms to have the licensing for the ROMs legally in the
name of cabinet purchaser. Foley went after this seller, and had ebay
remove all his auctions. Everything was legal, yet he didn't care.

>>>And I would
>>>encourage him to drive those scumbags selling ROMs right into the ground.
>> Just keep in mind this means Tombstones burners as well. Are those guys
>> Scumbags?
> Tombstones is selling ROMs now? That is news to me. No, I don't think
> they are scumbags. But if they are selling ROMs they do not have a
> license to sell then I see a potential legal liability.

According to Foley and his croneys, yes Tombstones sells ROMs. He is
seeing any transfer of money before for the ROMs themselves and not the
packaging, shipping, media, etc.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 12:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

usenet's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
were:
> So in my opinion if Foley has a license that truly gives him exclusive
> rights to distribute certain ROMs he should be able to collect from
> people distributing those ROMs, even if they are giving them away.
> Although the typical course of action is a cease & desist letter.

He has the rights to use certain games in his cabinets, not to distribute
the ROMs themselves. That is why he is selling hardware only, and no ROMs
for usage in any emulator.
February 28, 2005 10:07:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

* Sesame Wrote in alt.games.mame:

> SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> wrote in
> news:5ri6f2xnqc.ln2 @news.gates_of_hell.com:
>
>> Just keep in mind this means Tombstones burners as well. Are
>> those guys Scumbags?
>>
>>
>
> If they are selling them, yes.

But they aren't.

> And for those who happened to have
> also put in complaints to ebay etc about other people selling them
> they are hypocritical scumbags.

How so? How are they hypocrites if they aren't selling roms.

And what are you doing reading this group? Obviously you cant be
running MAME unless you only play the 3 ROMS that are even close to
being legal. Go ahead and tell me you own boards so that makes it OK
moron.

Go away, you are too stupid to post on Usenet.

--
David
!