Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
I would buy them if they wanted them.
Winter is Coming (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mental Nomad
- Start date
- Status
I would buy them if they wanted them.
Which could be a pretty persuasive argument for 'not mass produced'.
But again, only guesswork and opinion, which in the long term, really means nothing.
Suffice it to say that I will abide by whatever is decided upon by the involved parties. If it's good enough for @stocky and @Johnny5 (who have insider knowledge that they are not obligated to share publicly), then that's good enough for me. If not, then so be it.
You're supposed to have @Mental Nomad tied up and helpless before you give him all the details of your scheme.
You aren't supposed to tell the cashier you are buying alcohol for your underage friends unless you want to get kicked out of the store yourself
Psypher1000
Straight Flush
I applaud you for your honesty, but you're effectively admitting you would be buying them with the intent of breaking the spirit/intended audience for the group buy. That action has the potential to be a -EV move in the long run.
I've read it. I asked Paul because I was interested in the backstory as well. I don't think it's my place to include the exact wording in this thread as the letter was addressed to Paul, but GRRM wrote a very short reply.
"Hodor."
Chippy McChiperson
4 of a Kind
No dog in this fight, but like Rhodeman suggests, what's to stop someone from buying a huge set, and flipping them for profit?
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
Hahahaha
Well it's not like an illegal straw purchase of a firearm. I don't think there will be any Federal background checks done.
Not that it will be an issue, the other hosts around here think anything more than .25/chip is "insane" money to spend on chips.
Stylin
Pair
Define mass production. Majestics, CPC, obvious examples. A run limited to a small group of people that's not available to the public and is not for profit, obviously not.
Respectfully disagree. The fact you use the word group implies "mass" in my opinion especially when it was probably sent to GRRM as a request from one person to make one set of chips for just himself.
Stylin
Pair
So he went out of his way to ask for permission, and then planned a group buy. You don't think he felt as if he had the permission for said group buy?
I think the organizer should reach out to GRRM. He seems reasonable, and as long as this isn't a for profit run I don't think he will have an issue.
bergs
Royal Flush
Who is liable if the manufacturer mass produces the chips and makes them commercially available after the initial set is made?
Endgame is that the individual that acquired the chips doesn't want them made. The means of acquisition is largely immaterial. If you want to find a loophole to justify the production of the chips then I suppose nobody can stop you from trying, but it's a bit of a dick move. Good luck ever getting a sample set or anything of that ilk from me and probably a large number of other more silent thread followers here.
In my opinion it is utterly irrelevant what the law says with regard to rights of ownership or use. The law quite often renders unjust results, particularly in the area of IP. I'd like to think that as a community we would not support purchase of these chips over objections of the interested parties just because the law would happen to favor one interest over another.
Personally, if John, Paul, or Mark objected to these chips being produced, I would not order any.
EDIT: Between the two of us, Berg and I can get a full brain together and in this instance it looks like we've reached the same conclusion independently.
Personally, if John, Paul, or Mark objected to these chips being produced, I would not order any.
EDIT: Between the two of us, Berg and I can get a full brain together and in this instance it looks like we've reached the same conclusion independently.
In terms of the former, I think that people generally overlook things in the excitement of doing something that would benefit their friends regardless of whether or not they are legally/morally correct (not offense to Stocky or anyone else involved in the group buy). People are very often to "look the other way" for the benefit of friends and famliy.
In terms of the latter, I completely agree but until we do that I feel like this is in bad taste.
bergs
Royal Flush
Also, back to my original point a couple years ago regarding raffles - which I've never been in support of and they've already been abused on this site multiple times - I think Tommy still needs to format the raffle with fields that can be centrally controlled and made mandatory to complete before offering the raffle.
One of the things that obviously needs to get cleared up is the ownership of the artwork, and in the spirit of community and just as importantly, what the seller and buyer intend to do with the chips. Hopefully forum members respect that (and if they disrespect what was stipulated then they do so at their own peril in regards to reputation here).
One of the things that obviously needs to get cleared up is the ownership of the artwork, and in the spirit of community and just as importantly, what the seller and buyer intend to do with the chips. Hopefully forum members respect that (and if they disrespect what was stipulated then they do so at their own peril in regards to reputation here).
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
Do you honestly think we won't see ANY of these chips for sale on eBay or Craigslist, or even in the classifieds at some point?
If I was to buy a 600 chip set for a friend that hosts a monthly game it is going to ruin this group buy?
I have made several such purchases in the past for fellow hosts during chip room sales for China Clay sets.
There is more chip flipping from within this community!
Every chip I have bought for friends/hosts are still in their possession and being used. They get a decent set and they are happy and never think about selling them or next great set. They just play with them!
This is the concept I'm having trouble with, and maybe because I'm new to this community.
My initial reaction is that absent some agreement for exclusive rights, what K9DR wants is irrelevant.
But I'm getting the sense that this community (or at least a large segment of it) feels that since there's only one of these sets, and since K9DR owns it, his opinion is all that matters.
I think artwork ownership rights need to be clarified in general. Does anyone have anything in writing from J5 or any other designer that legally states who owns the artwork ??
Stylin
Pair
I agree. The terms should have been made abundantly clear. However, the discussion of this group buy and the intent to move forward with it was made clear in the sale of the chips prior to the winner agreeing to these terms by accepting a ticket.
Just because he changed his mind doesn't make me the bad guy. There's no reason for you to target me like that.
atomiktoaster
Full House
Yeah, community spirit goes a bit farther than the legal requirement around here. The "mass production" issue is still very relevant to the cash designs, since @k9dr isn't making any claims to those.
I think it's a slippery slope to argue that because others are doing less than community-oriented things that make it's okay for you to do them yourself.
Seriously, though, you can do whatever you like. But if someone asks that you not buy particular chips for someone outside this community because the chips are being produced pursuant to an agreement that would be disrespected if the chips were made available to a broad audience, it's on you as to whether you would choose to do the honorable thing.
You're falling into the legalistic thinking that tells you that something is right just because it's permitted.
Last edited by a moderator:
atomiktoaster
Full House
My understanding from reading J5s posts and looking into copyright law is that J5 retains all his copyrights and what you get as a buyer is a license to use the art for a particular purpose. His pricing is based on that, so it would be more expensive to get a design to use for a commercial casino or a home line like the Le Noirs than for your personal CPC set. You can't change your mind after the fact, though his licenses tend to be pretty permissive. Professional photographers often work under similar terms.
Chippy McChiperson
4 of a Kind
Not sure what this gif is about. I would never do something like that, but we all know there are those who would. And if you're referring to my recent weight loss, thanks for noticing, I appreciate it!
Psypher1000
Straight Flush
All good. Businesses running an enterprise for profit are gonna profit, and buyers are gonna buy.
Huh? I never mentioned nor implied anything about flipping.
Depends on what you mean by "ruin", but very likely not. That's irrelevant to my point, though.
Mate, I think you've might have missed my point, which is this: when someone offers a community-based, not-for-profit GB and states that the chips are for community members only, and you explicitly take action to violate the organizer's intent AND openly state that you are doing exactly that, folks are likely to remember that and might choose to not trade with you or offer samples to you in the future. Simple as that. In other words, "Violate the guidelines & spirit of the group buy at your own risk." Anything about flipping or what folks do w/chips after the fact is entirely extraneous to my point.
Beyond that, though, we have an owner of the original chips who is also expressing concern over the buy. That, too, is worth noting, and ought to be enough to give someone pause before buying chips against that owner's wishes. Explicitly illegal/impermissible? *shrug* That stuff is beyond my pay grade. But why risk a hit to your reputation, even if it's only with specific members of the community?
bergs
Royal Flush
What K9DR wants is legally irrelevant, but personally, if it was me, I wouldn't do anything with them if the current owner said not to (particularly when the current owner is personally known to me, played at my house, generously relieved me of the burden of having to rack up my chips at the end of the night, and most importantly is a well respected community member).
Rob, I'd be inclined to agree with you morally if the gb chips in question were the exact same ASM/CPC chips that Mark bought and owns (regardless of anything else, legal or otherwise).
But they are not -- they are essentially tributes, not copies, made on a different medium, will undoubtedly look and feel differently, and apparently have the blessing of the actual artwork owners (yet to be finitely determined, but it's looking that way).
- Status
Similar threads
