Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, arguably the difference in your example is that the misrepresented fact was not material to the buyer. But if it was material -- for example let's say they advertised some super premium expensive brand of coffee but instead without telling you substituted some cheap generic junk and you paid the premium prce -- then yeah that would be fraud too. Here, Larry represented his cards were something they were not, and for whatever reason, that made people willing to pay more for them than had he told the truth. Knowing misrepresentation of a material fact. Fraud.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Peter, I'm going to concede the argument because really I don't care. I think it was dishonest and unethical and I hope the buyers involved all receive restitution. At least the matter was brought to everyone's attention and people know about it. But really, to me, it's not worth discussing anymore. I have much better things to do on a Friday evening. Have a great night

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, I'm going to concede the argument because really I don't care. I think it was dishonest and unethical and I hope the buyers involved all receive restitution. At least the matter was brought to everyone's attention and people know about it. But really, to me, it's not worth discussing anymore. I have much better things to do on a Friday evening. Have a great night

You too, David.

[esd10]

This is just pure and simple fraud and this scum should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This type of act is what undermines people confidence in the hobby and i dont care if he apologized with simple fact he ripped people off.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by esd10

This is just pure and simple fraud and this scum should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This type of act is what undermines people confidence in the hobby and i dont care if he apologized with simple fact he ripped people off.

The law is more concerned with ISIS using EBay to send money than some random guy scamming people out of a few dollars on t206s.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by rats60

The law is more concerned with ISIS using EBay to send money than some random guy scamming people out of a few dollars on t206s.

He has totally undermined the entire set though. If someone was building the set, they now have to realize their entire set is based on a lie.

[EvilKing00]

What a disgrace, this guy low. I guess could see a crook trying to rob a bank to score a million bucks, but to destroy a set of cards, to tarnish many peoples collections for a few dollars each card sold..... shameful. Im not a t206 collector, but forgive & forget? Thats not in my vocabulary

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

He has totally undermined the entire set though. If someone was building the set, they now have to realize their entire set is based on a lie.

I'm not sure that I see a difference between Topps putting legit T206 cards in their generic frame and someone else putting legit T206 cards in the same generic frame.

By generic I mean no identifier as to what's in it.

[CTDean]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

I'm not sure that I see a difference between Topps putting legit T206 cards in their generic frame and someone else putting legit T206 cards in the same generic frame.

By generic I mean no identifier as to what's in it.

+1

The only value I see is the T206 inside the generic holder. If Topps had a master list available with the names and quantity of each T206 they inserted, and the frames were marked accordingly, you might then have an item with a perceived value above the inserted T206 value.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

He has totally undermined the entire set though. If someone was building the set, they now have to realize their entire set is based on a lie.

How could you undermine a set if Topps was not inserting a complete set of T206's in the packs? There would be no set to complete unless Topps said there were a certain number of cards to collect and each was numbered. If Topps acquired several thousand Doc White or Bunk Congalton cards but only a few Pete Cassidy or William Nattress cards how could they possibly create a set for collectors to work on? They were marketing these so that the pre-war collectors would spend their money with Topps. Merely a marketing ploy. It cannot be all stick and no carrot if you are trying to separate people from their money.

[Fred]

I wonder how Topps would feel if they knew about it.

How many cards are known to have been inserted into the holders and sold?

What is the ebay handle of the seller?

Sadly, it seems par for the course for this hobby.

Did this make it to Hauls of Shame yet?

[JEFFV96MASTERS]

I rarely post but this discussions worthy of weighing in.

Can people modify items produced by companies with little fear of criminal or civil action brought against them ? Of course. Its done all the time.

Can you take a product that has copyrights ( which EVERY Topps produced item does- check the USPTO website) and modify it ??? YES you may. Its done all the time .

Can you take the product you modify and then go online and either misrepresent that product as being "original", or try and sell it without disclosure of said modifications ?

Um- no.

Depending on the level of deceit we may be talking a tort ( a "civil" action) where values are relatively low and usually get assigned to small claims, or in the case of folks like John Rogers/Doug Allen/Bill Mastro actions worthy of criminal prosecution.

Depending on the length, level, and severity of this persons actions he's looking at either time in small claims should he not make restitution and people care to come after him-- or if he's been stupid enough to take it up a few levels and bring the average transaction above 2500 - he's going to see someone take him to criminal court.

As far as this guys being ashamed- dude shut up. Your a serial liar, a serial fraudster, and need to stop with the excuse offerings. Your not convincing anyone of your innocence. Once or twice- OK. Multiple times over extended years ? Sorry - that's a pattern of behavior that's not likely just happening in baseball cards.

Its doubtful anyone will forgive and very doubtful they'll forget anytime soon.

Best thing Leon can do is make sure your info is properly disseminated to afflicted parties.

My opinion--

Jeff

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JEFFV96MASTERS

Can you take a product that has copyrights ( which EVERY Topps produced item does...

From my interpretation from the copyright.gov website, these cards are not copyrighted. They lack the qualifications for a copyright. To substantiate this, there are no copyright notices ( © ) on the cards while other Topps products do contain the copyright notice.

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Feel free to ask me any questions, but I doubt I'll have satisfactory or concrete answers.

Do you know if Topps has a copyright on these? Why no copyright notice?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

From my interpretation from the copyright.gov website, these cards are not copyrighted. They lack the qualifications for a copyright. To substantiate this, there are no copyright notices ( © ) on the cards while other Topps products do contain the copyright notice.



Do you know if Topps has a copyright on these? Why no copyright notice?

No Topps did not copyright the holder, at least to my knowledge, only the cards it printed to go inside. You will see the copyright on the autograph and relic minis, but the frame wasn't deemed worth bothering over, it seems (though it does have the Topps206 name on it...), and clearly the t206s themselves aren't Topps' intellectual property.

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

[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

[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?

[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.

[Tennis13]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David, arguably the difference in your example is that the misrepresented fact was not material to the buyer. But if it was material -- for example let's say they advertised some super premium expensive brand of coffee but instead without telling you substituted some cheap generic junk and you paid the premium prce -- then yeah that would be fraud too. Here, Larry represented his cards were something they were not, and for whatever reason, that made people willing to pay more for them than had he told the truth. Knowing misrepresentation of a material fact. Fraud.

Doesnt this happen a lot of time in the fish industry? From fishermen to middle men to restaurants, often time you are not eating the premium fish you ordered, and if the chain of custody can be traced, people pay big fines, but it's almost impossible in that industry to go step by step.