• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

"Violation of Intellectual property rights"?

223 posts in this topic

OKs...

 

I just read this from post one page one.

I didn't click on this thread until today cause I thought it was just a silly joke.

 

Someone says they have "Intellectual property rights" when selling 20 - 70 year old comics?

 

The only people's intellectual property rights that have been violated are the old artists and writers (inkers and whoever too) that got paid peanuts for creating characters and stories 30-70 years that are selling for big dollars now.

 

Comic sellers/dealers who get rich selling other peoples creations are going to sue someone over intellectual property rights... 27_laughing.gif27_laughing.gif27_laughing.gif

tonofbricks.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im surprised it took days for someone to not just jump to defend the "little guy".

 

IMO, if Josh took steps to protect his "creation" then he has the right to defend it from copycat websites. Or at least try to. Doesnt make him a "bad guy"--- But to NOT defend his business WOULD make him a "nice guy" ... and Leo Durocher told us all where "nice guys" end up! Im not an attorney so I have no clue whether Comiclink is patentable or not, or if it is, whether it would stand up in court against Pedigree's site as currently constructed. Chances are, Doug would be able to refashion his site to please the courts and continue in business.

 

But all you who have chosen sides already, try to remember

- -As Michael Corleone said: "Its just business Sonny, not personal. Just business"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Heritage next on the Josh hit list (or will their deep pockets scare him away)?

 

Some food for thought.

 

I was reading the most recent newsletter (propaganda) from Heritage and read the following:

 

"Heritage Comics is now offering items available at a fixed cost. These items are immediately available, and will go to the first person that agrees to pay the set price. We are now preparing to vastly expand these fixed-price offerings, so be sure to check regularly for new additions. Also, we will consider counter-offers on some of these items. Look for, and click on, the "make an offer" icon on the search results page."

 

Link to newsletter (propaganda): http://www.heritagecomics.com/newsletters/default.php?id=980

 

Notice the "make an offer" reference in the last sentence. This seems familiar. Will Josh be suing Heritage as well? Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice the "make an offer" reference in the last sentence. This seems familiar. Will Josh be suing Heritage as well? Time will tell.

 

Metropolis has this on their site now also. Are they next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were to build it into the software just as Comiclinks does...... well, maybe. I guess.

But if "make an offer" means send an email, by that I mean if clicking on the "make an offer" button merely shoots you to an email program, with or without product info in it already, then no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just responding in general. Have read this a few times now and I just do not get it.

 

What is the "intellectual property"? The concept of selling on the internet? Think that was done LONG before. The concpet of selling comic books? Would a lawyer chime in here but

 

1) wouldn't the concept of selling on the internet be the key, not what you are selling?

 

2) Hasn't the concept of consignments been around a long time? Can someone actually trademark, copyright or whatever you call such a broad concept?

 

3) Hasn't anything on an internet site already been done pre-internet? Including mail order places that advertise auctions, use charge cards, do consignemnts etc like in the good old CBM days?

 

What am I missing? 893frustrated.gif893frustrated.gif893frustrated.gif893frustrated.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

POV. my guess is it's the mechanisms on Comiclink by which transactions are handled that matter, not necesarily WHAT changes hands. I believe you can "own" the rights to particular specific tools, etc but of course not merely "selling stuff on a website" or auctions, or offers etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

POV. my guess is it's the mechanisms on Comiclink by which transactions are handled that matter, not necesarily WHAT changes hands. I believe you can "own" the rights to particular specific tools, etc but of course not merely "selling stuff on a website" or auctions, or offers etc.

 

Thanks Aman. Al I could really think of was a techno-oriented reason. But man - sounds like SOMEONE thinks they are Bill Gates? And how do they know what coding is used to produce the results? Curioser and curioser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I moving my reply here instead of the Consignment thread because you all can do whatever you like with your comics. If that includes helping Pedigree, then so be it....

 

But my original question still stands. Do you all (to include Bruce) think CL's action is a serious threat? I don't. I think it's nothing more than a scare tactic. Does CL even have the monetary resources to legally see this through to the end? We all talk about him in the same breath as the true BSDs in this hobby. What I see is a guy making a few bucks with a consignment site. Not a guy with the resources to seriously threaten to completion any legal action of this type.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

myspaceguy2.gif

 

insane.gif

 

Damn, poppy! wahs op wit dat m'man???

 

I swear I have no frikkin clue!

 

Maybe he's trying to replace the Star Wars kid?

 

 

 

WTF masculine hygiene foreheadslap.gif27_laughing.gifsign-funnypost.gif

 

 

da ain't right 27_laughing.gif

 

thumbsup2.giffor the viedo PQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...any more than Doug could afford an "all-in" defense??

 

Well...you made my point there in a way. Who's to say this isn't all a bluff? If it becomes obvious CL is going to legally hit this hard, then you adapt. Right now, all you have (that's been revealed) is an ad in OS and a phone call. Hell, I could afford that....

