4 Likes
There is a spectrum and varying degrees of “wrong”.
The furthest in the “wrong” category (both legally and morally IMO) would be making fake cards with intent to sell them on to unsuspecting buyers who think they are genuine. This damages the hobby the most. Probably in this range would also be making unique arts that were “unsavory” and potentially damaging to the IP.
The least “wrong” IMO would be printing out the art of your collection gaps and sleeving them to put in your binder. From a distance they let you appreciate the art and are close enough proxies to not stick out. They wouldn’t fool anybody so it’s hard to argue they damage anything or anyone. I don’t do it personally but I’ve seen it done and like I said no harm no foul IMO.
I don’t do any of it and wouldn’t condone anything but the most mild case I mentioned. There is no need in 2020 with access to such great printing technology to support anyone financially making custom/proxy/fakes.
5 Likes
I gather that you have no response (and, apparently, no familiarly with U.S. copyright law)
Might want to think twice (and perhaps have some knowledge of the law?) before implicitly accusing people of committing crimes
Nah man, I know the law and I’m absolutely accusing people of committing crimes. You’re just not worth my time.
1 Like
Why are you making this about “me?” (bit strange, particularly given that I didn’t start this thread and it’s clear many others are very interested in and passionate about this issue)
If you have information (e.g., legal authorities) that support your accusation, you should share it.
(But it seems you have no real argument—you usually don’t have one—and you should keep your unnecessary insults to yourself)
*7l7l uses Toxic* *This attack has no effect*
8 Likes
That was dead on! Thank you for making me lol!
2 Likes
I’ll take the bait.
18 U.S. Code § 2318.Trafficking in counterfeit labels, illicit labels, or counterfeit documentation or packaging
Why is it “bait” (or “toxic”) to want to discuss the laws that apply when someone is accused of a crime? (like seriously?)
I’m not sure what that means (what you posted). Could you please explain how it applies to people selling replica cards?
Here’s 54 pages of discussion on the topic of trafficking counterfeit goods provided by the fine folks at the DHS.
www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0124_plcy_counterfeit-pirated-goods-report_01.pdf
1 Like
A big part of collection is the chase or difficultly of acquisition as well as the story and history behind the card. Fakes have no story or chase aspect.
But how is that related to the law he cited?
If someone (particularly anyone who’s accusing someone else of a crime) could cite a law and clearly explain how it applies to the activity we’ve been discussing, it would be helpful. It seems that no one has done that yet.
1 Like
It’s illegal, because it’s the act of counterfeiting. And counterfeiting is illegal. The document relates because it discusses specific recent governmental action with regards to counterfeits on third party e-commerce sites (I.e. ebay).
There’s some legalese regarding terms in between, and I could explain it, but I’m not going to explain something to one person who can take the time to look it up for themselves using the provided links and some elementary research. Not to mention this isn’t a forum for legal advice.
What about the crime of copyright infringement?[/quote]
That would be your stronger bet for prosecution vs criminal forgery. However, as criminal prosecution is limited to just the government in the USA, I think you would have a hard time getting a prosecutor to pursue a criminal case for making fake Pokémon cards.
Could Nintendo bring a civil claim? Yes. But that carries no criminal charges and they still would have to go through the process of filing a lawsuit and winning, which is expensive.
So it comes back again to if it is worth their time and money to go after these guys. So far, it looks like no. And if you consider that these fake cards are really targeting the secondary collector market, not new Pokémon sales, it really isn’t affecting Pokémon’s bottom line.
Is Nintendo really going to hire a law firm at $800 an hour to pursue claims against these small fish who aren’t affecting their sales? From a cost benefit analysis, probably not. Who knows though.
3 Likes
@admiral77. Fake cards are taking away from official products. If someone chooses to buy a bulk lot of 25 fake gxs for 25 dollars, instead of a couple of real gxs for the same price, money is being taken away from official product towards fakes.
Has anyone here reported these fake/proxy card postings to eBay? If so, what was eBay’s reponse/action?
1 Like
Usually they’re pretty efficient about removing clear-cut counterfeits once reported.
1 Like
I’d be interested in seeing data on this. If I had to guess, this probably has a greater effect on the secondary market and a negligible effect on official product sales.
Imo, the strongest argument against fake cards is that they may enter circulation and deceive collectors. I have little concern for the potential drop in profit for 3rd party sellers and I don’t believe it has a significant impact on TPCi.
2 Likes
I’ve first hand had to crush several kids hopes and dreams thinking they had a high value collection.
You do know that as a 3rd party seller myself I buy directly from distributors of Pokemon? If I lose sales due to counterfeit product eating that demand then Pokemon has lost sales indirectly because it will be longer until I need to restock from official distributors.
3 Likes
I had thought about that very thing, so I guess I’ll make the distinction between out of print sales and cards currently in print.
Lost sales from people flipping classic era cards for example.