Author Topic: Scott of AtariGames.Com Agrees To Share (Read 4234 times)

SirPeale · « **on:** April 06, 2005, 12:24:53 pm »

From his posting on RGVAC:

Quote

info@atarigames.com wrote in news:1112765606.137292.264690
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

You may have noticed......I don't buy into the 'share' everything
mentality, sorry. I'll share, when someone else shares in the costs.
In 10 years of collecting, I have never had anyone donate a single
penny to preserve any of this stuff.

I'd gladly give up some money, IF he'd share. Bet he doesn't.

RetroJames · « **Reply #1 on:** April 06, 2005, 12:33:45 pm »

pointdablame · « **Reply #2 on:** April 06, 2005, 12:38:48 pm »

I'm not a big collector (yet) so what's the background info on this? Does he have some rare non-dumped games??

Stingray · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2005, 12:40:31 pm »

Chalk me up as not having a clue as well.

-S

SirPeale · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2005, 12:56:32 pm »

Wow, I'm suprised at this response.

Okay, how's this: he's the guy that owns the three "Marble Madness 2: Marble Man" machines.

He bought a huge amount of Atari's stuff when they went south.

ChadTower · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2005, 12:59:54 pm »

I know little, mostly what Peale has told me. I haven't seen a thing to convince me he's done anything worth being angry about yet. He bought some stuff, he didn't make it publicly available. I doubt anyone helped him pay for all that stuff, either, which appears to be his point.

RetroJames · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2005, 01:00:44 pm »

Search for "info@atarigames.com" in google groups:

This url will get you to the thread, but you may have to navigate back to the top.

http://tinyurl.com/69yvx

SirPeale · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2005, 01:02:07 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on April 06, 2005, 12:59:54 pm

I know little, mostly what Peale has told me. I haven't seen a thing to convince me he's done anything worth being angry about yet.

Who's angry? I just think it'd be great if he'd share. If he wants money, that's fine, after all he did spend a whole lot of it.

ChadTower · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2005, 01:21:56 pm »

Based on the references I actually have seen to the guy, a lot of people are angry. They have no basis to be, but they are.

missioncontrol · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2005, 02:05:14 pm »

Well it's his stuff he has the right to decide to share or not...........

but would be nice if he did.........

monkeybomb · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2005, 02:59:45 pm »

I am not angry but people have a right to feel that way. If someone views the world as a place where we should share everything, that's okay too. It does seems selfish to hoard all the MM2 boards. Annd from some perspectives that is grounds for anger.

nostrebor · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2005, 03:09:29 pm »

It is remarkable the difference in the views expressed here vs. RGVAC. He took a huge leap investing in his stash of Atari goodies. According to him, he is paying $1000 a month just in storage! I think that gives him the right to do whatever he wants with the stuff.

He has already indicated that the game code will never be released. To me that is the most valuable thing he has, and I don't think that sending donations will ever change his philosophy on that subject.

It would be cool if he would at least let the artwork out to the public.

whammoed · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2005, 03:15:14 pm »

I wonder where the screen shots came from on klov for MM2? They look like screen captures as opposed to a picture of the game running on a monitor.

Peale, do you know?

lokki · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2005, 03:48:50 pm »

Not sharing Marble madness 2 aside.
I thought he was provided a bunch of ultra rare Atari roms a while ago. Everything I have read about him from the MAME community has been positive. And I don't think the mame developers blame him for not sharing the MM2 Roms (that was one of the conditions for atari to give him the ROMS)

monkeybomb · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2005, 04:35:11 pm »

a little off topic but,
Is he really the only source for an MM2 board? How did he get all of them?

RayB · « **Reply #15 on:** April 06, 2005, 05:07:33 pm »

I think the Louvre should permit infinite free photocopying of the Mona Lisa....--NOT!

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #16 on:** April 06, 2005, 05:24:27 pm »

Quote from: Peale on April 06, 2005, 12:56:32 pm

Okay, how's this: he's the guy that owns the three "Marble Madness 2: Marble Man" machines.

He bought a huge amount of Atari's stuff when they went south.

I didn't know who this guy was either, but as soon as I read your orignial post I thought, "Huh, I'll bet this is the guy that owns Marble Madness 2 and won't let anyone dump it."

The irony behind all of this is that based on the screenshots that I've seen, MM2 doesn't even look like it's that great of a game. After clamoring it for so long, once/if it's ever made availalbe I think most people will be pretty underwhelmed.

Thenasty · « **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2005, 05:26:00 pm »

Quote from: monkeybomb on April 06, 2005, 04:35:11 pm

a little off topic but,
Is he really the only source for an MM2 board?

