Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I think you've hit the key to the legality of this.

Whether or not Topps copyrighted the holder is really besides the point here.

OP: I took cards submitted in Topps packs, that were intended to and did interest people in buying Topps cards, and made hidden changes to trick customers into thinking they were buying the original inserts, for my own economic gain.

Response: The inserts didn't contain a copyright mark. You're good.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's fraud. An open and shut case of fraud. Who gives a damn about copyright?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's fraud. An open and shut case of fraud. Who gives a damn about copyright?

Copyright only means something if i was going to sell my own holders that look and resemble the style of the ones with t206 cards but everyone knows that they arent from topps...there could be an argument from topps that i couldnt do that.. When you are sellling something alleging they are topps holder t206s and they aren't thats fraud...

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's fraud. An open and shut case of fraud. Who gives a damn about copyright?

Peter - you are up against the:

"I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV" crowd here ... they obviously don't understand the meaning of the word fraud.

jeff

[JollyElm]

D.A. Jim Trotter: Now, uh, Ms. Vito, being an expert on general automotive knowledge, can you tell me... what would the correct ignition timing be on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!
Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!
D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?
Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Why is it a trick question?
Vinny Gambini: [to Bill] Watch this.
Mona Lisa Vito: 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Well... um... she's acceptable, Your Honor.

[Bestdj777]

Is this something hat they could even get a copyright for? I assumed it would require a design patent to protect it, but I stopped practicing IP law very shortly after I started--criminal defense work was more interesting and more plentiful.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

criminal defense work was more interesting and more plentiful.

Yeah, a HUGE issue in our country

There is one way to satisfy the wronged parties in this fiasco and go out with a clear conscience with your honor intact.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Whether or not Topps copyrighted the holder is really besides the point here.

It's exactly the point here. You're arguing the ethicality of it. You're right! You win! Nobody is disputing that. I'm arguing the legality of it, and you couldn't be any more wrong. And I'm not arguing in a way to defend Larry. My point (which you and others have conveniently and deliberately twisted) was in response to whether or not Larry could face criminal action. It's my belief that he couldn't. There are certainly other consequences like being publically shamed, losing respect and trust in the hobby world, being banned from here, etc. But, as I said earlier, I'm finished discussing it. I simply wanted to know if the cards were copyrighted. I think we got the correct answer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=vintagetoppsguy;1690847][QUOTE=T206Collector;1690836]Whether or not Topps copyrighted the holder is really besides the point here.

It's exactly the point here. You're arguing the ethicality of it. You're right! You win! Nobody is disputing that. I'm arguing the legality of it, and you couldn't be any more wrong. And I'm not arguing in a way to defend Larry. My point (which you and others have conveniently and deliberately twisted) was in response to whether or not Larry could face criminal action. It's my belief that he couldn't. There are certainly other consequences like being publically shamed, losing respect and trust in the hobby world, being banned from here, etc. But, as I said earlier, I'm finished discussing it. I simply wanted to know if the cards were copyrighted. I think we got the correct answer.

Yes David you're right and every lawyer on the board who has posted that it's illegal fraud is wrong. Read the wire fraud statute which has been posted here and tell me which element is not met. Or you can just ignore it because your beliefs trump the actual law.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It's exactly the point here. You're arguing the ethicality of it. You're right! You win! Nobody is disputing that. I'm arguing the legality of it, and you couldn't be any more wrong. And I'm not arguing in a way to defend Larry. My point (which you and others have conveniently and deliberately twisted) was in response to whether or not Larry could face criminal action. It's my belief that he couldn't. There are certainly other consequences like being publically shamed, losing respect and trust in the hobby world, being banned from here, etc. But, as I said earlier, I'm finished discussing it. I simply wanted to know if the cards were copyrighted. I think we got the correct answer.

According to the authorities I have spoken with you are wrong. But what do they know anyway?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

According to the authorities I have spoken with you are wrong. But what do they know anyway?

They don't know shit and neither do I or Kenny or Paul or Adam or anyone I am leaving out to whom I apologize. David knows the law much better than we do.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They don't know shit and neither do I or Kenny or Paul or Adam or anyone I am leaving out to whom I apologize. David knows the law much better than we do.

Thanks for the education, Peter. I was always under the impression that an attorneys job was to represent their client, and it was the judge's job to interpret the law. I learn something new every day.

Everyone knows attorneys are never wrong (double eye roll)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks for the education, Peter. I was always under the impression that an attorneys job was to represent their client, and it was the judge's job to interpret the law. I learn something new every day.

Everyone knows attorneys are never wrong (double eye roll)

That is a dumb comment (attorneys research and interpret the law every day in order to formulate arguments) and your willful arrogance is astonishing, truly. Do you really think you know more about what constitutes illegal fraud than all the lawyers on this Board? Again, tell me what element of the wire fraud statute is not met and we can have a real discussion.

Maybe next you can argue the earth is flat. For all I can tell you might believe it.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You're arguing the ethicality of it. . . . I'm arguing the legality of it, and you couldn't be any more wrong.

The point of my post was on the legality of the conduct -- which is in violation of several laws, state and federal, as well as criminal and civil... just maybe not copyright law.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Whether or not Topps copyrighted the holder is really besides the point here.

OP: I took cards submitted in Topps packs, that were intended to and did interest people in buying Topps cards, and made hidden changes to trick customers into thinking they were buying the original inserts, for my own economic gain.

Response: The inserts didn't contain a copyright mark. You're good.

I don't think anybody said "you're good." There are plenty of cases that are considered fraud within our hobby that are certainly not illegal. I would put this up there with trimming or recoloring cards and reselling them without that disclosure.

Are those things illegal? If the answer is no, are they automatically "good"?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I don't think anybody said "you're good." There are plenty of cases that are considered fraud within our hobby that are certainly not illegal. I would put this up there with trimming or recoloring cards and reselling them without that disclosure.

Are those things illegal? If the answer is no, are they automatically "good"?

Yes, they are illegal, if you sell them without disclosure. You might try reading the Mastro indictment, for one thing.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, they are illegal, if you sell them without disclosure. You might try reading the Mastro indictment, for one thing.

I should read the indictment, clearly.

So, simple question: It is not illegal to take the graphite end of a pencil and write on a t206 card (though many here might like it to be) and then list that on eBay without mention (because the writing would be pretty obvious). But to take the eraser end of the pencil to one that previously marks on it and list it on eBay without mention is punishable by law?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I should read the indictment, clearly.

So, simple question: It is not illegal to take the graphite end of a pencil and write on a t206 card (though many here might like it to be) and then list that on eBay without mention (because the writing would be pretty obvious). But to take the eraser end of the pencil to one that previously marks on it and list it on eBay without mention is punishable by law?

Well now you are into a gray area whether that would be a material alteration that needs to be disclosed. We could argue about whether it is or isn't. But for a clear-cut case like trimming, yeah. There is also a California statute specifically on point that I recall but cannot immediately locate it.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well now you are into a gray area whether that would be a material alteration that needs to be disclosed. We could argue about whether it is or isn't. But for a clear-cut case like trimming, yeah. There is also a California statute specifically on point that I recall but cannot immediately locate it.

Adam once posted that statute. It is Calif Business and Professions Code sections 21670-21672. http://law.onecle.com/california/business/21670.html My recollection is that there are other states that have adopted similar laws.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by botn

Adam once posted that statute. It is Calif Business and Professions Code sections 21670-21672. http://law.onecle.com/california/business/21670.html My recollection is that there are other states that have adopted similar laws.

Wow, that's pretty clear cut. I had no idea such sports card-specific statutes existed anywhere.

I had originally viewed this almost entirely from the point of view of Topps, who had no copyright on the product or interest in the OP's sales. I now think that the civil liability in terms of fraud/misrepresentation is clear, and the NJ statute quoted above points to criminal liability as well. However, and as has been pointed out, the civil damages are pretty small (unless someone has a massive collectin of these, which has been devalued considerably at this point), and there ain't a DA anywhere that wants to touch this particular prosecution.

I may discuss it with my older brother when he comes to town tomorrow, as he is a former Colorado DA himself, and see what he thinks about it. He will likely yawn and say "Who the hell cares," which is why I'm glad to have an online community like this to go back and forth with.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I should read the indictment, clearly.

So, simple question: It is not illegal to take the graphite end of a pencil and write on a t206 card (though many here might like it to be) and then list that on eBay without mention (because the writing would be pretty obvious). But to take the eraser end of the pencil to one that previously marks on it and list it on eBay without mention is punishable by law?

If the seller lists it as unaltered, and does so with the intent to defraud, then yes.

ETA: subject to Peter's caveat. If the buyer relies on any representation that the card is unaltered and that factors into the decision to purchase, or the price, then it is fraud.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Keep in mind a lot of this is theoretical discussion . I am not going to get arrested for going 56 in a 55 MPH zone. Larry Harris is not going to get prosecuted here, the authorities have better things to do. And so on. But is what he did illegal, and could he be prosecuted? Absolutely.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

If the seller lists it as unaltered, and does so with the intent to defraud, then yes.

ETA: subject to Peter's caveat. If the buyer relies on any representation that the card is unaltered and that factors into the decision to purchase, or the price, then it is fraud.

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same. The argument would become how natural the assumption that these came in packs as such would be (I imagine).

None of us believes that about the OP's intent, of course, but I think this is a pretty gray area as well in that the Topps206 holder is not too far differentiated from a generic topholder (seems closer to that than to a slab, at least). I don't know how easy it is to remove and replace the cover.

Sorry if I'm annoying anyone here. I'm enjoying the back and forth quite a bit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the issue is that for whatever reason, as proven by the spreadsheet, people are paying at least in part for the item as a whole originating from Topps. There may be no logic to it, and Larry's frankencards may be just as good as the original items from Topps, but for whatever reason people want these as sold by Topps. and not as assembled by Larry Harris. I personally would just want the T206 within, and think the frame is stupid, but that's just me.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same. The argument would become how natural the assumption that these came in packs as such would be (I imagine).

None of us believes that about the OP's intent, of course, but I think this is a pretty gray area as well in that the Topps206 holder is not too far differentiated from a generic topholder (seems closer to that than to a slab, at least). I don't know how easy it is to remove and replace the cover.

Sorry if I'm annoying anyone here. I'm enjoying the back and forth quite a bit.

Yes - typically, criminal liability does not attach unless the person has an intent to defraud. If someone put a raw T206 into a Topps holder years ago for their personal collection, and then sold it a decade later having forgotten that they didn't pull it straight from the product, that would not be criminal fraud.

Judges will sometimes tell juries that intent can rarely be proven by direct evidence; however, the Jury can look at all the circumstances of a person's actions to determine his intent. I think we all agree that the intent was pretty clear here.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same.

Of course, the OP could 'attempt' to argue that, but the evidence would tend to negate that argument, IMO. From one of the listings:

"1909-11 T206 Topps Buyback Red Ames Hands at Chest TOUGH COMMON Piedmont Sweet Caporal 150 back. I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs."