Am I totally wrong here?

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
17 answers Last reply
More about totally wrong here
  1. 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?
    >
  2. 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
  3. 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"
  4. 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
  5. 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"?
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    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
  7. 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
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Emulator Video Games