SirPeale · « **Reply #18 on:** April 06, 2005, 05:26:44 pm »

Marble Madness aside, there's some interesting sounding games that he has the source for, like Missle Command Deluxe, for example.

SirPeale · « **Reply #19 on:** April 06, 2005, 05:28:37 pm »

Oh...http://www.safestuff.com/marbleman.htm

monkeybomb · « **Reply #20 on:** April 06, 2005, 05:33:38 pm »

Quote from: RayB on April 06, 2005, 05:07:33 pm

I think the Louvre should permit infinite free photocopying of the Mona Lisa....--NOT!

That actually should be public domain. I see that as completely different. or am I wrong and artwork should be owned forever? Are you against things becoming PD all together? Should a rich guy own Beethoven's ninth too? Or just paintings? Maybe they can collect royalties from elementary schools or just prevent them from playing it.

RayB · « **Reply #21 on:** April 06, 2005, 11:54:14 pm »

Quote from: monkeybomb on April 06, 2005, 05:33:38 pm

That actually should be public domain.

jbox · « **Reply #22 on:** April 06, 2005, 11:59:07 pm »

Actually you can reproduce artwork, provided you make it clear that you are selling a copy instead of the original. People only need to pay the current owner if they want an actual photograph of the thing. Think "Cheesy Bookmarks" versus art fraud.

However the corresponding example would be that it should be completely legal to reverse engineer software rather than copying it (eg. including hand-redrawing the sprites) provided it is clear that it is a copy instead of the original. Of course, the owners of the originals tend to make things difficult by suing you if you try to name your game "This Is Not Star Wars!"

Buying a copy of a book doesn't give me the right to sell photo-copies of it. Ditto for taping a TV show. Reading/Watching these however shouldn't remove my right to write something with a similar plot. Mickey Mouse may be copy-righted, but I should still be allowed to write stories about Ricky Rodent. Of course, expecting these people to put their energy into building an MM2 clone instead of whining might be a bit optimistic...

PS: Presumably someone does 'own' lots of PD music, as in the original documents on which they were written. Probably you meant should that person then own all of the reproductions of that score, which is different from the presentation of that music, which is different to the adaptation of that music, which is why I stick to Shakespeare when arguing about the PD and high-schools.

jbox · « **Reply #23 on:** April 07, 2005, 12:13:18 am »

And in my droning babble of nonsense I forgot to mention that even amongst socialists I still have yet to meet a single rational person who thinks no-one should own the land. So 'stuff' doesn't have to enter the public domain by default, and in general physical property doesn't (hence I don't see why the Mona Lisa should). Again, manually reproduce all you want, but the original can still be owned.

I'm pretty sure you aren't even supposed to copy books that republish PD work either, but you could re-type it (sans commentary) and give the result away if you wanted. So Shakespeare scripts are cheap because if they weren't a bunch of schools would just pool together and pay someone to re-type them in a "free" publication.

GGKoul · « **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2005, 12:48:42 am »

Quote from: RayB on April 06, 2005, 05:07:33 pm

I think the Louvre should permit infinite free photocopying of the Mona Lisa....--NOT!

Mona Lisa is valuable, but it would be MORE valuable if it's likeness wasn't on everything. As you can purchase Mona Lisa keychains, T-Shirts, Mugs...

So by "not sharing" the images, it'll become even more valuable in time.

shmokes · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2005, 01:13:46 am »

I think there are quite a few countries where people do not own land. It is all leased from the government (often with 99 year leases and the like).

And, for what it's worth, pictures of the Mona Lisa do not even come remotely close to doing it justice. I wondered my whole life what in hell the big deal was until I saw it. Breathtaking.

jbox · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2005, 01:25:49 am »

Quote from: shmokes on April 07, 2005, 01:13:46 am

I think there are quite a few countries where people do not own land. It is all leased from the government (often with 99 year leases and the like).

Sure there are, and as a socialist I would love it if Australia did that too. But government owning the land is a different kettle of fish to no-one owning the land, hence the emphasis. Netizen wannabies aren't jumping up and down demanding to pay more taxes and have a government-run department provide them with a mandatory license fee, they are whining about not having anything they want for free in the PD. PD /= government, otherwise we wouldn't need to have court cases over freedom-of-information requests.

Shape D. · « **Reply #27 on:** April 07, 2005, 12:05:41 pm »

Nobobdy owns land, you rent it then you die.

well after that you get to own a 6'x3' piece of land. that costs the same as half an acre.

jbox · « **Reply #28 on:** April 08, 2005, 03:49:02 am »

Quote

Nobobdy owns land, you rent it then you die.

Wait, I thought it was: "They tax you, then you die."

