The Sid Sackson sell-off, round 2
The Maverick
"Thanks for your purchases during my Sid Sackson Game Auction. The
Family Auctioned off the reminants of his collection May 3rd and I will
be selling over 2000 of them over the next month or so, thought you
might be interested in a few more."
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Richard Hutnik
> FYI here's an e-mail I just received from an eBay seller:
>
> "Thanks for your purchases during my Sid Sackson Game Auction. The
> Family Auctioned off the reminants of his collection May 3rd and I will
> be selling over 2000 of them over the next month or so, thought you
> might be interested in a few more."
>
> the Mav
What the huh? The person bought nearly a third of the games that were
up for auction there this last time?
- Richard Hutnik
Dan Blum
There was a couple there who bought a gigantic number of lots. I wouldn't
have said it was a third of them (and I don't know if they sent the e-mail),
but I also don't know how accurate the estimate (of 8000 or so games) was.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@panix.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
The Maverick
>
> What the huh? The person bought nearly a third of the games that were
> up for auction there this last time?
Yep, and they are now appearing on eBay. Once again, I submit that the
auction house was the wrong one for the job, and did a poor job both
times around.
This whole thing should have been done online, and should have been
better promoted.
Peter Clinch
> Yep, and they are now appearing on eBay. Once again, I submit that the
> auction house was the wrong one for the job, and did a poor job both
> times around.
There's a piece in the last issue of Counter on the first sale written
by Ian Livingstone. Makes for interesting, if slightly depressing, reading.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Gary Barker
> There's a piece in the last issue of Counter on the first sale written
> by Ian Livingstone. Makes for interesting, if slightly depressing,
> reading.
>
> Pete.
Which reminds me to ask the question I've been meaning to for quite a while.
Where do I get hold of a copy of Counter? I can't get to a games store
regularly so mail order is better (and I suspect the only way to get it
anyway).
GazB
---
Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to
take effect. Reboot now? [ OK ]
Steve Condit
Paul Sauberer
"Richard Hutnik" <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37bc9e37.03050...@posting.google.com...
FWIW, I contacted this seller about the Bazaar prototype they had on eBay,
informing them that the family did not intend to sell the prototypes and
that I bleieve there was an announcement made to that effect at the auction.
This was the response I got:
"Thanks, For the concern but I already have cotion that his daughter in law
said it was ok."
First off, I don't know what "cotion" means, but here was what I wrote in
response:
"I know that she had said that they didn't want unpublished prototypes after
the first auction, but they did want to keep prototypes of published games.
Also, between the first and second auctions, Sackson's family found out that
someone was interested in publishing some of Sackson's unpublished material.
This meant that they did not intend to sell any prototypes at all in the
second auction.
"Did you have a specific conversation with Sackson's daughter-in-law and get
the OK to sell this prototype? Or are you going by an interpretation of the
statement she made after the first auction?
"There is already some negative buzz in the gaming community (on several
mailing lists and newsgroups) about your auctioning off this Bazaar
prototype, given what was related by Sackson's family at the auction about
their desire to keep prototypes.
"If you have specifially cleared the sale with Sackson's family, you might
want to get the word out. If you haven't, you might want to try and contact
them to see if they intended to sell that prototype. If you don't, it will
probably have a negative impact on your other auctions. I can tell you that
a prime potential customer base for your auctions is not particularly happy.
"Just wanted to give you a heads up."
I got a response on the first e-mail within a matter of hours. This one was
sent early yesterday morning and I have not yet received a response. I
thought I would give the seller the benefit of the doubt, given the glowing
tribute to Sackson included in the item descriptions. I was not going to
draw a conclusion that this seller was the same bottom feeder overheard
saying "Bazaar is still there" by someone at the auction. However, until
this situation is cleared up, I know that I will not be bidding on any games
by this seller, despite the fact that several of them interest me.
Paul Sauberer
Peter Clinch
> funagain.com does Counter Subscriptions
And if you're not in the US then funagain gives you the info you need to
set up a direct subscription.
http://kumquat.com/cgi-kumquat/funagain/06653?rLXFyMJ9;;30
Tony Nardo
> ""I know that she had said that they didn't want unpublished prototypes
> after
> the first auction, but they did want to keep prototypes of published
> games.
> Also, between the first and second auctions, Sackson's family found out
> that
> someone was interested in publishing some of Sackson's unpublished
> material.
> This meant that they did not intend to sell any prototypes at all in the
> second auction.
You could add to that, "An explicit announcement was made prior to the
second auction stating that Sid's prototypes were not for sale."
I really wish that Paul Friedman, Sid's son in law, had stayed to make that
announcement himself. When I spoke with him, he left no doubt in my mind
that the Sackson family wanted to retain Sid's prototypes and personal
papers. However, it seemed that he stayed only long enough to pick up the
prototypes that had already been found.
As far as prototypes go, I fear that the Sackson family may never be allowed
to live down Mary Ellen's open letter in this area.
The Maverick wrote:
> [...] Once again, I submit that the
> auction house was the wrong one for the job, and did a poor job both
> times around.
>
> This whole thing should have been done online, and should have been
> better promoted.
I won't argue the point any more about poor handling by the auction house.
Stories of isolated prototypes and rare games aside, I did feel on the first
sale that much of the box lot material went well over reasonable
expectations. I did *not* have that feeling this time around.
While the staff was friendly and helpful, the necessary advertising simply
wasn't in place. The sheer volume of material in each auction made
previewing in depth impossible. And, of course, the announcement that the
first auction had the best stuff really did seem like the kiss of death for
this round.
However, while selected items could have been sold online (well, on eBay)
with the necessary exposure to fetch better prices, I would still submit
that live auctions were the only way to clear the entire collection in a
reasonable time.
I have personally gone thru the exercise of cataloguing what was at the time
a 1600+ game collection -- picture, game name, maker, year, and
*exceedingly* brief notes on condition. This took me several months, working
part time each morning and evening. Having seen the volume of material in
both sessions, I think the member(s) of the Sackson family who thought that
the whole collection could be written up for auction on Boardgamegeek in
"two summers" were deliriously optimistic at best. Packing 10,000-15,000
games for shipping would have been a full-time Herculean chore as well.
The Maverick
> However, until
> this situation is cleared up, I know that I will not be bidding on any games
> by this seller, despite the fact that several of them interest me.
Why blame the seller? If the auction house screwed up and sold
something they weren't supposed to, then they should pay whatever it
takes to win the game back.... the current owner won it fair and square
and can do what they wish with it.
The Maverick
>
> However, while selected items could have been sold online (well, on eBay)
> with the necessary exposure to fetch better prices, I would still submit
> that live auctions were the only way to clear the entire collection in a
> reasonable time.
On the other hand, look at what a handful (my assumption) of eBay
sellers have done with the games they purchased... The "cream" could
have been picked out by someone who knew better, sifted for prototype
components, and listed on eBay in an expedient manner if someone were
working on it full time.
Then the rest could have been sold-off to a crowd of 40... and those
would have appeared on eBay as well, but at no great loss. ;-)
Paul Sauberer
> Paul Sauberer wrote:
>
> > However, until
> > this situation is cleared up, I know that I will not be bidding on any
games
> > by this seller, despite the fact that several of them interest me.
>
>
> Why blame the seller? If the auction house screwed up and sold
> something they weren't supposed to, then they should pay whatever it
> takes to win the game back.... the current owner won it fair and square
> and can do what they wish with it.
Not really. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" may be the rule on the
playground, but it is not the law of the land.
If the auction house (aka the "agent") mistakenly sells something, and with
the announcements that were made it was clear that selling a prototype was a
mistake, then the sale contract is not valid. The buyer has the obligation
to return the item in exchange for a refund of what they paid.
If the buyer knows that a certain item should not be in the lot and still
bids anyway with the intention of keeping it, then that could arguably cross
the line into theft.
Paul Sauberer
Paul Sauberer
"Tony Nardo" <t_n...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3EBB707D...@myrealbox.com...
> Paul Sauberer wrote:
>
> > ""I know that she had said that they didn't want unpublished prototypes
> > after
> > the first auction, but they did want to keep prototypes of published
> > games.
> > Also, between the first and second auctions, Sackson's family found out
> > that
> > someone was interested in publishing some of Sackson's unpublished
> > material.
> > This meant that they did not intend to sell any prototypes at all in the
> > second auction.
>
> You could add to that, "An explicit announcement was made prior to the
> second auction stating that Sid's prototypes were not for sale."
>
> I really wish that Paul Friedman, Sid's son in law, had stayed to make
that
> announcement himself. When I spoke with him, he left no doubt in my mind
> that the Sackson family wanted to retain Sid's prototypes and personal
> papers. However, it seemed that he stayed only long enough to pick up the
> prototypes that had already been found.
>
> As far as prototypes go, I fear that the Sackson family may never be
allowed
> to live down Mary Ellen's open letter in this area.
I have sent another e-mail to the seller letting them know this. I will
still give them the benefit of the doubt but I know that I still will not be
making any bids. If this become a major controversy and on the very slight
chance that some legal action could happen, I don't want to get involved in
any way.
I know if I was in the seller's shoes and had 2000 auctions coming up, I
wouldn't want to damage all of them because of this one item, even if it is
likely to bring in several hundred dollars. If the average price of the
others goes down by just a buck, I lose.
Paul Sauberer
MHenry
> "Finders keepers, losers weepers" may be the rule on the
> playground, but it is not the law of the land.
As I learned it, "buyers keepers" is the law of the land according to the
Uniform Commercial Code (Article 2 Part 4). The UCC entitles buyers to rely
on merchants to have clean title to the goods they sell. Under the UCC, the
aucton house is a merchant to whom the owner entrusted the goods. (The
terms buyer, merchant, goods, and entrust are all defined in the UCC).
Even fraud or theft on the part of the auction house doesn't void transfer
of title.
As for "bad faith" buyers, the family gave inconsistent statements regarding
the sale of prototypes. The family members are at the auction, goods are at
the auction. To assume that the family didn't intend to sell the goods is a
stretch. Ultimately, if the family didn't want those particular items sold,
they should not have given them to the auction house. This sounds harsh,
but to paraphrase my professor in law school (one of those that drafted the
current UCC Article 2), the purpose of the UCC is to enable commerce, not to
protect the lazy or the stupid.
Mike H.
Tony Nardo
> > "Finders keepers, losers weepers" may be the rule on the
> > playground, but it is not the law of the land.
>
> As I learned it, "buyers keepers" is the law of the land according to the
> Uniform Commercial Code (Article 2 Part 4). The UCC entitles buyers to rely
> on merchants to have clean title to the goods they sell. Under the UCC, the
> aucton house is a merchant to whom the owner entrusted the goods. (The
> terms buyer, merchant, goods, and entrust are all defined in the UCC).
> Even fraud or theft on the part of the auction house doesn't void transfer
> of title.
I couldn't believe this could be right, so I looked up the above UCC code. It
took a few minutes of feeling like I was pushing my head through rather viscous
mush. But if you assume "acquiescence in possession" translates to "failure to
physically constrain the transferor from taking materials in a disorderly or
larcenous manner", then paragraphs 2 and 3 do show this to be absolutely
correct... and pretty scary. Basically, if you hire someone to dispose of any of
your property, you need to be vigilant that *only* the property to be disposed
of leaves your possession.
One could argue, however, that by announcing the fact that the prototypes were
not for sale, the auctioneer renounced his power to "transfer all rights of the
entruster to a buyer" for these items. I am not yet convinced that the phrase
"gives him power" in paragraph 2 equates to "compels him to exercise the power".
> As for "bad faith" buyers, the family gave inconsistent statements regarding
> the sale of prototypes. The family members are at the auction, goods are at
> the auction. To assume that the family didn't intend to sell the goods is a
> stretch.
Actually, I think Phil was the only Sackson family member in attendance on May
3rd, and I believe he left before the auction started.
While the Sackson family's statements have been inconsistent over time, the
auctioneer did state the family's latest position regarding prototypes and
personal papers clearly and at a moment of greatest attention prior to the sale.
So if there was a buyer who knowingly purchased a lot containing one of Sid's
prototypes, I believe the term "bad faith" buyer could apply. However, to be
fair, Phil (or some other member of the family) should have been on hand to join
in the announcement that prototypes were not to be considered a part of the
sale, and that all prior statements to the contrary were rescinded. This would
have removed any possible perception that the auctioneer was unaware of the
family's intent.
The Maverick
>
> Not really. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" may be the rule on the
> playground, but it is not the law of the land.
Really? Never??? Try again...
> If the auction house (aka the "agent") mistakenly sells something, and with
> the announcements that were made it was clear that selling a prototype was a
> mistake, then the sale contract is not valid. The buyer has the obligation
> to return the item in exchange for a refund of what they paid.
And this is based on what legal authority . . . "losers keepers, finders
weepers"? ;-)
Didn't the bidders have to sign a written agreement (aka contract) in
order to be eligible to bid? Did this agreement allow for any verbal
terms, or say anything about prototypes, or require anything to be
returned if the auction company sold something in open bidding that it
wasn't supposed to? Doubt it...
> If the buyer knows that a certain item should not be in the lot and still
> bids anyway with the intention of keeping it, then that could arguably cross
> the line into theft.
I see. So the *bidders* are supposed to advise the auction house on
what should and should not be sold? Right...
The Maverick
> pretty scary. Basically, if you hire someone to dispose of any of
> your property, you need to be vigilant that *only* the property to be disposed
> of leaves your possession.
It's not scary if you go about it the right way... When you hire
someone to auction off stuff for you, you should make sure to get
someone who knows what the hell they are dealing with.
Paul Sauberer
following response from an e-mail:
"Paul, Just to update you, I've checked with an attorney and he has advised
me that being that I never actually signed anything before the auction,
stating that I would return anything, that the Sackson family and the
auction house as there representative did knowingly and willfully sell me
everything that I purchased from that auction house. And furthermore I have
the rights to do with what I please anything that I purchased, including
publishing non released games. I'm not stupid I checked with the same
attorney last time before I sold the Executive Decision prototype and
Contigo. Did you see the auction houses web page before the auction , they
were advertising that Prototypes would be sold. There is no stolen property
as you stated the Sackson family knew that the boxes contained prototypes
and nobody wanted to sort through them. It will not affect my sales at all.
Selling the proto' s last time tripled them. If you don't want to bid on my
items that's your loss."
Of course, even if their attorney is correct (and assuming that the
attorney's opinion was given knowing about the announcement) a legal right
does not equate with a moral right.
Given the tribute to Sackson on this seller's descriptions, their actions
smack of insincerity.
I choose not to do business with someone who exhibits this type of behavior.
What anyone else does is up to them.
Paul Sauberer
Tony Nardo
> The seller also feels that they are legally in the clear. I received the
> following response from an e-mail:
>
> "Paul, Just to update you, I've checked with an attorney and he has advised
> me that being that *I never actually signed anything before the auction*
> [emphasis mine],
> stating that I would return anything, that the Sackson family and the
> auction house as there representative did knowingly and willfully sell me
> everything that I purchased from that auction house. [...]"
And this is perhaps the biggest gaffe by the auction house. They had already
been through this exercise once. Even if they were unable to access the actual
games, they had MONTHS before the second auction to prepare a simple "conditions
of bidding" sheet protecting the prototypes and personal papers.
Searching through 8,000 games may have been a difficult task, but getting 20-40
people to sign such a sheet during registration would not have been difficult at
all.
Paul Sauberer
True. The auction house did not properly protect the interests of their
clients.
In a separate observation, a person who uses the "I'm not doing anything
illegal" statement almost always knows that what they are doing is wrong.
Paul Sauberer
Chris M.
perspective is as a gamer first, a collector second.
Please read my notes below.
"The Maverick" <thema...@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:3EBCA1F6...@volcano.net...
> Paul Sauberer wrote:
>
> >
> > Not really. "Finders keepers, losers weepers" may be the rule on the
> > playground, but it is not the law of the land.
>
>
> Really? Never??? Try again...
I got to the auction a little bit after it started. So I cannot comment on
whether or not anything was said ON THE DAY OF the auction. I think that
something may have been said by the auction house or a relative the day
before, but that was during the preview, which technically shouldn't count.
There was a fraction of the people browsing on Friday compared to the people
buying games on Saturday. I can double check this with a friend who was
there.
> > If the auction house (aka the "agent") mistakenly sells something, and
with
> > the announcements that were made it was clear that selling a prototype
was a
> > mistake, then the sale contract is not valid. The buyer has the
obligation
> > to return the item in exchange for a refund of what they paid.
>
>
> And this is based on what legal authority . . . "losers keepers, finders
> weepers"? ;-)
>
> Didn't the bidders have to sign a written agreement (aka contract) in
> order to be eligible to bid? Did this agreement allow for any verbal
> terms, or say anything about prototypes, or require anything to be
> returned if the auction company sold something in open bidding that it
> wasn't supposed to? Doubt it...
On the day of the auction when I went to get my bidder card, I was surprised
and a little delighted at the process of signing in. They had me on file
from last time. I mentioned my name, and they handed me my bidder card.
That simple. At first I thought this was very efficient. On second thought
later on, I figured that any loopholes that required closing would not be
closed. Nothing had to be signed on that day, and I don't recall ever
signing for anything back at the first auction. All they wanted was a
driver's license and a tax id # if I was a reseller.
> > If the buyer knows that a certain item should not be in the lot and
still
> > bids anyway with the intention of keeping it, then that could arguably
cross
> > the line into theft.
>
>
> I see. So the *bidders* are supposed to advise the auction house on
> what should and should not be sold? Right...
It's not so much the buyer trying to "get away with something." For me, I
didn't get a chance to preview the box lots and took my chances as each one
came up. I won over 3 boxes worth of stuff on different auctions, sometimes
in order to get at 1-3 games apiece. I had little clue what else was in
those boxes. When I started going through the boxes, I was pleasantly
surprised at some of the neat games I had found. Not all of it was filler
family games. In other words, if I had found a prototype in a box, I
probably wouldn't have even realized it was a prototype until after I got
home. I may have figured that they were loose parts that Sid kept onhand in
order to pull out at a moment's notice to play or test something.
Prototypes weren't as obvious as people make them out to be.
Another example is the Bazaar prototype that is up for auction. If I had
casually glanced through the boxes, I would have thought "Oh, another copy
of 3M Bazaar" and would have kept on going. It was in a regular 3m box. I
have collected many of these titles in the past and am very familiar with
them. However, I wouldn't have known it was a prototype unless someone had
tipped me off.
My point is the auction house should not be responsible for any prototypes
that were in those boxes, unless they were being contracted out as such and
this is in writing in the contract. If there were 1,000 or less items for
auction, then yes, I could understand them having the time to go through
them, and would have expected that of them. But we are talking about
thousands and thousands. Their business is to conduct a smooth running
auction that would sell off these games as quickly as possible. They
accomplished this, for better or worse. As a game collector, I don't expect
the auction house to understand or know which pieces are prototypes, let
alone super rare and expensive items that may have received better attention
and a higher final bid. They are used to selling antiques, curios, etc.
Have you ever bumped into someone that understood that there was such a
market for boardgames? If you mentioned that you collect old stamps, comic
books, baseball cards, then it makes sense to the average person. If you
tell them that you collect boardgames, people have no clue what you're
talking about.
The bottom line is, what responsibility should the auction house have? Are
they supposed to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, and guess at
something that is a prototype? In some cases, only Sid himself could have
possibly confirmed it or not because I doubt all of the prototype material
said on it "Prototype, not for resale." Going back to the bazaar auction
that is currently taking place, if you look in the description, even the
seller isn't positive that it is a prototype. He/she is merely speculating
that it is.
I feel that it was the family's responsibility to ID prototypes. Personally
speaking, if I had accidentally come across a proto from one of my box lots,
I would have mailed it back to the family no questions asked. For the
winning bidders of these auctions, all I can hope for is that they give them
a loving home.
I don't want to tread on anyone's toes here. I am not calling the family
irresponsible, and I am not calling the reseller a greedy person. I just
think (like most other people) that perhaps more time should have been
invested to cover all the bases.
chris
Tony Nardo
> I got to the auction a little bit after it started. So I cannot comment on
> whether or not anything was said ON THE DAY OF the auction.
I can. Announcements were made regarding Sackson prototypes for both auctions at
11 am -- technically the starting time for the events.
That said, it sounds like the person handling registration dropped the ball by
not repeating the announcements to late registrants. A new announcement was made
regarding prototypes by Alan Newman and/or Creative Dynamics, so anyone who
attended the first auction could not be expected to know this a priori.
(A side note: if my take on the UCC is correct, anyone trying to sell the Newman
prototypes will find less protection under the law than for a Sackson prototype.
The relevant sections only confer those rights of ownership held by the Sackson
family -- and apparently Alan never conferred the right of ownership of his
prototypes to Sid.)
Paul Sauberer
"Chris M." <chri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0TadnXzfYOS...@comcast.com...
> I think I need to chime in since I was at both auctions. FWIW, my
> perspective is as a gamer first, a collector second.
> Please read my notes below.
>
>
> didn't get a chance to preview the box lots and took my chances as each
one
> came up. I won over 3 boxes worth of stuff on different auctions,
sometimes
> in order to get at 1-3 games apiece. I had little clue what else was in
> those boxes. When I started going through the boxes, I was pleasantly
> surprised at some of the neat games I had found. Not all of it was filler
> family games. In other words, if I had found a prototype in a box, I
> probably wouldn't have even realized it was a prototype until after I got
> home. I may have figured that they were loose parts that Sid kept onhand
in
> order to pull out at a moment's notice to play or test something.
> Prototypes weren't as obvious as people make them out to be.
>
> Another example is the Bazaar prototype that is up for auction. If I had
> casually glanced through the boxes, I would have thought "Oh, another copy
> of 3M Bazaar" and would have kept on going. It was in a regular 3m box.
I
> have collected many of these titles in the past and am very familiar with
> them. However, I wouldn't have known it was a prototype unless someone
had
> tipped me off.
>
There are a couple of things that put me off on this particular auction.
First, it was reported that someone at the Sackson auction, while volunteers
were sorting out the prototypes was overheard to say "Bazaar is still
there." This indicates that whoever it was (either the current person
selling or some other bidder) knew the prototype was there, knew the family
did not want to sell it, and still wanted it anyway and evidently did not
tip anyone off as to where it was. This definitely smacks of tryong to get
away with something to me.
Second, the current seller now is very aware that the family did not want to
sell the prototypes. This seller also attaches some glowing copy about Sid
Sackson to their auctions. Yet, they are still keeping the auction going
because of the money they anticipate bringing in. This means that the
tribute they give to Sackson is a crock. They really don't give a damn about
him at all. They just want to rake in the bucks and don't care how they do
it. This lack of integrity puts me off dealing with this person. After all,
if they have no integrity in regards to how they acquire the goods they
sell, why should I trust them in buying anything from them? If they are
willing to screw over Sackson's family for a few bucks, they certainly would
do the same to any buyer in a heartbeat.