 

Is Josh that flush in cash to assume he's stupid enough to throw major money (if he even has it) to continue this foolish attempt at strong arming the competition?

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I do not think that it is right to take up a collection for Doug. Josh has provided a valuable service to collectors for many years now. Doug does not need the generosity of forum members to handle this situation. This is a (very) minor "bump in the road" for Pedigreecomics.com.

 

I think there is more than enough room for many sites that cater to the HG collector. Our hobby does not need this kind of nonsense. But, at the same time, I do not think that it is the responsibilty/right/business??? of this forum to get involved in this dispute. While Bruce's gesture is nothing less than the best intentions, I do not think a 'consignment drive' is necessary or warranted. Josh is not Hammer. He is not a scammer or a thief. We (the forum) do not need to "gang up" on him. Let people decide for themselves. They can consign with Doug, or they can consign with Josh. Neither of these two are the "bad guys".

 

 

Hey Chris,

I did not really think a "collection" was the best course of action either, but would have contributed if Brad and others felt compelled enough to go with it. I'm not convinced that this is a "bump in the road" and do feel the "consignment drive" is a reasonable course of "positive action" to take for those that want to support Doug, his right to conduct business, and ensure his site remains an option to sell their CGC books. I guess it depends on where you're coming from and what your interests are, but I respect your desire to stay neutral or feel its not any of your business. I would imagine for many that don't consign/sell much that any possible outcome will not impact them enough to really care. As with anything that I personally feel strongly about, I guess I make it my business to get involved if I feel I can contribute positively. If I feel something is wrong, unfair, if it impacts me negatively, if a friend is in a jam, etc, I would rather get involved and try to help than do nothing and regret not standing up later... as "corny" as it sounds. I used to let too many things that bothered me, or I felt were wrong, pass by because I preferred avoiding conflict and saving myself the headache. Not anymore.

 

Ultimately, everyone will simply decide for themselves whether or not they feel their participation is necessary. I would also respectfully disagree that supporting Doug is attacking "ganging up" on Josh. Rallying behind a position does not have to mean attacking another. The "Pedigree Consignment Drive" is NOT a "pull your books from CL drive" after all. I also seriously doubt anyone here compares Josh to Hammer or considers him to be a thief and/or scammer. For me, "blinded by greed" is more accurate.

 

This probably boils down for most to be one or more of the following... a position on principles/ethics... a desire to have a choice... wanting to support the underdog... wanting to support a friend... etc. In my case, its all that and a bit more I'll admit based on some related experiences I've had personally. I do realize that I have a certain amount of bias here and as a result my position may be harder lined than others. That said, I would not have brought my experience up if this legal BS didn't occur and if i did not believe it was unjust. I know I don't understand IP law anywhere close to Joseph and others, but this simply does not seem/feel right to me, regardless of the outcome in the courts should it go that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, if Josh took steps to protect his "creation" then he has the right to defend it from copycat websites. Or at least try to. Doesnt make him a "bad guy"--- But to NOT defend his business WOULD make him a "nice guy" ... and Leo Durocher told us all where "nice guys" end up! Im not an attorney so I have no clue whether Comiclink is patentable or not, or if it is, whether it would stand up in court against Pedigree's site as currently constructed. Chances are, Doug would be able to refashion his site to please the courts and continue in business.

 

But all you who have chosen sides already, try to remember

- -As Michael Corleone said: "Its just business Sonny, not personal. Just business"

 

An interesting post Aman... it could indeed all come down to a few revisions in Doug's site rather than both spending thousands upon thousands in legal fees... maybe not, who knows?

 

It all may have been avoided in the first place as well with a call and reasonable attitude between one supposed good friend to another... instead of a surprise legal contact.

 

Also... I'm not so sure all nice guys finish last. "last" can be "relative" in some instances and complicated too. I believe how you get to /remain in "first" matters in the long run. IMHO, better to slip a little with honor, than hang on without. Being successful in business does not mean you're successful as a human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I moving my reply here instead of the Consignment thread because you all can do whatever you like with your comics. If that includes helping Pedigree, then so be it.... But my original question still stands. Do you all (to include Bruce) think CL's action is a serious threat? I don't. I think it's nothing more than a scare tactic. Does CL even have the monetary resources to legally see this through to the end? We all talk about him in the same breath as the true BSDs in this hobby. What I see is a guy making a few bucks with a consignment site. Not a guy with the resources to seriously threaten to completion any legal action of this type. Jim

 

I tried to answer the question the best I could the first time Jim. In my initial post on the matter, I made reference to the tactic reminding me of a bigger business trying to intimidate a smaller/newer one by positioning themsleves to possibly bury the other in legal fees to test their resolve. That could be the idea here, but I can't be sure. A bluff in this case, with the newer competitor also armed with considerable resources, seems to be a dangerous game in which both could lose a lot by "not blinking". Its a tough call as money is the motivation for the action, so losing it must be a concern too. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif my head hurts. Good night/morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites