Insider upper deck/mlb update?

[sportscardtheory]

It is not like UD is accused of murdering babies....they are in the middle of a legal dispute that 99.9% of world has no clue is ongoing.

Wow...just a little overboard. Every major company in America is part of some type of litigation. Having their ad displayed is not an ethical issue.

ethics?
You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.

Simple Ethics lesson:

Offering an opinion, without at least moderate disclosure, on a company that's directly or indirectly tied to your business is ethically sketch.

I'm not saying anyone's committing injustice here and it amazes me how any variety of abstract thought is immediately turned to concrete. You can't poke holes in abstract ideas without using other abstract ideas, but through the magic of stupidity you can turn it into concrete and beat it with a hammer until it cracks.

What does it even matter to you? Is he not allowed to state his opinions because UD pays for ad space here? He can say whatever he wants, it's his site. What he said doesn't change ANYTHING. It's merely his opinion on the matter.

....CONCRETE!

So the fact that he is allowing you to chastise him publicly doesn't mean anything to you. If he is as unethical as you are implying, wouldn't he simply "quiet" your aggressive finger-pointing.

 

[pigskincardboard]

Two things that every philosopher, whether ancient or business, has pointed out through history: Ethical people do unethical things -- The question, obviously becomes whether or not ignorance is an acceptable retort; Secondly, ethics almost never coincide with the amount gain. Finally, which I guess makes this three things, the appearance of unethical behaviour is often more powerful than the behavior itself.

If a man is willing to sacrifice anything for one million dollars, he is no different from one that'll do it for 5 dollars. We gain very little insight on anyone's ethics from the amount of money; the only thing we do gain is an understanding of their financial status.

Obviously, my opinion on ethics matters very little, if you have your own and I won't contend otherwise.

I haven't pointed a finger, but rather referenced a simple journalistic principle: if you have a connection, it's best not to speak with bias and if you must speak, you should make it abundantly clear that there's a connection.

 

[RL24]

Yeah, it's my part time job to go around message boards and bash UD. I haven't had anything nice to say about them in years and years. And Gilmo let's me talk lots of trash about UD and never says a word to me about it.


Thanks Gilmo!

 

[sportscardtheory]

Two things that every philosopher, whether ancient or business, has pointed out through history: Ethical people do unethical things -- The question, obviously becomes whether or not ignorance is an acceptable retort; Secondly, ethics almost never coincide with the amount gain. Finally, which I guess makes this three things, the appearance of unethical behaviour is often more powerful than the behavior itself.

If a man is willing to sacrifice anything for one million dollars, he is no different from one that'll do it for 5 dollars. We gain very little insight on anyone's ethics from the amount of money; the only thing we do gain is an understanding of their financial status.

Obviously, my opinion on ethics matters very little, if you have your own and I won't contend otherwise.

I haven't pointed a finger, but rather referenced a simple journalistic principle: if you have a connection, it's best not to speak with bias and if you must speak, you should make it abundantly clear that there's a connection.

I'm pretty sure the Upper Deck ad at the top of the page makes it abundantly clear, it does to me anyway. How did you know he has ties to UD if it isn't "abundantly clear"? I don't believe he has to have a disclaimer that he accepts money from Upper Deck every single time he has an opinion on an Upper Deck matter.

 

[RL24]

Two things that every philosopher, whether ancient or business, has pointed out through history: Ethical people do unethical things -- The question, obviously becomes whether or not ignorance is an acceptable retort; Secondly, ethics almost never coincide with the amount gain. Finally, which I guess makes this three things, the appearance of unethical behaviour is often more powerful than the behavior itself.

If a man is willing to sacrifice anything for one million dollars, he is no different from one that'll do it for 5 dollars. We gain very little insight on anyone's ethics from the amount of money; the only thing we do gain is an understanding of their financial status.

Obviously, my opinion on ethics matters very little, if you have your own and I won't contend otherwise.

I haven't pointed a finger, but rather referenced a simple journalistic principle: if you have a connection, it's best not to speak with bias and if you must speak, you should make it abundantly clear that there's a connection.

I'm pretty sure the Upper Deck ad at the top of the page makes it abundantly clear, it does to me anyway. How did you know he has ties to UD if it isn't "abundantly clear"? I don't believe he has to have a disclaimer that he accepts money from Upper Deck every single time he has an opinion on an Upper Deck matter.

Well you sir are clearly not a philosopher.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Well you sir are clearly not a philosopher.

I would say I'm more of an existentialist, which is a division of philosophy. lol

 

[mchenrycards]

ethics?


You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.



Don't pretend to know how the economics of this site work.

every "sponsor" we have could go away right now, and I wouldn't care at all.

The real sugar daddy to this site is ebay.

Monetary value is hardly the determining principle in the concept of ethics. I'm not even speculating on the financial or economic impact of any revenue stream on this website. If you want to go off on tangents, so be it.

Ethics translate, regardless of monetary donations, and the fact that you correlate amount of money to ethics is never a good sign, at least in principle.

get off your high horse

Most ethical debates come back to money, as it is inevitable that the motivation to be unethical will be tied back to it.

I am glad Chris is running this board because I would have kicked you off for questioning my ethics!! Chris and I have had a few minor differences of opinion in the last year (nothing memorable) but I sure would not question his ethics. Taking money from a company for advertising does not always mean someone is in bed with that company!! The title of the board states "FREEDOM card board and Chris has the right to state his opinion regardless if he agrees with an advertiser or not. Thats up to him and how it effects his own business and really none of your business....or any of ours for that matter!

 

[Crash Davis]

ethics?


You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.



Don't pretend to know how the economics of this site work.

every "sponsor" we have could go away right now, and I wouldn't care at all.

The real sugar daddy to this site is ebay.

Monetary value is hardly the determining principle in the concept of ethics. I'm not even speculating on the financial or economic impact of any revenue stream on this website. If you want to go off on tangents, so be it.

Ethics translate, regardless of monetary donations, and the fact that you correlate amount of money to ethics is never a good sign, at least in principle.

get off your high horse

Most ethical debates come back to money, as it is inevitable that the motivation to be unethical will be tied back to it.

The only problem that I have with Chris with respect to this topic is that he comments as if he is "in the know," so to speak; when, in fact, he is no more "in the know" than some other folks on these boards who choose to keep their knowledge to themselves.

Nothing wrong with stating his opinion; however, at times his opinion is stated in a way that appears to be factual, which is why I posed the question: "Chris, with all due respect, are you an attorney?", to which he replied "no."

This is Chris's website, and he makes no attempt to disguise his identity when posting. It's obvious that he gets some sort of compensation from Upper Deck as their logo is pasted on the site's homepage, so the need for Chris to expressly state that he is compensated in some way seems redundant and unnecessary.

I just wish that, as the owner of this site, he would be a bit more responsible when making statements by clearly stating them as his opinion, because the majority of people who post and read these boards take his posts as fact.

And for those of you who have been following this thread, it's clear who has been talking to UD folks and who has been talking to Topps folks.

If you're looking for an unbiased overview, you'll have to wait for the judge's verdict.

 

[sportscardtheory]

ethics?


You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.



Don't pretend to know how the economics of this site work.

every "sponsor" we have could go away right now, and I wouldn't care at all.

The real sugar daddy to this site is ebay.

Monetary value is hardly the determining principle in the concept of ethics. I'm not even speculating on the financial or economic impact of any revenue stream on this website. If you want to go off on tangents, so be it.

Ethics translate, regardless of monetary donations, and the fact that you correlate amount of money to ethics is never a good sign, at least in principle.

get off your high horse

Most ethical debates come back to money, as it is inevitable that the motivation to be unethical will be tied back to it.

The only problem that I have with Chris with respect to this topic is that he comments as if he is "in the know," so to speak; when, in fact, he is no more "in the know" than some other folks on these boards who choose to keep their knowledge to themselves.

Nothing wrong with stating his opinion; however, at times his opinion is stated in a way that appears to be factual, which is why I posed the question: "Chris, with all due respect, are you an attorney?", to which he replied "no."

This is Chris's website, and he makes no attempt to disguise his identity when posting. It's obvious that he gets some sort of compensation from Upper Deck as their logo is pasted on the site's homepage, so the need for Chris to expressly state that he is compensated in some way seems redundant and unnecessary.

I just wish that, as the owner of this site, he would be a bit more responsible when making statements by clearly stating them as his opinion, because the majority of people who post and read these boards take his posts as fact.

And for those of you who have been following this thread, it's clear who has been talking to UD folks and who has been talking to Topps folks.

If you're looking for an unbiased overview, you'll have to wait for the judge's verdict.

His exact quote was "I expect them to hold up". Since when is expecting something more than an opinion?

 

[ChasHawk]

Reading comprehension is a global problem that affects us all.

 

[Crash Davis]

ethics?


You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.



Don't pretend to know how the economics of this site work.

every "sponsor" we have could go away right now, and I wouldn't care at all.

The real sugar daddy to this site is ebay.

Monetary value is hardly the determining principle in the concept of ethics. I'm not even speculating on the financial or economic impact of any revenue stream on this website. If you want to go off on tangents, so be it.

Ethics translate, regardless of monetary donations, and the fact that you correlate amount of money to ethics is never a good sign, at least in principle.

get off your high horse

Most ethical debates come back to money, as it is inevitable that the motivation to be unethical will be tied back to it.

The only problem that I have with Chris with respect to this topic is that he comments as if he is "in the know," so to speak; when, in fact, he is no more "in the know" than some other folks on these boards who choose to keep their knowledge to themselves.

Nothing wrong with stating his opinion; however, at times his opinion is stated in a way that appears to be factual, which is why I posed the question: "Chris, with all due respect, are you an attorney?", to which he replied "no."

This is Chris's website, and he makes no attempt to disguise his identity when posting. It's obvious that he gets some sort of compensation from Upper Deck as their logo is pasted on the site's homepage, so the need for Chris to expressly state that he is compensated in some way seems redundant and unnecessary.

I just wish that, as the owner of this site, he would be a bit more responsible when making statements by clearly stating them as his opinion, because the majority of people who post and read these boards take his posts as fact.

And for those of you who have been following this thread, it's clear who has been talking to UD folks and who has been talking to Topps folks.

If you're looking for an unbiased overview, you'll have to wait for the judge's verdict.

His exact quote was "I expect them to hold up". Since when is expecting something more than an opinion?

He made numerous statements including "that's the case they are making."

How does he know that?

And yes, the statement "I expect them to hold up" insinuates that he knows something more than he's letting on. I would've had no problem with that if he just prefaced that by saying, I'm not a lawyer, but...

I like Chris. He's a nice guy and does a tremendous service to the hobby by running this website. All I'm saying is that you don't see James Beckett or Tracy Hackler posting on the BMBs, nor did you ever, because based on their hobby standing, their words would more likely than not be perceived as factual, no matter what they said.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

But it's his website, and he can do whatever he wants to do, and I'll still come back

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="Crash Davis":2arxl4q8]

ethics?


You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.



Don't pretend to know how the economics of this site work.

every "sponsor" we have could go away right now, and I wouldn't care at all.

The real sugar daddy to this site is ebay.

Monetary value is hardly the determining principle in the concept of ethics. I'm not even speculating on the financial or economic impact of any revenue stream on this website. If you want to go off on tangents, so be it.

Ethics translate, regardless of monetary donations, and the fact that you correlate amount of money to ethics is never a good sign, at least in principle.

get off your high horse

Most ethical debates come back to money, as it is inevitable that the motivation to be unethical will be tied back to it.

The only problem that I have with Chris with respect to this topic is that he comments as if he is "in the know," so to speak; when, in fact, he is no more "in the know" than some other folks on these boards who choose to keep their knowledge to themselves.

Nothing wrong with stating his opinion; however, at times his opinion is stated in a way that appears to be factual, which is why I posed the question: "Chris, with all due respect, are you an attorney?", to which he replied "no."

This is Chris's website, and he makes no attempt to disguise his identity when posting. It's obvious that he gets some sort of compensation from Upper Deck as their logo is pasted on the site's homepage, so the need for Chris to expressly state that he is compensated in some way seems redundant and unnecessary.

I just wish that, as the owner of this site, he would be a bit more responsible when making statements by clearly stating them as his opinion, because the majority of people who post and read these boards take his posts as fact.

And for those of you who have been following this thread, it's clear who has been talking to UD folks and who has been talking to Topps folks.

If you're looking for an unbiased overview, you'll have to wait for the judge's verdict.

His exact quote was "I expect them to hold up". Since when is expecting something more than an opinion?

He made numerous statements including "that's the case they are making."

How does he know that?

And yes, the statement "I expect them to hold up" insinuates that he knows something more than he's letting on. I would've had no problem with that if he just prefaced that by saying, I'm not a lawyer, but...

I like Chris. He's a nice guy and does a tremendous service to the hobby by running this website. All I'm saying is that you don't see James Beckett or Tracy Hackler posting on the BMBs, nor did you ever, because based on their hobby standing, their words would more likely than not be perceived as factual, no matter what they said.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

But it's his website, and he can do whatever he wants to do, and I'll still come back[/quote:2arxl4q8]

I know what you mean, but this is a message board only. Chris is the proprietor of a message board, where he along with everyone else, spouts his opinions day in and day out. He isn't selling magazines, grading cards and all the other things Beckett does. He doesn't need to be held to the same standards. I have said similar things to Chris about his opinions on sponsors, but it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I know he is just stating his opinions just like the rest of us.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Damnit, you guys took a fun little thread where I was cross examining UD and turned into a gangup on Gilmo, which is wholly unnecessary.

 

[Crash Davis]

Damnit, you guys took a fun little thread where I was cross examining UD and turned into a gangup on Gilmo, which is wholly unnecessary.

Nah, I was just stating my opinion. I did preface my opinions, however, by professing my undying love for Chris.

 

[cgilmo]

Crash, I hear what you are saying, and I understand it.


However, everything I have stated has been my opinion based on what I know of the case. I have read documents that tell me where all this could possibly be heading, and I have made off the cuff comments as to where I think all of this will head.

You will note, you haven't seen anything about this on the FCB Blog, because it isn't final yet. I am a bit more candid on the message board than on the blog.

 

[George_Calfas]

I thought there was a firm "No Feeding the Trolls" policy on FCB.

 

[jumbojohnny]

One quick snipit...

TURD-CUTTER.

That is all.

 

[ru4scuba]

I've heard from a little bird that Upper Deck may be able to get out of this MLB infringement by bringing up sports illustrated as an example of a company that makes money off photos of players depicted in their MLB uniforms with full logos showing. SI to my knowledge does NOT pay royalties to MLB properties for their photos. Anyone hear anything close to this?

If this holds true and the case was indeed dropped, good for Upper Deck. I will be very impressed with their cajones of steel.

Editorial vs. commercial usage. Upper Deck can't play the editorial usage card.

 

[pigskincardboard]

Damnit, you guys took a fun little thread where I was cross examining UD and turned into a gangup on Gilmo, which is wholly unnecessary.

Jeff, if only all cross-examinations were that easy. Yet, somehow in the world of business, the ignorance defense seems to prevail on a daily basis.

I do have a question though, and I went to the u of t law library the other day with very little success.

Can you sign away your rights fair use within a contract? From the looks of it, MLBP makes everyone sign a "We won't use your logos without permission in the future" when they sign their original agreement.

Based on that brief rebuttal, UD seems to contend that the contract isn't worth the piece of paper that it's printed on and I'm thinking that I agree. The caveat itself, or the contractual obligation, seems like MLBP knew at some point that this issue would arise.

 

[predatorkj]

Chris...you run a hell of a site and I am very thankful for it. Don't let anyone make you think otherwise. Trust me...there are sites I have been to that make even the old Beckett Boards look like a saint compared to what I have seen. There are other sites that the mods will erase your posts, cuss you out, and really make a damn fool of themselves by behaving in a less than professional manner. Its pretty sad. At least Chris does not do that nor does he erase posts even though he may not agree with them.

Its a weall known fact that Chris has advertisers here and I don't think he is trying to hide it. It still does not seem to affect his opinion too much.


What I was wondering, and I have already asked it a few times, is this product going to go anywhere? I called my local shop thinking they would be in the same boat as others but apparently they already have some boxes of the stuff. The only thing that they could not tell me is if, in the future, they could order more. But they do feel that LCS that don't have any are basically being screwed over by their distributers. Basically the distributers are saying they don't have any to see how the market will turn out and then, walla, they have some but albeit at a higher price.