Cutting cards from an uncut sheet????

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And if Topps cuts a previous sheet later, and releases it, the law requires they put the current year of release on the copyright, so as to not deceive.

What law is this?

Not saying you are wrong…..but it sure does sound like a gigantic pile of bullshit.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

What law is this?



Not saying you are wrong…..but it sure does sound like a gigantic pile of bullshit.

I'm not saying copyright law requires a particular date (in fact there is no requirement to have a copyright notice at all anymore). Copyright laws are about protecting intellectual property, not fraud prevention. It would be considered fraudulent to re-release a previous year's product without indicating so in the collectibles market.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm not saying copyright law requires a particular date (in fact there is no requirement to have a copyright notice at all anymore). Copyright laws are about protecting intellectual property, not fraud prevention. It would be considered fraudulent to re-release a previous year's product without indicating so in the collectibles market.

is this why Topps stamps their buy back cards in Archives releases?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by todeen

is this why topps stamps their buy back cards in archives releases?

lol

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by todeen

is this why Topps stamps their buy back cards in Archives releases?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

I'm sure they have multiple reasons for doing that now. That might be part of it. But a buyback isn't the same as a newly cut card pretending to be from a release years ago. They inform you of the potential to pull buybacks, so there is no fraud there. Whereas adding new cards to the population of an older set changes the stated odds/printruns consumers relied on at initial release, which could be fraudulent.

Originally Posted by nwobhm

lol

Not sue what's funny about that. It was a legitimate question.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm not saying copyright law requires a particular date (in fact there is no requirement to have a copyright notice at all anymore). Copyright laws are about protecting intellectual property, not fraud prevention. It would be considered fraudulent to re-release a previous year's product without indicating so in the collectibles market.

Uh huh….The pile is giving off a good bit of steam.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

What law is this?

Not saying you are wrong…..but it sure does sound like a gigantic pile of bullshit.

What else would you expect from a guy who includes 'Lawyer' as part of his screen name on a baseball card forum?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

What else would you expect from a guy who includes 'Lawyer' as part of his screen name on a baseball card forum?

Similar to what I would expect from a mathematician who calls himself snowman. Am I safe in assuming you tip the scales around 5 bills?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Similar to what I would expect from a mathematician who calls himself snowman.

Personally I'm a fan of both mathematicians and snowmen.



But undisclosed card altering? Not at all.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Personally I'm a fan of both mathematicians and snowmen.



But undisclosed card altering? Not at all.

I don't alter cards.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't alter cards.

When paper fibers are wet and subsequently dry, they are forever changed on a fundamental level. You may not see it with your naked eye, but the card is altered by definition. There is no argument otherwise.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1557/PROC-267-429

alter verb (CHANGE)

to change something, usually slightly, or to cause the characteristics of something to change:

Therefore, a change in the fiber structure of the paper literally alters it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

When paper fibers are wet and subsequently dry, they are forever changed on a fundamental level. You may not see it with your naked eye, but the card is altered by definition. There is no argument otherwise.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1557/PROC-267-429

alter verb (CHANGE)

to change something, usually slightly, or to cause the characteristics of something to change:

Therefore, a change in the fiber structure of the paper literally alters it.

In other past threads he has redefined words from their actual meaning, so that an 'altered' card is a card with a crease or something, damage after creation, and thus by removing the damage he is not 'altering' a card. Thus none of his doctoring is 'altering'.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

When paper fibers are wet and subsequently dry, they are forever changed on a fundamental level. You may not see it with your naked eye, but the card is altered by definition. There is no argument otherwise.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1557/PROC-267-429

alter verb (CHANGE)

to change something, usually slightly, or to cause the characteristics of something to change:

Therefore, a change in the fiber structure of the paper literally alters it.

Complete and utter nonsense. Do you even know how paper gets made you dumb f*?