As I said, I will nto be touching any of their auctions, no matter how
appealing the item. It is not worth the risk to me to knowingly deal with
someone who, in my opinion, is of dubious character.
Paul Sauberer
Paul Sauberer
legal action and said they were attempting to get my eBay and AOL accounts
revoked.
Is this because they are so proud of their actions in this situation that
they want them to be aired in open court?
Paul Sauberer
Greg Fleischman
blasphemy. I don't think the problem here is the auction house, the bidders, or
the eBay sellers.
Wasn't it the responsibility of the Sackson family to identify and keep the
prototypes before they even went to the auction house to begin with? I find
disingenuous the last minute request by one of the Sackson family members at the
auction to save the prototypes. If they really wanted to save them, why didn't
they take the time before the games went to the auction house to do so? Yes, I
know there were thousands but I am sure there were enough of Sid's colleagues
and friends who would have been glad to rummage through the games and identify
the prototypes in case the family couldn't. To put the burden of saving them on
the auction house (that auctions everything and would have a hard time picking
the prototypes), and then try to transfer it to the bidders, is in my opinion
wrong. Paul Sauberer said below that the eBay seller was morally wrong in
selling his winnings. But, if the Sackson family didn't seem to give the
prototypes high priority (i.e., keeping them home) to begin with, why should
anyone else?
Greg
Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Seems to me that the purchase of the prototypes is valid.
But that has nothing at all to do with whether publication is
allowed. Unless something explicitly to the contrary is said at the
time of sale, sale of a copy (whether published or not) grants the
purchaser only the right to that copy, and does *not* transfer
copyright.
The copyright in all the games remains exactly where it was before any
sale of the physical games, unless a specific copyright transfer was
executed. (And, under US law, a copyright can only be transferred by
written agreement, precisely so that finding documentation is easy.)
Thomas
Tony Nardo
> First, it was reported that someone at the Sackson auction, while volunteers
> were sorting out the prototypes was overheard to say "Bazaar is still
> there."
I was the observer.
I heard the comment towards the end of the preview on Saturday morning as I was
examining wall lots, not the time on Friday when Dan Blum and a couple other
previewers made an effort to locate prototypes missed by the auctioneers.
(Friday is the closest I can come to recalling a time when "volunteers were
sorting out the prototypes".)
As I noted in an earlier post, I didn't go off to check out the item because I
was tiffed at someone who was scoping out what my wife & I were interested in,
and didn't feel right turning around and doing the same thing to someone else.
Also, at the time, it just didn't sink in *why* someone would make this comment.
I was operating on very little sleep, and not making some of the connections
that I should have. (Like remembering that the 7 packing boxes I brought with me
could be used to ship games home as easily as to keep them from sliding around
in the car! :-) )
And again, I couldn't say one way or another if the voice I heard matched either
voice from the couple in front of us (the ones who won the 3M lot with Bazaar in
it). I do recall that the lot didn't sell for an excessive sum.
The Maverick
>
> In a separate observation, a person who uses the "I'm not doing anything
> illegal" statement almost always knows that what they are doing is wrong.
If you did indeed call the item "stolen property" (as is suggested by
the response you posted), then "I'm not doing anything illegal" is the
correct and appropriate response to such an allegation...
The Maverick
>
> Second, the current seller now is very aware that the family did not want to
> sell the prototypes. This seller also attaches some glowing copy about Sid
> Sackson to their auctions. Yet, they are still keeping the auction going
> because of the money they anticipate bringing in. This means that the
> tribute they give to Sackson is a crock. They really don't give a damn about
> him at all. They just want to rake in the bucks and don't care how they do
> it. This lack of integrity puts me off dealing with this person.
It's called a "sales pitch"... what does that have to do with
integrity? The Sackson auction was a business opportunity with
everything up for grabs to the highest bidder. The sellers could have
approached things differently and chosen to spend more time and/or money
sifting the games for a potential lower return. Some buyers went there
hoping to invest some dollars and turn the games around on eBay. All
the parties knew what was going on, and everyone got what they paid for.
Nobody appears to have tricked anyone or done anything illegal, yet
you still go on and on about the lack of "integrity" in someone you
don't know anything about, except that they are selling a game they
legally bought at an auction. Then you go on to denigrate their
"character". Get over it...
The Maverick
>
> But that has nothing at all to do with whether publication is
> allowed. Unless something explicitly to the contrary is said at the
> time of sale, sale of a copy (whether published or not) grants the
> purchaser only the right to that copy, and does *not* transfer
> copyright.
Agreed - the seller clearly misunderstands that point.
Paul Sauberer
The seller, in his "sales pitch," goes on and on about how wonderful Sackson
(who he refers to familiarly as "Sid") was and how much of an artist he was.
The seller states that his auctions of the Sackson collection are a
"tribute" to the man.
This seller also knows that Sackson's family did not intend to sell the
prototypes, yet the seller is still continuing the auction on the basis of
"I'm not doing anything illegal."
The situation has nothing to do with legality. In my opinion, the "sales
pitch" seems terribly insincere when put in context. To say that you are
doing a tribute that runs absolutely counter to the wishes of the family
just does not ring true. It gives the impression that the seller doesn't
give a damn about Sid Sackson or what he produced and cares only about the
money that will result from the auction. He would care as much for a bag of
manure if it would bring him the same profit margin. The seller seems to
have no regard for the truth in an attempt to pump up sales. He will
evidentlty misrepresent his own feelings to crank out a few more dollars.
In my view, that type of attitude is evidence of poor character.
I take a very dim view of people who conduct business in that way. I view
them as inherently untrustworthy.
Your repeated protestations that I should accept the "anything that's legal
and can make a buck is OK" ethic will not change my opinions.
Get over it.
Paul Sauberer
Emmy Campo
Paul, I've warned you privately and now I will do it publicly. You make
reference to my character and integrity in your posts. Did you see any bad
feedbacks in my profile frome the last auction that was nearly 400 games? If
I was not well within my legal rights , I would not be selling the
prototypes. I did not make the comment that you referenced about Bazaar
still being there. I was with Bruce Whitehill at almost the entire auction
and he knows that I was simply buying everything I could get my hands on to
resell on Ebay.
Please don't be so upset about your AOL, EBAY and Optimum complaints, if you
are correct and you are not slandering my name then you will not loose your
accounts. Please stop making un appropriate comments about me or my
auctions. You were not at either of the auctions or do you know any of the
family members so you are not an expert on the subject.
--
Thanks,
EMMY
Aunt-Emmy
"Paul Sauberer" <spamgr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:xLbva.70752$AG6.11...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Paul Sauberer
"Emmy Campo" <aunti...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mOxva.67450$4P1.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Paul, I
> Paul, I've warned you privately and now I will do it publicly. You make
> reference to my character and integrity in your posts. Did you see any bad
> feedbacks in my profile frome the last auction that was nearly 400 games?
If
> I was not well within my legal rights , I would not be selling the
> prototypes. I did not make the comment that you referenced about Bazaar
> still being there. I was with Bruce Whitehill at almost the entire auction
> and he knows that I was simply buying everything I could get my hands on
to
> resell on Ebay.
>
> Please don't be so upset about your AOL, EBAY and Optimum complaints, if
you
> are correct and you are not slandering my name then you will not loose
your
> accounts. Please stop making un appropriate comments about me or my
> auctions. You were not at either of the auctions or do you know any of the
> family members so you are not an expert on the subject.
I have no problems with the comments I have made. I have not slandered you
at all. I have made reasonable conclusions based on a set of facts as
pertains to a certain instance. If you wish to defend the argument that it
is not reasonable for me to draw the conclusions that I have based on the
facts that have been presented, then go ahead. There is nothing in the terms
of service of AOL, eBay, or Optimum Online that prohibit the expression of
opinions on matters such as these.
There are, however, limitations in the Earthlink agreement that prohibit
harassment. I will be more than happy to forward the complete record of
private e-mails and public posts on this matter in response to any
complaints that you make and also forward them along with those complaints
to Earthlink.
I contacted you privately about this situation once it had become a matter
of discussion on these boards. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and did
not comment publicly on the propriety of your actions until you had firmly
stated that you would not honor the requests of the Sackson family because
you were within your legal rights. That may be so, but that does not make
you morally correct in my opinion, and that is still my position.
I was not going to contact you directly any further on this matter because
there was no point. Then you chose to send me private e-mails threatening me
with legal action and with complaints against eBay and my ISPs. I responded,
and you came back and said we should let the matter drop between us. I
agreed with that and thus did not respond to your last e-mail. I do not,
however, agree that I need to give up my rights to speak on the topic in
public.
If the facts are in error, please state where they are wrong and I will
likely change my opinion and state so publicly. I do not intend to make any
judgments based on incorrect facts, but the judgments I have made are
reasonable based on the known facts, which you have not disputed in any way.
If my opinions are in error, perhaps since you have now made a public
pronouncement (which, BTW, you always had the option to do since I
forwarded you statements that had been made about the situation in my
e-mails to you days ago), you can explain how your "tribute" to Sackson in
your item descriptions (including your reference to him familiarly as "Sid")
conforms with the commonly accepted definitions of the terms "sincerity" and
"integrity" in light of your refusal to honor the requests of Sackson's
family, as others did. Note that I am not questioning your legal right to do
what you did. I am not calling you a criminal. I do, however, question the
morality of your actions in this instance. I will say that this one instance
is not a large enough sample to judge your integrity and sincerity as a
person, but it is enough for me to not have any wish to do business with you
ever unless you offer a reasonable explanation based on more than "I am not
doing anything illegal."
If you wish to pursue this matter further, you or your attorney may e-mail
me privately and I will forward it to my attorney. I will also pursue
contacts with witnesses to the auction (one of whom has volunteered to act
as liaison with the auction house and the Sackson family). Any other private
contact I will consider an act of harassment and will respond appropriately
to the proper channels. Public debate I have no problem with as I have no
difficulty with airing this situation where others can see and forums such
as this are designed for this type of debate.
Cordially,
Paul Sauberer
Richard Dewsbery
> If
> I was not well within my legal rights , I would not be selling the
> prototypes. I did not make the comment that you referenced about Bazaar
> still being there. I was with Bruce Whitehill at almost the entire auction
> and he knows that I was simply buying everything I could get my hands on
to
> resell on Ebay.
Let's sum up: Mr/Ms Campo was buying stock at one auction, to sell on
Ebay - well, I'm sure Ebay scalping is a fine and honourable profession, and
probably ranks up there alongside ambulnce chasing and peddling CCGs outside
scholl gates. Mr/Ms Campo probably stands to make a tidy profit, knowing
that Ebay fetches much higher prices than a disorganised auction that the
vast majority of Sackson fans had no chance to attend - so arguably Mr/Ms
Campo is doing the non-attenders a useful service (and I bet my house that
philanthropy is *not* in fact their motive at all). Mr/Ms Campo is now
aware - whatever their state of knowledge on the day and wrangling about
property law notwithstanding - that Sid Sackson's family wanted to keep all
the published prototypes.
Now I'm *sure* that with the profit to be made on all the other games up for
auction, Mr/Ms Campo could easily afford to send the prototype back to the
family, having now been made completely aware of the families' wishes. That
they choose to continue the auction (insisting on legal, rather than moral,
rights to do so) gives me all the information I need to make my own
judgement on their character. I won't publicly state my view, given Mr/Ms
Campo's having already taken "legal advice" on this matter and shows a
willingness to scream "slander" (and implying no particular judgement, what
inferences you choose to draw are entirely up to you).
Although two further things occur to me - *some* people (and implying no
names in particular, what inferences you choose to draw are entirely up to
you) are very eager to whine at others' ISPs, when they would never have the
guts to walk into a courtroom; and Mr/Ms Campo would appear to be entitled
to a refund on that legal advice, as anyone holding any sort of legal
qualification would know that they have *not* been slandered; libelled,
defamed, perhaps - but slander refers to the spoken word.
Richard Dewsbery
(Real name there, folks. If anyone insists on suing me for "slander", I'll
post my address for service of the court papers too!)
John Cartmell
<ric...@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Sid Sackson's family wanted to keep all the published prototypes
I *do not* want to enter the controversy but I'm intrigued about this
aspect. I saw the e-mail from one of the family saying that they didn't
want the prototypes - ie they were in the sale and sold. I'm one disturbed
that the collection didn't go to one point where it could have formed the
basis of a public collection.
1. When did 'the family' change their minds?
2. What's the problems of selling the prototypes and not the rest?
3. Why did the family change their minds?
4. What is to happen to the prototypes kept in the family?
5. Are the family now all saying that the auction was a mistake?
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com
Jack Newberry
Paul, unfortunately she may be right. Most ISP's have a defamatory
clause in the TOS to protect them legally.
There's an easy answer to the question, but judging from the chat
on line today, it seems clear that either there is popular
disagreement with the answer, or those who chat simply have a
devil-may-care attitude that could prove costly.
The reason for this is, a false statement that is damaging is
defamatory, a branch of law known as a tort, and that which is
defamatory can give rise to substantial damages. When stated orally,
it is known as slander; when in writing, libel.
This tort first surfaced about the year 1275, just 60 years
after the Magna Carta was signed and sealed at Runnymeade by Britain's
King John. Initially, it was no doubt intended to protect the barons
and feudal lords from the statements or claims invoked by the serfs.
In the intervening 725 years, it has become a mechanism by which
individuals can protect themselves against the gossips of society, and
those who "publish" a libel, or a slander, thereby disseminating it.
Publishing does not mean having a printer set it in type and
then offset it into the distribution channel of commerce. The essence
of the legal cause of action is an untrue statement that is uttered
orally (slander) or in writing (libel) that is damaging to another.
There are exceptions, and there are provisos. But a false
statement recklessly made may be subject to substantial economic
punishment.
Today, defamation may be defined as the making of a false
statement, which tends to adversely affect one's reputation, thereby
exposing one to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.
There are five basic elements which must be proven in order to
establish a prima facie case of defamation (without taking into
account any defenses):
• defamatory language orally uttered or printed (published) by the
defendant;
• the statement made concerns the plaintiff, and not some other
person or entity;
• a publication by the defendant has taken place to a third person;
• that as a result of the "publication", injury has been caused to
the reputation of the plaintiff;
• in some instances, malice need also be shown for there to be
recovery.
Publication also does not mean printing it in a newspaper or
magazine. It can be as simple an act as writing it in a private letter
intended to be seen by only one other person, and actually seen by
that person. (If seen by more than one person, it proceeds to the
issue of more damages).
Certainly, it can be as simple an act as publishing on an
Internet bulletin board that someone is a "crook", or that they
"stole", or that they were somehow dishonest and performed their
business tasks improperly.
Kevin J. Maroney
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
(My answers to these questions should not be taken as definitive, but
I have had the opportunity to talk to members of the family about the
prototypes over the last few months, and I think these are fairly
accurate statements.)
>1. When did 'the family' change their minds?
Between the first and second auctions.
>2. What's the problems of selling the prototypes and not the rest?
The prototypes contain material which belongs to the Sackson family
that they wish to see published. Even the prototypes for the published
games have value on this score, as they often differ from the
published versions (to the better). The rest of the collection was
valuable, but not in the same category.
>3. Why did the family change their minds?
Because their understanding of the value of the prototypes changed. It
had apparently not seriously occurred to them that there might be
material in the prototypes that would be of interest to the gaming
public.
>4. What is to happen to the prototypes kept in the family?
The prototypes--both unpublished and published--are being reviewed by
Face2Face Games for potential publication.
>5. Are the family now all saying that the auction was a mistake?
No.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
<http://www.panix.com/~kjm/games-for-sale.html> updated 2 May 2003
Paul Sauberer
"Jack Newberry" <corple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:14f170e0.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
> Paul, unfortunately she may be right. Most ISP's have a defamatory
> clause in the TOS to protect them legally.
> There's an easy answer to the question, but judging from the chat
> on line today, it seems clear that either there is popular
> disagreement with the answer, or those who chat simply have a
> devil-may-care attitude that could prove costly.
>
> The reason for this is, a false statement that is damaging is
> defamatory, a branch of law known as a tort, and that which is
> defamatory can give rise to substantial damages. When stated orally,
> it is known as slander; when in writing, libel.
Jack,
Thanks for the input. The key here is that in order to be defamatory a
statement must be false. Truth is a valid defense.
None of the statements of fact that I have made have been refuted, although
I have given Aunt Emmy the opportunity to do so both privately and now
publicly. I have offered to retract my statements if the facts are otherwise
than I have stated them.
She objects to the conclusions I have drawn and the opinions I have formed
based on those facts but those cannot be shown to be false. My judgment that
there is immoral conduct going on here can be demonstrated by appealing to
such a simple moral precept as The Golden Rule. Unless it can be
domonstrated that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a
false statement, there is no legitimate case against me. In fact, it is
possible that if such a frivolous case were brought against me or other
harassing measures taken, that I could suffer distress and damage having to
unecessarily take the time and effort to respond to them. That would open
the option for me to take legal action.
Paul Sauberer
Bruno Wolff III
>
> Thanks for the input. The key here is that in order to be defamatory a
> statement must be false. Truth is a valid defense.
That isn't true everywhere so be careful.
Paul Sauberer
"Bruno Wolff III" <br...@wolff.to> wrote in message
news:slrnbbvgv9...@localhost.localdomain...
We are both residents of the state of New York. It is established that
"truth is an absolute defense to an accusation of defamation" (Banco
Nacional de Mexico v. Menendez-Rodriguez).
My statements also fail the four-part test NY courts apply to statements to
deem if they are actionable and not protected opinion.
Thanks for the warning, but I am not worried about the outcome of any
action. The process of defending against it could cause me some
inconvenience and distress, but I hope that Aunt Emmy will be reasonable and
allow our respective opinions to stand as they are.
Paul Sauberer
Jack Newberry
Paul, I've read all of the posts and I know you're not going to like
this, but she is right. Your mention of stolen property and
questioning her business practices and Character, is where you went
wrong. The law presumes that certain statements, whether printed or
oral, automatically cause damage to the victim of the calumny. If a
person is accused of a crime, they are presumed damaged if the
statement is false. Take a bit of advice, If she wishes to pursue
this, you will have more to worry about than loosing your internet
connection. If you wish to talk with me off line email me.
Jack
Gene Wirchenko
>"Jack Newberry" <corple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:14f170e0.03051...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Paul, unfortunately she may be right. Most ISP's have a defamatory
>> clause in the TOS to protect them legally.
>> There's an easy answer to the question, but judging from the chat
>> on line today, it seems clear that either there is popular
>> disagreement with the answer, or those who chat simply have a
>> devil-may-care attitude that could prove costly.
>>
>> The reason for this is, a false statement that is damaging is
>> defamatory, a branch of law known as a tort, and that which is
>> defamatory can give rise to substantial damages. When stated orally,
>> it is known as slander; when in writing, libel.
>Thanks for the input. The key here is that in order to be defamatory a
>statement must be false. Truth is a valid defense.
As another poster stated, not everywhere. (I am not a lawyer,
but I imagine that some of the rationale is that some matters can be
corrected without trumpeting them to the world.)
>None of the statements of fact that I have made have been refuted, although
>I have given Aunt Emmy the opportunity to do so both privately and now
>publicly. I have offered to retract my statements if the facts are otherwise
>than I have stated them.
This might lend credence to an argument that your statements are
reckless. If you do harm, you offer to retract the statements. Why
not just not do the harm in the first place?
>She objects to the conclusions I have drawn and the opinions I have formed
>based on those facts but those cannot be shown to be false. My judgment that
There has been some uncertainty about the circumstance expressed
in this group. The "facts" have not been shown to be true either, at
least, not in a court of law.
>there is immoral conduct going on here can be demonstrated by appealing to
>such a simple moral precept as The Golden Rule. Unless it can be
>domonstrated that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a
>false statement, there is no legitimate case against me. In fact, it is
As you invoke it, I think the onus would be on you to prove it.
And if it is not part of the basis of our legal system, your point is
irrelevant legally.
>possible that if such a frivolous case were brought against me or other
>harassing measures taken, that I could suffer distress and damage having to
>unecessarily take the time and effort to respond to them. That would open
>the option for me to take legal action.
The person you are targetting could make the same arguments RIGHT
NOW. You are digging yourself into a hole here.
BTW, you almost always have the legal option. So what? You
claim it would be a frivolous case against you? Start your own case.
I think it would probably be called frivolous by the other side.
Sauce for goose, sauce for gander.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
RRI1
>not the rest?
>
>The prototypes contain material which belongs to the
>Sackson family that they wish to see published. Even
>the prototypes for the published games have value on
>this score, as they often differ from the published
>versions (to the better). The rest of the collection was
>valuable, but not in the same category.
Also I was under the impression that many of the prototypes
were included in boxes for other games that the family put up
for auction and the family was unaware of their presence.
Granted, searching through 10,000 games for prototypes is a
daunting task. ;-)
Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Made with recycled electrons!
Raille
Especially in the USA.
Dave
The Big Game Hunter
> still being there. I was with Bruce Whitehill at almost the entire auction
> and he knows that I was simply buying everything I could get my hands >on to resell on Ebay.
Ah, since my name has come up, I guess it's time to chime in. I was
at both auctions. Here are a few points I can make:
1. The family kept changing their minds, or, in any case,
communicating different things, from wanting to keep the prototypes of
published games to wanting to keep only the prototypes of unpublished
games, with a view toward publishing them. At the first auction they
selectively took back only certain prototypes that had personal
meaning for them (such as games one of the children remembered
playtesting with her father).
2. A valiant attempt was made prior to the second auction to remove
all prototypes that could be found. One family member was there
during the entire auction. Whatever was sold at that point became the
rightful property of the buyer.
3. I spent a lot of time at the second auction shuffling back and
forth between my huge pile of auction wins, and those of Aunt Emmy (we
did lots of trading), who, like she did at the first auction, was
buying as much as possible for resale on eBay. That is her business,
and whatever she buys at auction she has a right to sell. Someone
scoffed at her doing a "service" for the collector community, but
considering how many people could not or did not attend the auction
who want some of the items sold there, Aunt Emmy, as many others, IS
providing a service through her business.
4. Neither Aunt Emmy nor I nor the other key players had any idea
there was a Bazaar prototype in one of the box lots won by Aunt Emmy.
The box lots went very cheaply, and if someone else "whispered" that
there was a prototype in that box lot, then one would have assumed
they would have bid on it and won it. The prototype in question, by
the way, may be a mid-level prototype worked on after the initial game
was printed or even published; I have a Bazaar "prototype" from the
first auction that also appears to have been one in which changes were
being suggested for an already printed or published game. This is not
one of Sid's hand-drawn gameboards.
5. Selling the prototype on eBay in no way shows any disrespect for
Sid Sackson. The Sackson family is not Sid Sackson, and their
interest in republishing some of Sid's games or publishing some of his
unpublished prototypes is not in conflict with the collectors
community owning some of Sid's work. Aunt Emmy is in no way doing a
disservice to the memory of Sid Sackson!
6. One angry voice thinks it's the responsibility of the seller to
return the prototype. Nonsense! And what about the prototypes at the
first auction that were sold openly? The Bazaar prototype was
purchased and paid for as part of a box lot and is now up for public
sale, and if it is important that the family owns that prototype, then
they can bid on it and win it back.
7. To point fingers, make assumptions and even accusations,
especially when you were not there and do not know the principals
involved, is irresponsible.
8. Chill out, you malcontents! Sid's games are being played all over
the world, games from his personal collection are being sold on eBay
for many to collect and enjoy, the family is republishing at least one
of his games, Sid's "Gamut of Games" manuscript (thanks to Dan Blum!)
and many of his personal papers (thanks to the family!) have been
donated to the archives of the Association of Game & Puzzle Collectors
and are available for research, and the public is being enlightened
about Sid Sackson prototypes that no one but the family even knew
existed.
--Bruce Whitehill (The Big Game Hunter)
Paul Sauberer
"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message
news:3EC05033...@mich.com...
Just as a matter of interest, unless there are any direct threats made to
me, I have nothing more to say about the topic.
Paul Sauberer
Kevin J. Maroney
Game Hunter) wrote:
>5. Selling the prototype on eBay in no way shows any disrespect for
>Sid Sackson. The Sackson family is not Sid Sackson, and their
>interest in republishing some of Sid's games or publishing some of his
>unpublished prototypes is not in conflict with the collectors
>community owning some of Sid's work. Aunt Emmy is in no way doing a
>disservice to the memory of Sid Sackson!
If the prototypes disappear without being republished, Sid Sackson's
art is lost to the world and the people that Sid Sackson loved more
than anything in the world are harmed.
I would think that most people would agree that taking money away from
Sid's widow is disrespectful to Sid's memory.
I would think that most people would agree that keeping Sid's work
from the public eye would be disrespectful to Sid's memory.
John Cartmell
Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
> I would think that most people would agree that taking money away from
> Sid's widow is disrespectful to Sid's memory.
> I would think that most people would agree that keeping Sid's work
> from the public eye would be disrespectful to Sid's memory.
I don't know the family and empathise with them in their predicament. But.
It could be said that by choosing (before Sid died) to sell the items by
auction was the simple cause of all the problems. It's ridiculous that no
place could be found for a proper archive as Sid wanted - not the families
fault but an indication of the status of games in our societies. The family
wanted rid of the games; I understand. They were going to examine and
organise the games for sale; they didn't. Auction was a "Let's get rid, get
the space back and get the money." That's OK. It doesn't fit with "Let's
publish and make available." The 'special value' that resides with
prototypes rests with purchasers. The information that goes with that is,
in any case, copyright and could/should be communicated to the copyright
owners for the good of all. Please?
Glenn Kuntz
Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:glr0cv4n2u2vmckh2...@4ax.com...
> I would think that most people would agree that taking money away from
> Sid's widow is disrespectful to Sid's memory.
> I would think that most people would agree that keeping Sid's work
> from the public eye would be disrespectful to Sid's memory.
I would think that most people would agree that both of these statements are
pretty far stretches.
Kevin J. Maroney
Well, if you're one of those "most people", perhaps you might
articulate why the actions under consideration don't match my
characterization of them.
If Joe Random Collector buys the prototype of, say, the game "Another"
and it disappears from sight--which is the current situation, I
believe--then it will never be published. The artistry Sid wrought in
the game is lost to public view; the potential royalties for its
publication are lost to Bernice. How does this make the world a better
place?
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>If Joe Random Collector buys the prototype of, say, the game "Another"
>and it disappears from sight--which is the current situation, I
>believe--then it will never be published. The artistry Sid wrought in
>the game is lost to public view; the potential royalties for its
>publication are lost to Bernice. How does this make the world a better
>place?
Checking my records, I now think that "Another" ended up in the hands
of a collector who is in touch with Face2Face Games. It was a
different prototype--for an unidentified word game that I *hope* is a
duplicate copy of Buyword--which is in the hands of a collector who is
not in touch with F2F.
Glenn Kuntz
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 11:51:37 GMT, "Glenn Kuntz"
> <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:glr0cv4n2u2vmckh2...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> I would think that most people would agree that taking money away from
> >> Sid's widow is disrespectful to Sid's memory.
> >
> >> I would think that most people would agree that keeping Sid's work
> >> from the public eye would be disrespectful to Sid's memory.
> >
> >I would think that most people would agree that both of these statements
are
> >pretty far stretches.
>
> Well, if you're one of those "most people", perhaps you might
> articulate why the actions under consideration don't match my
> characterization of them.
Sure, now that you've articulated why you think the above...
First, I understand you knew Sid personally; I envy you that priveledge, so
there's no disrespect to him or his family intended in anything I say. I'm
speaking from the POV of someone not without personal experience in dealing
with estates and auctions.
> If Joe Random Collector buys the prototype of, say, the game "Another"
> and it disappears from sight--which is the current situation, I
> believe--then it will never be published. The artistry Sid wrought in
> the game is lost to public view; the potential royalties for its
> publication are lost to Bernice. How does this make the world a better
> place?
The first several times I read your initial statements above, I took "most
people" at face value - I doubt that "most people" have even heard of Sid
Sackson, let alone care about what "most people" may actually perceive as a
petty squabble in the grand scheme of "making the world a better place".
But thinking it over, I think you probably meant, "most people [reading
this]". In that case, well, maybe - maybe not (most people reading this
would agree with your assessments.)
I think you're making a big assumption that any lost prototype will never
see the light of day. What would be the point? It's not going to increase
in value like some old painting - more likely the contrary. The longer it
remains unpublished, the more dated/obsolete and valueless it is likely to
become. (Remember the opinions that Monopoly would likely not be
published/succeed today?) IF/when such a game *does* get published at all,
I think it would be a *tribute to* Sid's memory.
You also seem to make the assumption that any "lost" prototypes retained by
the family *would* be published. The several reasons I can think of that
they were never published in the first place gives me cause to wonder if any
publisher today would have the same reservations. Maybe - maybe not.
Even if some lost prototype *is* hoarded and never sees the light..., I
don't agree that that's "disrespectful to Sid's memory". In the hoarder's
view, they're putting that artifact on a pedestal - revering it. YMMV.
As to taking money away from Sid's widow, it was the executor who was/is
ultimately responsible for watching out for the family's best interests,
etc., so if there's any blame to lay - lay it there, where it belongs. I
think "most people" know how auctions work - all items "as is" - "all sales
final" - caveat emptor - "in God we trust, all others pay cash", and binding
on *both* parties. Mistakes/lucky finds happen at auctions. If there were
so much concern for the most money for Sid's widow, or respect for Sid's
memory, there were other methods of dealing with the collection. An auction
was chosen. Nobody (AFAIK) put a gun to anybody's head.
IOW, I infer that you think most people [reading this] would agree that a
centuries (millennium?)-old doctrine of contract (English common) law (an
auction) conducted legally in a capitalist culture is wrong/disrespectful to
Sid's memory. Well, a lot of people think estate auctiuons in general are
disrespectful to the memories of the deceased. I won't disagree with
*that* - it's a personal matter within the family.
What *I* think is disrespectful to Sid's memory, and not doing his family
any good either, is all the (albeit well-meaning but
misguided)discussion/whining/sniping about coulda, shoulda, woulda, din't.
Let it go.
Kevin J. Maroney
<crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>OW, I infer that you think most people [reading this] would agree that a
>centuries (millennium?)-old doctrine of contract (English common) law (an
>auction) conducted legally in a capitalist culture is wrong/disrespectful to
>Sid's memory.
You might infer that; I didn't imply it.
>What *I* think is disrespectful to Sid's memory, and not doing his family
>any good either, is all the (albeit well-meaning but
>misguided)discussion/whining/sniping about coulda, shoulda, woulda, din't.
>Let it go.
I am not indulging in "could, shoulda, woulda". What should or should
not have been done with Sid's collection as a whole is a moot
question; the auction is past and done and cannot be undone.
I'm decrying a specific present circumstance--that there are people
who ended up with Sid's unpublished prototypes despite the expressed
wishes of the family that they not be sold--and arguing that it should
be changed and improved. The posts to which you responded were laying
out the reasons why I think the situation is worth decrying, in the
face of at least one person who seemed to think that there was no
reason at all to think it bad.
Jack Newberry
"Paul Sauberer" <spamgr...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<lxNva.113561$AG6.18...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
John David Galt
>> the announcements that were made it was clear that selling a prototype was a
>> mistake, then the sale contract is not valid. The buyer has the obligation
>> to return the item in exchange for a refund of what they paid.
> And this is based on what legal authority . . . "losers keepers, finders
> weepers"? ;-)
The "warranty of title", which is absolute in all 50 states.
The Maverick
>
> I have no problems with the comments I have made. I have not slandered you
> at all. I have made reasonable conclusions based on a set of facts as
> pertains to a certain instance. If you wish to defend the argument that it
> is not reasonable for me to draw the conclusions that I have based on the
> facts that have been presented, then go ahead.
Drawing conclusions that are false and defamatory and then publishing
them as facts is still actionable... The touchstone of defamation is
whether you have posted something false and harmful to a person's
reputation, not how "reasonable" it was for you to do so or how right
you felt you were.
Proceed, legal genius...
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
The Maverick
> On 12 May 2003 19:33:21 -0700, ga...@thebiggamehunter.com (The Big
> Game Hunter) wrote:
>
>>5. Selling the prototype on eBay in no way shows any disrespect for
>>Sid Sackson. The Sackson family is not Sid Sackson, and their
>>interest in republishing some of Sid's games or publishing some of his
>>unpublished prototypes is not in conflict with the collectors
>>community owning some of Sid's work. Aunt Emmy is in no way doing a
>>disservice to the memory of Sid Sackson!
>
> If the prototypes disappear without being republished, Sid Sackson's
> art is lost to the world and the people that Sid Sackson loved more
> than anything in the world are harmed.
The game was Bazaar... it has already been published.
End of "chicken little" story.
The Maverick
I don't think so... especially when the nebulous term "prototype"
(without any further definition or description) was used...
No signs of legal action on the horizon, either.
Glenn Kuntz
> On Wed, 14 May 2003 14:10:58 GMT, "Glenn Kuntz"
> <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >OW, I infer that you think most people [reading this] would agree that a
> >centuries (millennium?)-old doctrine of contract (English common) law (an
> >auction) conducted legally in a capitalist culture is wrong/disrespectful
to
> >Sid's memory.
>
> You might infer that; I didn't imply it.
That's what I said.
> >What *I* think is disrespectful to Sid's memory, and not doing his family
> >any good either, is all the (albeit well-meaning but
> >misguided)discussion/whining/sniping about coulda, shoulda, woulda,
din't.
> >Let it go.
>
> I am not indulging in "could, shoulda, woulda". What should or should
> not have been done with Sid's collection as a whole is a moot
> question; the auction is past and done and cannot be undone.
> I'm decrying a specific present circumstance--that there are people
> who ended up with Sid's unpublished prototypes despite the expressed
> wishes of the family that they not be sold--and arguing that it should
> be changed and improved.
You just said the auction was past and done and cannot be undone. The
specific circumstance is a result of that over & done auction. Sounds like,
"Coulda, shoulda, woulda, din't" to me.
Kevin J. Maroney
The auction is over and done. The situation of the prototypes is not
over and done. I can't tell if you're bad at reading, needling me
diliberately, or just trying to adopt a pose of moral superiority
because you're bored.
The Maverick
>
> I can't tell if you're bad at reading, needling me
> diliberately, or just trying to adopt a pose of moral superiority
> because you're bored.
He's not "adopting" a pose of moral superiority, he's "holding" it... ;-)
Glenn Kuntz
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:49:24 GMT, "Glenn Kuntz"
> <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >You just said the auction was past and done and cannot be undone. The
> >specific circumstance is a result of that over & done auction. Sounds
like,
> >"Coulda, shoulda, woulda, din't" to me.
>
> The auction is over and done. The situation of the prototypes is not
> over and done. I can't tell if you're bad at reading, needling me
> diliberately, or just trying to adopt a pose of moral superiority
> because you're bored.
None of the above, Kevin. You made some comments that I *still* think are
stretching things, because they're based on some pretty big assumptions,
which I tried to point out, and that you didn't deny. If anyone's adopting
any pose of moral superiority, I think it's the one claiming that a lucky
find/mistake at an auction is somehow robbery and disrespectful to the
deceased. I disagreed, I explained why, and that's not good enough for you.
Sorry.
Glenn Kuntz
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:49:24 GMT, "Glenn Kuntz"
> <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >You just said the auction was past and done and cannot be undone. The
> >specific circumstance is a result of that over & done auction. Sounds
like,
> >"Coulda, shoulda, woulda, din't" to me.
>
> The auction is over and done. The situation of the prototypes is not
> over and done. I can't tell if you're bad at reading, needling me
> diliberately,
Disappointed. I think these two statements:
> I would think that most people would agree that taking money away from
> Sid's widow is disrespectful to Sid's memory.
>
> I would think that most people would agree that keeping Sid's work
> from the public eye would be disrespectful to Sid's memory.
are less than what I've come to expect from you. You're usually
confrontational, often rude, and obviously not above personal attacks, but
your underlying statements/points are usually much better reasoned than
these two.
> or just trying to adopt a pose of moral superiority
I'm not the one on a righteously indignant rant here - just trying to point
out that the above statements are a pretty far stretch. If you really want
to fight this battle (pressuring the owner of an alleged unpublished
prototype to "do the right thing", whatever you believe that is) I think
statements like you made above aren't going to be helpful; their
outrageousness takes away from any reasonable arguments.
My constructive suggestion would be to gather all the *facts* (rather than
assumptions, hearsay, and inferences) and figure out a way to induce rather
than pressure/coerce.
Kevin J. Maroney
Certainly it is the case that I gladly deal in assumptions, heresay,
and inference in preference to "facts". So glad am I to have my
predelictions in this matter brought to the forefront for all to see.
Dare I ask of your supreme loftiness what "facts" I have overlooked in
my mad rush to process those tired assumptions, hearsay, and
inferences?
In case you couldn't tell, you're pissing me off, because I am
presenting arguments and your entire armamentarium of refutation seems
to be unsubstantiated choruses of "I think you're wrong". Have you
made even a single point of fact in this discussion, or presented a
single piece of reasoning beyond "I'm very disappointed that you're so
upset"?
Glenn Kuntz
> Have you
> made even a single point of fact in this discussion, or presented a
> single piece of reasoning beyond "I'm very disappointed that you're so
> upset"?
Yes, but you ignored them. No point in continuing this.
The Maverick
>
> In case you couldn't tell, you're pissing me off, because I am
> presenting arguments and your entire armamentarium of refutation seems
> to be unsubstantiated choruses of "I think you're wrong".
Which is probably most disturbing to you because he is correct...