EDIT: In hindsight, it's more like "They tax you, then you die, then they tax you a little bit more!"

Magnet_Eye · « **Reply #29 on:** April 08, 2005, 08:42:02 am »

Didn't some people gather up like $20,000 for this idiot? then he backed out?

Personally, I feel the guy is a selfish bastard. I don't see what he gets out of hording these games to himself other than monetary gain, since they are unavailable.

So, here we have all these people working for FREE developing MAME (and lots of other emus and software) and preserving the arcade games of the past, and we have THIS GUY who doesn't give a crap about anything or anyone but himself. Like I said...selfish bastard.

BAH!

ChadTower · « **Reply #30 on:** April 08, 2005, 09:08:14 am »

Quote from: Magnet_Eye on April 08, 2005, 08:42:02 am

Didn't some people gather up like $20,000 for this idiot? then he backed out?

Personally, I feel the guy is a selfish bastard. I don't see what he gets out of hording these games to himself other than monetary gain, since they are unavailable.

What monetary gain? You just said he turned the money down. Maybe his ethics are worth more than money to him. If he truly did buy these items under condition that they would not be distributed, then he shouldn't sell or give them away.

daywane · « **Reply #31 on:** April 08, 2005, 09:31:31 am »

never even heard of the game.
to be honest I never even seen a mabel madness arcade at all.
I love the game but only on a nintendo 8 bit. Thats were I found the game
My wife and I love that game but we both look at each other and stare at the track ball and laugh. we grab the game pads.
same with bump and jump. love the nes game , Hate the arcade

RayB · « **Reply #32 on:** April 08, 2005, 12:29:18 pm »

Why is it selfish to want to keep something rare, rare? That was my point with the Mona Lisa. There is only one of them, but if you could create a painting machine that could make exact duplicates, less people would care to see the original.

It's a proven fact already that the values of real arcade machines has been declining. Personally, I no longer collect JAMMA boards. Why bother when I can get my fill through MAME?

Magnet_Eye · « **Reply #33 on:** April 08, 2005, 03:55:00 pm »

Quote from: RayB on April 08, 2005, 12:29:18 pm

Why is it selfish to want to keep something rare, rare? That was my point with the Mona Lisa. There is only one of them, but if you could create a painting machine that could make exact duplicates, less people would care to see the original.

It's a proven fact already that the values of real arcade machines has been declining. Personally, I no longer collect JAMMA boards. Why bother when I can get my fill through MAME?

Uh, you can buy "duplicates" of the mona lisa, it's called a Print. And tons of people still want to see the original.

Anyhoo, maybe I was being a bit harsh. I just really don't see his point of NOT sharing. Seems rather selfish to me. He must be an only child.

fredster · « **Reply #34 on:** April 09, 2005, 09:42:02 am »

It's his stuff. He can do with it what he wants. If he wants to burn it and see what color flame it makes someday, fine.

He bought it, he owns it, and he can determine it's destiny.

I see nothing wrong with that. Just because some people are making mame and he's not helping is not the point.

Gunstar Hero · « **Reply #35 on:** April 09, 2005, 12:08:09 pm »

I would like to play Marble Man, but it is his ball I guess.

Sasquatch! · « **Reply #36 on:** April 09, 2005, 06:09:13 pm »

Quote from: fredster on April 09, 2005, 09:42:02 am

It's his stuff. He can do with it what he wants. If he wants to burn it and see what color flame it makes someday, fine.

He bought it, he owns it, and he can determine it's destiny.

I see nothing wrong with that. Just because some people are making mame and he's not helping is not the point.

Oh I agree that he most certainly has the right to do whatever he wants, but I can still have the opinion that I think he's being overly selfish about it. I can only guess that the schoolyard bullies must've never let him play with the ball or swing on the swings when he was kid, and now it's his turn to go "It's all mine AND YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!"

tommy · « **Reply #37 on:** April 09, 2005, 08:12:55 pm »

Some of you are missing the point here nobody owes anybody anything its his stuff, and if and when he decides to do something with it then you can play, otherwise theres nothing you can do, theres no point feeling sick over it.

psik0tik · « **Reply #38 on:** April 09, 2005, 10:07:08 pm »

The game isnt all that great..Its his and yes he owns it but I think he just likes the attention. I wouldve just gave the rom up..but thats me VIVA LA MAME. For the record marble madness is waaaay better than buggy marble madness 2

spriggy · « **Reply #39 on:** April 10, 2005, 01:36:49 am »

(spriggy walks into the thread....realises it's getting quite hot in here...and immediately leaves!)


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news

Author Topic: Scott of AtariGames.Com Agrees To Share (Read 4234 times)

tommy